Case Name:	Brodie v. WCAB		05/03/2007
Summary:	WCK 059913, WCK 068583, OAK 298772) STAN BRODIE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Respondents. Over the previous 30 years of his career as a firefighter, Brodie had sustained several industrial injuries to the same body parts for which he was awarded compensation based on a 44. 5 percent permanent disability rating. In Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Name of Opinion Brodie v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Unpublished Opinion Original Appeal Original Proceeding Review Granted XXX 142 Cal. App. 4th 685 Rehearing Granted Opinion No. S146979 & S147030 Date Filed: May 3, 2007 Attorneys for Appellant: Gearheart & Otis and Mark E. Gearheart for Petitioner Stan Brodie. David J. Froba for California Applicants' Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Stan Brodie.
Note:	The Fuentes formula remains the correct one to apply in apportioning compensation between causes of disability.
Citation:	40 Cal. 4th 1313, 72 CCC 565
WCC Citation:	WCC 32212007 CA

Case Name:	Brodie v. WCAB		08/30/2006
Summary:	See Brodie v. WCAB, Welcher v. WCAB (S146979, S147030). The WCJ thus subtracted 44. 5 from 74 and awarded Brodie benefits totaling $20,867. 50 based on a 29. 5 percent permanent disability rating. Brodie injured his back, spine and right knee in 2000, and had an injury to his back and spine cumulative to September 2002. Moreover, it does not reflect a reduction for the relative value today of the $27,167. 50 that Brodie was awarded in 1987 and 1999. At oral argument, counsel for Brodie acknowledged the conceptual preferability of this approach.
Note:	Apportionment under SB 899 requires subtracting the current monetary value of prior awards from monetary value of current disability .
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 685
WCC Citation:	WCC 31762006 CA

Case Name:	Brooks v. City of Los Angeles		12/20/2017
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             MARK BROOKS, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. .             B280579 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Blithe S. Bock, Assistant City Attorney, Matthew A. Scherb, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. .             Plaintiff Mark Brooks had been employed as a police officer by defendant City of Los Angeles for over 20 years when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. .           WE CONCUR: .           RUBIN, Acting P. J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a police officer who established that he had been permanently and totally disabled could not assert a viable claim of disability discrimination against his former employer for refusing to rehire him.
Citation:	B280579
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC582450

Case Name:	Brooks v. WCAB		04/18/2008
Summary:	Brooks earned an average of $1,102. 99 per week as a correctional officer at the time of her injury. While Brooks thereafter remained totally temporarily disabled, SCIF stopped providing TD payments after two years from the date of her injury. Brooks petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, claiming IDL is not TD because "IDL payments are made under different rules, to a limited class of employees, at different rates, and for different periods. "Brooks draws support for the proposition that a salary continuation benefit does not constitute TD from City of Oakland v. Workers. Accordingly, we conclude the WCAB appropriately decided Brooks was entitled to no more than one year of TD following the one year of IDL that she received.
Note:	Under the current statutory scheme state employees are limited to a maximum of two years of combined temporary disability indemnity.
Citation:	F053350
WCC Citation:	WCC 33462008 CA

Case Name:	Brown v. Mission Filmworks, LLC		12/06/2012
Summary:	BROWN v. MISSION FILMWORKS, LLC VIRTIC E. BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MISSION FILMWORKS, LLC, et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Michael Reino for Defendants and Respondents Mission Filmworks, LLC, and Jay Kamen. Plaintiff and appellant Virtic E. Brown appeals from a judgment, following a court trial, entered in favor of defendants and respondents Mission Filmworks, LLC, and Jay Kamen. In May 2009, Kamen formed Mission Filmworks, LLC, for the purpose of producing the Picture. Defendants and respondents Jay Kamen and Mission Filmworks, LLC, shall recover their costs on appeal.
Note:	Two friends who produced a short film together did not create an employee-employer relationship, and so the one who was ousted from the project could not assert a claim for unpaid wages.
Citation:	B239005
WCC Citation:	WCC 39572012 CA

