Case Name:	Bingener v. City of Los Angeles		01/09/2020
Summary:	Filed 12/16/19; Certified for Publication 1/9/20 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             MARK BINGENER et al. ,Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. ,Defendants and Respondents. .             B291112 .             (Los Angeles County Super. INTRODUCTION .             Mark and Eric Bingener appeal the trial court’s grant of the City of Los Angeles’s (City) motion for summary judgment. * .           We concur: .           LAVIN, Acting P. J. .           EGERTON, J. Filed 1/9/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .           MARK BINGENER et al. ,Plaintiffs and Appellants, .           v. .           CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. ,Defendantsand Respondents.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an employer's knowledge of an employee's compensable injury was not enough to impose tort liability for a fatal car accident.
Citation:	No. B291112
WCC Citation:	No. B291112

Case Name:	Bison Builders Inc. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp.		09/05/2012
Summary:	BISON BUILDERS INC. v. THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION BISON BUILDERS, INC. , Cross-Complainant and Appellant, v. THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Cross-Defendant and Respondent. Thyssen was a subcontractor for appellant general contractor Bison Builders, Inc. (Bison) in the construction of a hotel. Bison responded to the proposal with a 15-page form subcontract agreement entitled "Bison Builders, Inc. Subcontract Agreement," dated March 30, 2006. The trial court's instruction on retained control read as follows: "David Travis claims that he was damaged by an unsafe condition while employed by ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation and working on Bison Builders, Incorporated's property. To establish this claim, David Travis must prove all of the following: [¶] 1, that Bison Builders, Incorporated controlled the property; 2, that Bison Builders, Incorporated retained control over safety conditions at the work site; 3, that Bison Builders, Incorporated negligently exercised its retained control over safety conditions; 4, that David Travis was damaged; 5, that Bison Builders, Incorporated affirmatively contributed to David Travis' damage.
Note:	A general contractor is liable for its negligent control of a job site that contributed to a worker's spinal cord injury.
Citation:	A131622, A131623
WCC Citation:	WCC 39302012 CA

Case Name:	Blackburn v. WCAB		07/25/2008
Summary:	-ooOoo- *Before Levy, Acting P. J. , Dawson, J. , and Hill, J. Theresa Blackburn petitions this court in propria persona for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Blackburn did not file an Answer, but on February 19, 2008, the WCAB received a one-page letter objecting to FUSD's petition. Having failed to bring any of these issues to the attention of the WCAB on reconsideration, Blackburn has waived the issues before this court. The WCAB instead remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine if Blackburn was entitled to workers' compensation benefits related to her alleged psychological injury. Since Blackburn did not petition for reconsideration from the WCJ's findings and award and all other issues were affirmed by the WCAB, there is no issue before this court to review.
Note:	[Unpublished] Since Blackburn did not petition for reconsideration from the WCJ's findings and award and all other issues were affirmed by the WCAB, there is no issue before this court to review.
Citation:	F055123
WCC Citation:	WCC 34032008 CA

Case Name:	Blackledge v. Bank of America		06/03/2010
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. ADJ1735018 (LBO 0375311) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION CYNTHIA BLACKLEDGE, Applicant, vs. BANK OF AMERICA; and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant, Cynthia Blackledge (Blackledge), sustained an admitted industrial injury to her low back and her right wrist, hip, and knee on October 26, 2005 when she slipped while descending a flight of stairs. Dr. Pechman evaluated Blackledge and issued a report on May 14, 2007. Blackledge made a timely request to cross-examine the rater regarding the 0% recommended rating. The expert opinion of a single physician may establish an injured employee's WPI, provided that the opinion constitutes substantial evidence.
Note:	[En Banc] Physician's role is to assess the injured employee's whole person impairment percentage(s); WCJ's role is to frame instructions; rater's role is to issue a recommended permanent disability rating; WCJ is not bound by a rater's disability rating; must be no ex parte communication between the WCJ and the rater.
Citation:	ADJ1735018
WCC Citation:	WCC 36352010 CA

Case Name:	Blanchard v. WCAB		12/09/1975
Summary:	GEORGE M. BLANCHARD, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Kaufman, J. , with Tamura, Acting P. J. , and McDaniel, J. , concurring. )On July 21, 1970, Applicant was awarded permanent disability benefits based on a disability rating of 30 1/2 percent. Petitioner will file herein a medical evaluation report of applicant's condition in support of his petition herein at a later date. '4) or to set forth the facts relied upon to establish new and further disability under Labor Code, section 5410 (Cal. '(b) In all other cases by a petition setting forth specifically the facts relied upon to establish new and further disability. '
Note:	Faulty petition to reopen valid when it gives notice of being based on alleged increased disability.
Citation:	53 CA 3d 590, 40 CCC 784
WCC Citation:	WCC 27711975 CA

