Case Name:	County of LA v. LA County Employee Relations Commision		02/24/2011
Summary:	COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 721, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Proc. , 1094. 5), in which it asserted the privacy rights of these non-member County employees and challenged the decision by the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (Commission) that ordered the County to release their names, home addresses, and home telephone numbers to the Union. The Union filed an unfair employee-relations practice charge with the Commission in which it contended the County violated sections 12(a)(3) and 151 of the County's Employee Relations Ordinance (Ordinance). (Union of American Physicians & Dentists v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com. Section 12, subdivision (a)(3), codified at section 5. 04. 240, subdivision (A)(3) of the Los Angeles County Code, states that it is an unfair employee relations practice for the County "[t]o refuse to negotiate with representatives of certified employee organizations on negotiable matters. "
Note:	Los Angeles County must give its non-union employees notice and an opportunity to object before disclosing their personal information to the Service Employees International Union, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B217668
WCC Citation:	WCC 37232011 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. WCAB (Bass)		04/21/1986
Summary:	Petitioner, County of Los Angeles (County), seeks review of the Board's opinion and order dismissing County's petition for reconsideration. County failed to attach a proof of service to the petition for reconsideration. In its petition for review County asserts that counsel for applicant was served with a copy of the petition for reconsideration. County contends that the Board should have informed it that no proof of service was attached and should have given County an opportunity to prove that the petition was timely served. County also contends that in light of applicant's responses to Dr. Levy's questions County should not be required to offer applicant psychiatric treatment to reduce its liability for compensation since such an offer would be futile.
Note:	Board must notify lack of proper service of Petition for Recon., afford reas. time for proof.
Citation:	51 CCC 194
WCC Citation:	WCC 27271986 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. WCAB (King)		03/17/1980
Summary:	COUNSEL John H. Larson, County Counsel, Milton J. Litvin and Daniel E. McCoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner. OPINION FILES, P. J. Petitioner County of Los Angeles contends that respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board erred in assessing a 10 percent penalty against county pursuant to Labor Code fn. On November 19, 1973, while employed as a vocational nurse by county, King sustained an injury to her right eye. County began payments under the new award and also provided medical care by referring King to Michael J. On September 3, 1977, county filed a petition to reduce the permanent disability award on the ground that King's permanent disability had lessened.
Note:	Regs. 10462, 10464, 10466 are not applicable to permanent disability; termination of PD before WCAB orders reduction valid where circumstances known to employer prove reasonable.
Citation:	104 Cal.App.3d 933, 45 CCC 248
WCC Citation:	WCC 27741980 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. WCAB (Rottman)		08/31/1982
Summary:	[135 Cal. App. 3d 568] COUNSEL John H. Larson, County Counsel, Milton J. Litvin and Patrick A. Wu, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner. This is a writ of review from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and a denial of a petition for reconsideration. The order is that the county is liable for the value for services rendered Zachary Rottman (Rottman) by Kaiser Foundation Hospital (Kaiser). 1 was an employee of Los Angeles County (County). A hearing was held on the claimed liability of the County for the Kaiser lien.
Note:	Lien claim not barred by SOL where employee or claimant had no knowledge that disability was work-related.
Citation:	135 Cal.App.3d 567, 47 CCC 951
WCC Citation:	WCC 25341982 CA

Case Name:	County of Los Angeles v. WCAB and Jones		10/04/2002
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and STACEY JONES, Respondents. Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, Patrick A. Wu, Assistant County Counsel, Leah D. Davis, Deputy County Counsel; Malmquist, Fields & Camastra and Tom Hedrick for Petitioner. Stacey Jones was injured while employed as a social worker by the County of Los Angeles (County). Following a subsequent allegation that County unreasonably denied medical treatment and after a hearing on that issue, Jones and County entered a stipulation with request for award, which was approved on March 21, 2002. County issued a check for the attorney's fees, but the law firm representing Jones, Rose, Klein & Marias, did not receive the check within the thirty-day period.
Note:	Attorney fees are a species of benefits on which penalties may be assessed.
Citation:	2002 CCC
WCC Citation:	WCC 28872002 CA