Case Name:	Brown v. Mortensen		06/16/2011
Summary:	When Brown requested that Mortensen provide proof of the debt, Mortensen sent Brown a copy of Brown's dental chart, as well as the charts of Brown's minor children. Mortensen made these disclosures for purposes of verifying to the consumer reporting agencies that a debt was owed, despite the facts that (1) no one contended Brown owed money for dentistry performed on his children, and (2) Brown had never authorized Dr. Reinholds or Mortensen to disclose this information to any third parties, including the three consumer reporting agencies. From 2001 to 2003, Brown repeatedly but unsuccessfully demanded that Mortensen cease making unauthorized disclosures. Brown also contacted the three consumer reporting agencies and informed them the disclosures made by Mortensen were inaccurate and incomplete. Brown and his wife, individually and as guardians ad litem for their minor children, then sued Dr. Reinholds and Mortensen, alleging violations of the Confidentiality Act (Civ.
Note:	When a debt collector has illegally disclosed confidential patient medical information, that patient may sue under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, without having to worry about federal preemption issues, the California Supreme Court concluded Thursday.
Citation:	S180862
WCC Citation:	WCC 37732011 CA

Case Name:	Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Company		07/12/2011
Summary:	TERRI BROWN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and respondent Terri Brown (plaintiff) brought a class action and representative action under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (the PAGA) against her employers, defendants and appellants Ralphs Grocery Company and The Kroger Co. (defendants), for alleged violations of the Labor Code. (See Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 938, 955 [85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 817]. )I concur in the majority opinion's rejection of plaintiff Terri Brown's argument that the class action waiver in her employment contract with Ralphs Grocery Company and the Kroger Co. , Inc. , was unconscionable under Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 443 (Gentry). Brown and Ralphs/Kroger agreed to the streamlined procedures of arbitration of all covered employment claims without resort to classwide or representative litigation.
Note:	Concepcion does not apply to representative class actions filed under the Private Attorney General Act, and that employees cannot waive their right to participate in such suits.
Citation:	B222689
WCC Citation:	WCC 38122011 CA

Case Name:	Brown-Ravis, Inc. v. Superior Ct. of State of CA		01/01/2001
Summary:	It was spared that burden when Kmeth himself, through counsel, filed an application for adjudication of claim on September 17, 1971. He did not ask for an immediate hearing, but placed an 'x' next to the question: 'set later on written request. 'They further differed on whether this threshhold question, common to both proceedings, should be decided by the Board or the superior court. In the superior court a trial on the jurisdictional question of employment had been set for October 2, 1972. 5405) and that his secretary was faster in filling out the Board's form application, than he was in dictating the superior court complaint.
Note:	WCAB jurisdiction attaches at time of service when claim is served to opposing party concurrent with filing.
Citation:	38 CCC 193 (unpublished)
WCC Citation:	WCC 27842001 CA

Case Name:	Browning-Ferris Industries v. WCAB		02/14/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOBE SALTER, Respondents. Over a period of 16 years, Jobe Salter sustained numerous industrial injuries to his shoulders, elbows, knees and back while working for petitioner, Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI). He presented two new claims for industrial injuries to his shoulders, elbows, knees and back, but did not seek to reopen the prior cases. The WCJ reasoned that Salter's back injuries occurred as the result of continuous trauma he suffered throughout his career with the company. Subtracting the monetary value of prior awards does not comport with Labor Code*fn1 section 4664 as construed by our Supreme Court in Brodie.
Note:	[Unpublished] The percentage of a previous award of PD must be subtracted from a newer award of PD.
Citation:	B193443
WCC Citation:	WCC 33162008 CA

Case Name:	Bryant v. IAC		05/15/1951
Summary:	JAMES G. BRYANT, as Director of Employment, et al. , Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, Respondent. If an individual is unemployed because of lack of work, benefits are provided under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The next session of the Legislature adopted article 10 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (3 Deering's Gen. Laws, Act 8780d; Stats. Pending such final determination the Department of Employment might, as it did here, pay the applicant unemployment disability benefits. That puts the employee back where he was prior to 1945 with the temporary deducted from the permanent disability compensation allowed him.
Note:	4661 not intended to affect construction of Unemployment Ins. Act
Citation:	37 Cal.2d 215, 16 CCC 121
WCC Citation:	WCC 25421951 CA