Case Name:	CSAC Excess Ins. Co. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn.		07/17/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)  .             CSAC EXCESS INSURANCE AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Respondent, .             v. .             CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant. .             C081775 .             (Super. Ct. No. 34-2014-00160890-CU-MC-GDS) .             Plaintiff CSAC Excess Insurance Authority (hereafter CSAC), 1 a joint powers authority (see Gov. Code, § 6500 et seq. ).           CSAC obtained workers’ compensation excess insurance policies from Protective with terms running from November 1981 to November 1984. )  .           BUTZ , J.   .           We concur: .           BLEASE , Acting P. J.
Note:
Citation:	C081775
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 34-2014-00160890-CU-MC-GDS

Case Name:	CSEA v. Vista		12/21/2011
Summary:	CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. , Defendants and Appellants. On December 23, 2008, CSEA sent the District a letter protesting its action of placing Gil on unpaid administrative leave without following the required due process procedures. CSEA requested that the District pay Gil the industrial accident leave benefits owed to her under the relevant collective bargaining and Education Code provisions. Based on Gil's decision to retire, the District cancelled the Skelly hearing and did not continue with the termination process. For convenience, we at times refer to CSEA and Gil collectively as "Gil. "
Note:	California's 6th District Court of Appeal issued a new decision about cost-of-living adjustments that conforms to the state Supreme Court's August decision in Baker v. WCAB (X.S.).
Citation:	D058123
WCC Citation:	WCC 38352011 CA

Case Name:	Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles		04/22/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE RORY CUIELLETTE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. Ct. No. BC311647) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amy D. Hogue, Judge. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant. INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant the City of Los Angeles (defendant or City) appeals from a judgment of $1,571,500 in favor of plaintiff and respondent Rory Cuiellette (plaintiff), a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer, on his claims of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900, et seq. Accordingly, we quote from the trial court's statement of decision at length as follows: "The case arises out of plaintiff Rory Cuillette's [sic] employment with the City of Los Angeles as a peace officer.
Note:	The city of Los Angeles had a duty to determine whether it could reasonably accommodate a police officer who had been placed in a light-duty position, even though he was 100% disabled, because it had a longstanding policy of placing disabled officers in light-duty positions.
Citation:	B224303
WCC Citation:	WCC 37502011 CA

Case Name:	Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles		04/07/2009
Summary:	Over defendant's objection, the trial court instructed the jury with a "Special Instruction in lieu of CACI 2541 (Reasonable Accommodation)" that provided: "From 1984 through 1998, Plaintiff Rory Cuiellette worked as a Los Angeles Police Officer for the Defendant, City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles claimed he could not work at the Los Angeles Police Department due to a ruling by the Workers' Compensation Board. CACI 2541 would have provided: "Rory Cuiellette claims that City of Los Angeles failed to reasonably accommodate his medical restrictions. The Special Instruction in lieu of CACI 2541 provided: "From 1984 through 1998, Plaintiff Rory Cuiellette worked as a Los Angeles Police Officer for the Defendant, City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles claimed he could not work at the Los Angeles Police Department due to a ruling by the Workers' Compensation Board.
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff's 100 percent total permanent disability rating was not, as a matter of law a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for defendant's adverse employment action.
Citation:	B203820
WCC Citation:	None

Case Name:	Cumbre, Inc. et al. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund		11/09/2010
Summary:	ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. (Cumbre, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (May 14, 2007, E040219) [nonpub. BACKGROUND Cumbre, including its wholly owned subsidiary Coachella Valley Insurance Service, Inc. , is an insurance brokerage focusing on workers' compensation insurance. (Cumbre, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, supra, E040219 at p. (Cumbre, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, supra, E040219 at p. 29 [italics added]. )
Note:	State Fund gave Cumbre Insurance Services a fair chance to appeal its decision to terminate the brokerage from its preferred brokerage program, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	E048799
WCC Citation:	WCC 36812010 CA