Case Name:	County of Orange v. WCAB		01/31/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE COUNTY OF ORANGE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jack Lean sustained back injury caused by a work-related accident while he was employed by the County of Orange. County then sought a hearing before Board on the disputed issue of the commencement of payment of disability benefits. The affidavit of Deborah Rivera, an employee of the law firm representing County, was submitted with County's petition for review. Thus, Lean concludes, County made no showing of excusable neglect to be afforded relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).
Note:	[Unpublished] Under Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, while the language of 5909 appears mandatory and jurisdictional, 'the time periods must be based on a presumption that a claimant's file will be available to the board; any other result deprives a claimant of due process and the right to a review by the board.'
Citation:	G038527
WCC Citation:	WCC 33122008 CA

Case Name:	County of Riverside v. WCAB (Sylves)		03/24/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/24/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PETER G. SYLVES, Respondents. .             Law Office of Louis D. Seaman and Louis D. Seaman for Petitioner. .           CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION .           McKINSTER P. J. .           We concur: .           MILLER J. Commencing January 1, 1979, and thereafter on the first day of January for each of the next two years, the liability period for occupational disease or cumulative injury shall be decreased by one year so that liability is limited in the following manner: For claims filed or Asserted on or after:                       The period shall be: January 1, 1979                                                           three years January 1, 1980                                                           two years January 1, 1981 and thereafter                                   one year The statute was not, as the County asserts without citation to authority, “clearly put in place to avoid situations where employees could reach back over numerous years and sue an unsuspecting employer who had no notice of such injury when, in fact, that applicant had continued to perform the same occupation with a subsequent employer being subject to the continued injurious exposure. ”
Note:
Citation:	E065688
WCC Citation:	WCAB Case No. ADJ9538021

Case Name:	County of Riverside v. WCAB (Taylor)		12/14/2012
Summary:	COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Petitioner, v. THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and SANDIE TAYLOR, Respondents. STATEMENT OF FACTS Applicant was a member of a group known as the "Mounted Posse Program" established by the Sheriff of Riverside County. Membership in, and the duties of, the posse are extensively prescribed in a manual prepared by the County. (Logoed shirts and caps were provided by the County, but members otherwise provided their own clothing and tack. )*fn2 Applicant testified that it was usual for the County to pay for training, although this was not universal.
Note:	The County of Riverside is not liable for benefits to a volunteer member of its mounted posse program.
Citation:	E055965
WCC Citation:	WCC 39532012 CA

Case Name:	County of Sacramento v. WCAB (Brooks)		04/22/2013
Summary:	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MICHAEL BROOKS, Respondents. The County filed a petition for writ of review, and we order issuance of the writ. According to the County, the evidence does not support Dr. Allen's attempt to apportion the injury to the various causes. (Larch v. Contra Costa County (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 831, 833-839; Stockman v. State of California/Department of Corr. Additional procedure and evidence, especially with respect to the causation issue, are discussed in connection with the contentions of the County of Sacramento (the County).
Note:	California's 3rd District Court of Appeal on Monday overturned an administrative decision that a county's good faith personnel action was not a substantial cause of an applicant's psyche claim.
Citation:	C067739
WCC Citation:	WCC 40042013 CA

Case Name:	County of Sacramento v. WCAB (Estrada)		01/07/1999
Summary:	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PAMELA ESTRADA, Respondents. OPINION NICHOLSON, J. - The County of Sacramento sought a writ of review in this court after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) upheld the award of temporary benefits to respondent Pamela Estrada. 1 In March 1992, Estrada was employed by the county as a work project inmate and injured her back on the job. The county, however, objected to this procedure because, by statute, discovery closed on the date of the settlement conference. In addition, she found that the report of Dr. Michael Kasman, submitted by the county, was inadmissible because the county was not entitled to a rebuttal QME.
Note:	WCAB violated 5502(d)(3) by allowing record to remain open to get supp. medical report.
Citation:	68 Cal.App.4th 1429
WCC Citation:	WCC 24561999 CA