Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library



 
Case Name: Boyle v. Certainteed Corp. 03/10/2006
Summary: Facts Plaintiffs are family members of Charles Edward Boyle who died in March 2002, allegedly from mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against CertainTeed Corporation (CertainTeed) and many other defendants. Plaintiffs also addressed the merits at length and submitted deposition transcripts, interrogatory responses, and documents as evidence allegedly showing decedent longshoreman's exposure to asbestos fibers imported by CertainTeed. Instead, CertainTeed insists that plaintiffs waived their challenge to General Order No. 157 by failing to raise the matter adequately in the trial court. Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 690, upon which CertainTeed relies, is not to the contrary.
Note: Order for expedited summary judgment for asbestos injury cases based merely on attorney certification is invalid.
Citation: 137 Cal. App. 4th 645
WCC Citation: WCC 31472006 CA
 
 
Case Name: Bracken vs. WCAB 09/25/1989
Summary: THOMAS T. BRACKEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COMMERCIAL CARRIERS, INC. , et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Klein, P. J. , with Danielson and Croskey, JJ. , concurring. )We hold the Board's decision must be annulled because the Board erred in concluding the cardiovascular injuries were not industrial. Specifically, that heart attack progressed in degree later that month and then gave rise in April, 1986, to a stroke. Dr. Gillis stated he knew of no medical literature that says the worse the heart attack, the greater the likelihood of stroke. It is common knowledge in medical literature that massive heart attacks go on to develop cerebral strokes soon thereafter.
Note: Appellate court is not bound to accept the Board's factual findings where they are unreasonable or otherwise unsupported.
Citation: 214 Cal.App.3d 246
WCC Citation: WCC 29311989 CA
 
 
Case Name: Bradshaw v. Park 10/27/1994
Summary: VICTORIA BRADSHAW, as Labor Commissioner, etc. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DONALD PARK, Defendant and Appellant. ), P. J. Donald Park, doing business as Century Auto Body & Painting, appeals from a special judgment (Lab. 1 assessing a penalty of $2,000 against him for failure to obtain workers' compensation insurance in violation of section 3700. We conclude that entry of judgment against him does not offend any constitutional principles and affirm the judgment. Attached to the request was a document from the Department of Industrial Relations Division of Labor Standards Enforcement entitled 'Stop Order - Penalty Assessment. '
Note: DIR's Stop Order not in violation of due process, separation of powers, or 'principle of check'.
Citation: 29 Cal.App.4th 1267
WCC Citation: WCC 24321994 CA
 
 
Case Name: Branco v. Race Street Fish & Poultry (WCAB En Banc) 01/31/1978
Summary: Reconsideration was granted in order to further study and research the application of the Board's en banc decision in Cabello v. NL Industries [(1976)] 41 CCC 605. A $ 200. 00 attorney's fee was awarded by the trial judge from the applicant's portion of the stipulated award. The Board in their en banc decision applied Quinn v. State of California [(1975)] 15 Cal. 1, 539 P. 2d 761] and apportioned the $ 200. 00 attorney's fee between the Employment Development Department and the applicant's portion of the award. Like the instant case, Quinn dealt with a claim by an employee for apportionment of the attorney's fee.
Note: Lien claimant responsible for 'fair share' of atty. fee award under certain circumstances.
Citation: 43 CCC 10
WCC Citation: WCC 27161978 CA
 
 
Case Name: Brannan v. Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. 05/21/2012
Summary: BRANNAN v. LATHROP CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES, INC. BRIAN BRANNAN et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LATHROP CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. While working for a masonry subcontractor at a school construction site, Brian Brannan slipped on wet scaffolding and injured his back. He sued the general contractor, Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. (Lathrop), alleging his injuries were caused by Lathrop's negligence in sequencing and coordinating construction work at the site, and failing to call a "rain day" to protect workers from dangerous conditions caused by slippery surfaces. Lathrop did not direct Garcia or Brannan on how the masonry was to be laid. In Ray, an employee of a bridge construction subcontractor was killed by construction debris blown by the wind from a bridge under construction onto a public roadway, as he was attempting to clear other debris from the roadway.
Note: An injured construction worker's negligence claim against the contractor directing the construction project where he was injured failed as a matter of law since he could not establish that the contractor's retained control over the jobsite affirmatively contributed to his injuries.
Citation: A129695
WCC Citation: WCC 38972012 CA
 