Case Name:	Curah v. California State Personnel Board		04/09/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO No. B194431 April 9, 2008 CLETUS CURAH, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT; CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND RESPONDENT. On August 4, 1997, Curah received a 30-day suspension that the California State Personnel Board (the Board) adopted. That time, Curah was charged with violating Government Code section 19572, subdivisions (d), (e), (m), (o), (p) [misuse of state property], and (t). Bennett then watched Curah enter his state work truck, at which time Bennett wrote down the truck's license plate number. According to Curah, "Megag was going to testify about the personal relationships between and among the accusatory witnesses and [Curah]. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff's employment was not terminated because he complained about racial discrimination or about mistreatment. Rather, plaintiff's employment was terminated because he littered, urinated in public, and intimidated his co-workers.
Citation:	B194431
WCC Citation:	WCC 33382008 CA

Case Name:	Currie v. WCAB		02/26/2001
Summary:	LORNE CURRIE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Respondents. On October 14, 1998, the WCAB awarded petitioner backpay of around $200,000, with interest from the date of the June 25, 1997, decision. On reconsideration, however, the WCAB found, relying on section 5800, that only postjudgment interest was allowable on section 132a awards. Here the WCAB reasoned that 'Labor Code section 5800 clearly and explicitly sets forth the interest that is allowable on compensation payments. We decline to address the issue in the first instance, but our decision does not preclude the WCAB from doing so on remand.
Note:	Pre-judgment interest included in 132a awards; accrues after wrongful conduct.
Citation:	24 Cal. 4th 1109, 66 CCC 208
WCC Citation:	WCC 24442001 CA

Case Name:	Currie v. WCAB		02/26/2001
Summary:	In making an award of backpay under Labor Code section 132a 1 to an employee wrongfully denied reinstatement because of an industrial injury, may the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) include prejudgment interest on the lost wages so awarded?Harmonizing the Civil Codes mandate of entitlement to prejudgment interest on damages due on a particular day (Civ. Code,  3287, subd. (a)) with the provisions of the Labor Code governing WCAB awards, we conclude such an award is permitted, and indeed required, when the criteria of Civil Code section 3287 are met. Click here for full opinion in PDF format.
Note:	Prejudgment interest per Civil Code section 3287 must be included in 132a Award.
Citation:	2001 (Sup. Ct. S085652)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3582001 CA

Case Name:	Custard v. WCAB		08/10/1992
Summary:	Ardie Faye Custard, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, A. C. OPINION: In this case, we hold that petitioner Ardie Faye Custard (applicant) effectively instituted supplemental proceedings for an increased permanent disability award within the five-year period of limitations set forth in Labor Code sections 5410 and 5804. In the WCJ's opinion, however, counsel's letter of February 13, 1986, requesting advisory ratings for the medical reports of Drs. 'II Section 5410 [n8] governs an injured employee's supplemental request for new and further disability, including an increase in permanent disability. Together with section 5405. 5, [n10] these sections cover the entire spectrum of the Board's continuing jurisdiction over workers' compensation matters.
Note:	Letter requesting advisory PD rating is valid petition to reopen; procedural rules construed informally.
Citation:	57 CCC 545
WCC Citation:	WCC 27701992 CA

Case Name:	Cutter v. Greenwich Ins.		01/16/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT STEVE CUTTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. * * * * * * Steve Cutter appeals from a judgment entered in favor of respondent Greenwich Insurance Company (Greenwich). *fn1 In September 2003, Greenwich sent other correspondence to the insured reiterating the basis for the denial. Rather, appellant alleged Greenwich failed to investigate and was obliged to defend its insured in the underlying action. [Appellant] would require Greenwich to investigate facts that the insured never saw fit to provide to Greenwich.
Note:	[Unpublished] When there is no potential for coverage, and no duty to defend under the policy terms, there can be no action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because the covenant is based on the contractual relationship between the insurer and its insured.
Citation:	B194892
WCC Citation:	WCC 33002008 CA