Case Name:	Bland v. WCAB		10/26/1970
Summary:	BLAND, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, McPHAIL'S, INC. , et al. , Respondents. Although the board remained convinced that petitioner's condition was not yet permanent and stationary, it refused to award compensation for his temporary disability. Labor Code section 5803 provides that the board 'has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards. . . . 13. 13, at p. 409; 1 Hanna, Form 7. 1 (WCAB Form 42). )We have fully demonstrated that the petition to reopen in this case necessarily comprehended a request for temporary disability compensation.
Note:	Awkwardness in allegation does not restrict worker's right to compensation; Petition to Reopen need not request particular classification of compensation.
Citation:	3 Cal.3d 324, 35 CCC 513
WCC Citation:	WCC 26431970 CA

Case Name:	Bloch Medical Clinic v. WCAB		04/22/1997
Summary:	Bloch Medical Clinic, Petitioner v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board, Sonia Rodriguez, National Stores, Inc. , State Compensation Insurance Fund, Respondents. Civil No. B097283 Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five April 22, 1997 Counsel:For petitioner--Stephen M. Schwartz For respondents employer and insurer--Krimen, Klein, Da Silva, Daneri & Bloom, by Louis Harris For respondent WCAB--No appearance Opinion-By Grignon, Acting P. J. Petitioner Bloch Medical Clinic (Dr. Bloch) petitions for review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration of an order of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denying medical-legal expense and reducing claimed medical treatment charges. As to the other issues raised by Dr. Bloch, we found no error on the part of the Board. In February 1992, employee consulted an attorney, who referred her to, among others, Dr. Bloch, a psychiatrist. On February 21, 1992, the attorney requested medical treatment, but not a medical-legal evaluation, from Dr. Bloch.
Note:	Failure to pay or object in 60 days subject carrier to 10% penalty.
Citation:	62 CCC 589
WCC Citation:	WCC 28721997 CA

Case Name:	Blue Cross of CA. v. WCAB		04/10/1998
Summary:	Jurisdiction was reserved over the lien of Blue Cross. Defendant filed a DOR which was served on Blue Cross, and Blue Cross made no objection to the matter going forward. Yet, Blue Cross did not object to the DOR and request additional time to obtain the records and obtain a medical-legal report. Thus Blue Cross waived its right to perform additional discovery by failing to object to the declaration of readiness. The WCAB denied Blue Cross' Petition for Reconsideration and the appellate court denied its Petition for Writ of Review.
Note:	No denial of due process where Blue Cross could've requested continuance to obtain necessary records.
Citation:	63 CCC 604 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28031998 CA

Case Name:	Blumenfeld v. Qualcomm, Inc.		09/23/2010
Summary:	In 2001 Blumenfeld applied for and received a transfer into a programmer analyst position, reporting to Tange. In 2001, when Blumenfeld was transferred to his group, Tange was a network analyst, supervising five or six individuals. Rather, Blumenfeld and the other employees Tange supervised "raved about him" in performance reviews submitted confidentially to his supervisor. Blumenfeld said once Tange put her outside his "circle of trust" for a week and called her a "walrus. "Blumenfeld also submitted evidence that during the investigation of Tange, Qualcomm discovered that he had sexually harassed two other female employees.
Note:	Exclusive remedy did not bar a former employee's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because she alleged that it resulted from her supervisor's despicable sexual harassment, the 4th District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	D055441
WCC Citation:	WCC 36732010 CA

Case Name:	Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Carole Arbuckle)		02/26/2009
Summary:	Ct. No. 03AS00948 STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; CAROLE M. ARBUCKLE, Real Party in Interest. Here, the employee filed a complaint with the State Personnel Board, and the board issued adverse findings. She was hired as an office assistant by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (SBCE) and was eventually promoted to management services technician. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ and stayed the proceedings in the trial court. Only then, the Court of Appeal held, could Arbuckle pursue a civil damages action in superior court.
Note:	An employee of the California Chiropractic Board of Examiners who claims she was harassed at work after pointing out that the board's chairwoman had been practicing without a license was not required to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a civil whistleblower complaint.
Citation:	S151705
WCC Citation:	WCC 35002009 CA