 
Case Name: Brasher v. Nationwide Studio Fund 09/05/2006
Summary: WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. OAK 0296709 DEANNA BRASHER, Applicant, vs. NATIONWIDE STUDIO FUND; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). Defendant referred this request for surgery to utilization review and, on February 17, 2006, denied Dr. Park's request, based on the utilization review report. Additionally, on February 21, 2006, defendant filed a DWC Form 233 Objection To Treating Physician's Recommendation For Spinal Surgery with the Administrative Director. You then have 10 days from receipt of the second request of treating physician's report containing the recommendation for spinal surgery. Whether the Division of Workers' Compensation Medical Unit appropriately followed procedures set forth in Labor Code Sections 4062(b) and 4610.
Note: Where statutory process has been followed for spinal surgery second opinion, and the delay is due solely to the DWC's failure to comply with its obligation under section 4062(b), there is no reasonable basis for terminating the second opinion process.
Citation: 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1282
WCC Citation: WCC 31792006 CA
 
 
Case Name: Brassinga v. City of Mountain View 08/20/1998
Summary: Acton and another Mountain View officer were the range masters who inspected the weapons of the Mountain View officers. Plaintiffs assert that the evidence established as a matter of law that (1) Brassinga was acting as a 'volunteer,' (2) even if Brassinga was a special employee of Mountain View, Mountain View would still be liable under Marsh and (3) Brassinga was not a special employee of Mountain View. Plaintiffs assert that this principle is applicable here to permit Brassinga to sue Acton's general employer, Mountain View, even if Brassinga was a special employee of Mountain View. Here, if Mountain View was Brassinga's special employer, the exclusive remedy provisions would necessarily bar a tort action by Brassinga against Mountain View. However, Mountain View did have the power to remove Brassinga from his role playing duties for Mountain View.
Note: Good discussion of general employer vs. special employer, with cites.
Citation: 66 Cal.App.4th 195, 63 CCC 987
WCC Citation: WCC 4181998 CA
 
 
Case Name: Bray vs. WCAB 06/30/1994
Summary: KENNETH BRAY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ITT-BARTON et al. , Respondents. OPINION CROSKEY, J. Kenneth Bray (Bray), a discharged employee, sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging industrial injury to his nerves, psyche and internal system caused by termination from his employment. Bray sought help for his emotional distress from a clinical psychologist, Sivan Caukins, Ph. D. , in March 1989. 3, ante) in determining that Bray had sustained permanent psychiatric injury of 19. 5 percent. Internist Stanley Majcher, M. D. , reporting for the defense on March 14, 1991, declared that Bray had no industrially caused problems.
Note: Psyche injury arising solely out of termination not compensable.
Citation: 26 Cal.App.4th 530, 59 CCC 475
WCC Citation: WCC 28281994 CA
 
 
Case Name: Brennfleck v. WCAB 01/20/1970
Summary: ISABELLE E. BRENNFLECK, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE, Respondents (Opinion by Bray, J. , with Pierce, P. J. , and Regan, J. , concurring. )Record Carl Brennfleck, who was employed as a truck driver by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, was injured in the scope of his employment September 29, 1966, which injury proximately caused his death on November 11. On reconsideration the board reduced the award to $17,500 and stated that Isabelle Brennfleck was not a dependent of the decedent 'nor was she his widow. '(Brennfleck v. Workmen's Comp. The parties purchased real property together, filed joint income tax returns, and were known in the community as husband and wife.
Note: 4703 applies where deceased has putative spouse and still supporting first spouse.
Citation: 3 Cal.App.3d 666, 35 CCC 7
WCC Citation: WCC 25921970 CA
 
 
Case Name: Brightwell v. IAC 04/19/1965
Summary: EUNICE LENORE BRIGHTWELL, Petitioner v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SPEE D MOODY'S LUNCH SERVICE, a copartnership, and INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a corporation, Respondents. Simultaneously, they entered into an agreement for sharing the costs in a pending third party action. The signature of applicant/employee, Eunice Brightwell, was attested to by witnesses who did not see or hear her sign. Brightwell sought to rescind the agreement on the grounds that there was failure of consideration, but this attempt was unsuccessful. On March 22, 1964, Brightwell underwent surgery.
Note: Attesting witnesses need not be present when employee signs.
Citation: 30 CCC 127 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation: WCC 25891965 CA
 
109 Results Page 9 of 11