Case Name:	California Horse Racing Board v. WCAB and Snezek		07/31/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MARTIN SNEZEK, Respondents. C053595 (WCAB No. SAC335207) The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) and the State Compensation Insurance Fund (the Fund) (collectively petitioners) have petitioned for a writ of review from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) upholding a decision by which real party in interest Martin Snezek was awarded work-related disability benefits for a heart attack. He also opined that Snezek had a 29 percent overall impairment of his heart and would need life-long treatment. The Fund and the CHRB filed a petition for reconsideration, contending that Snezek was not covered by the statutory heart trouble presumption. Filed 7/31/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MARTIN SNEZEK, Respondents.
Note:	Qualifying as a peace officer is not enough. To be entitled to the heart trouble presumption, the member must also fit the job description and be employed by one of the law enforcement agencies specified in the earlier portions of section 3212.5, Labor Code.
Citation:	153 Cal. App. 4th 1169
WCC Citation:	WCC 32412007 CA

Case Name:	California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. WCAB		10/31/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. , Respondents. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)*fn1 petitions for writ of review of the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The parties stipulated that "Contractors Labor Pool is the general employer and Carri Construction is one of the special employers. The WCAB agreed with the WCJ's decision that there was no evidentiary basis to find that the SCIF policy was "other insurance" under section 1063. 1(c)(9) and denied CIGA reconsideration. DISCUSSION Standard of Review A decision by the WCAB that is based on factual findings which are supported by substantial evidence should be affirmed by the reviewing court.
Note:	[Unpublished] The existence and relevant terms of the SCIF policy were shown by secondary evidence.
Citation:	B205025
WCC Citation:	WCC 34552008 CA

Case Name:	California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Burwell		01/05/2017
Summary:	United States District Court Central District of California .             CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, .             v. .             SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, Secretary of Health and Human Services; .             UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; and .             CENTER FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, Defendants. These individuals were also insured under several workers’ compensation policies administered by the California Insurance Guarantee Association (“CIGA”). Factual Background  .           CIGA is a statutorily-created association of insurers admitted to transact certain classes of insurance business in California. § 1063. 1(c)(4), and (2) any claims that are not “within the coverage of an insurance policy of the insolvent insurer,” id. See generally Medicare Program; Right of Appeal for Medicare Secondary Payer Determinations Relating to Liability Insurance (Including SelfInsurance), No-Fault Insurance, and Workers’ Compensation Laws and Plans, 80 Fed.
Note:
Citation:	2:15-cv-01113-ODW (FFMx)
WCC Citation:	2:15-cv-01113-ODW (FFMx)

Case Name:	California Insurance Guarantee Association v. WCAB (Oracle)		02/06/2012
Summary:	CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and NEXT ENTERPRISES, Respondents; ORACLE IMAGING et al. , Real Parties in Interest. ASHMANN-GERST, J. Petitioner California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks review of a ruling by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) that recognized claims asserted by real parties in interest Oracle Imaging, N-Care and Nations Surgery Center (collectively medical providers) as "covered" claims under Insurance Code section 1063. 1. *fn1 The claims were asserted by real party in interest Pinnacle Lien Services (Pinnacle) on behalf of the medical providers. BACKGROUND Anastasia Jenkins filed a workers' compensation claim against her employer, whose workers' compensation insurance carriers became insolvent during the pendency of the proceedings. It was not disputed that any insurance payments were to be made by checks payable directly to the medical provider, under its tax identification number. And because the law contemplates that a medical provider's lien will be satisfied out of insurance proceeds, we conclude that a medical lien arises "under the insurance policy. "
Note:	Pinnacle Lien Services could pursue lien claims against the California Insurance Guarantee Association.
Citation:	B231491
WCC Citation:	WCC 38622012 CA

Case Name:	California Nurse Life Care Planning v. WCAB		11/13/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. F055530 November 13, 2008 CALIFORNIA NURSE LIFE CARE PLANNING, INC. , PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DYNASTY FRAMING, INC. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION THE COURT*fn1 California Nurse Life Care Planning, Inc. (CNLCP) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). On April 23, 2005, CNLCP filed a Notice and Request for Allowance of Lien with the WCAB in the amount of $22,357. 44 for the expense associated with preparing the Life Care Plan. The WCJ concluded the Life Care Plan was neither a medical-legal expense under section 4621, subdivision (a)*fn3 nor a valid cost under section 5811. DISCUSSION CNLCP contends the WCAB erred in refusing to award reimbursement for the Life Care Plan because it was both a reasonably required medical-legal expense and a reimbursable cost under the WCAB's discretionary powers.
Note:	A lien claimant is not entitled to a reimbursement for a $24,424 life care plan because it was unrelated to the relevant workers' compensation claim.
Citation:	F055530
WCC Citation:	WCC 34612008 CA

Case Name:	California School Employees Association v. Tustin Unified School District		03/12/2007
Summary:	Ct. No. 05CC10946) OPINION CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, TUSTIN CHAPTER NO. 450, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Joan Featherstone is a classified employee of the Tustin Unified School District (School District). The California School Employees Association and its Tustin Chapter No. 450 (together, the CSEA) challenged that practice on the ground those employees were not substitute employees because they were already employed by the school district and, hence, were not employed to replace Featherstone while she was temporarily absent. If, as the School District contends, a school district may use any existing classified employee as a substitute under section 45196 and deduct that employee's pay from the absent employee's salary, then a school district would receive the benefits of both options without the burdens of either. However, section 45196 does prohibit the School District from deducting from the absent employee's salary the amount paid to the employees performing the absent employee's tasksunless the School District hired those employees "to fill [the absent employee's] position during his [or her] absence. "
Note:	Section 45196 does not permit a school district to deduct the salaries of teachers already employed by the district from the salary of a teacher who is on disability leave.
Citation:	148 Cal. App. 4th 510
WCC Citation:	WCC 32102007 CA

Case Name:	California School Employees Association, et al., v. Colton Joint Unified School District, et al.		01/26/2009
Summary:	California School Employees Association v. Colton Joint Unified School District, No. E044388 (Cal. App. Dist. 4 01/26/2009) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO No. E044388 January 26, 2009 CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS, v. COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. The California School Employees Association (CSEA) and Haynes, petitioners and respondents on appeal (petitioners), contend that the Colton Joint Unified School District and the school board (collectively Colton) improperly deducted both vacation leave and differential leave under section 45196 concurrently. We agree with petitioners and the superior court that Colton could not deduct vacation leave and differential leave concurrently. The CSEA contends Colton, while collecting Haynes's workers' compensation benefits, miscalculated her vacation leave and differential leave. (California School Employees Assn. , Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist.
Note:	The Colton Joint Unified School District improperly deducted vacation and differential leave concurrently while a bus driver received workers' compensation benefits.
Citation:	E044388
WCC Citation:	WCC 34842009 CA

Case Name:	California Self-Insurers\' Security Fund v. The Superior Court of Orange County (Activcare Living)		01/26/2018
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .   FILED: 01/26/2018 .   CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND et al. , Petitioners,   .   v. .   THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; ACTIVCARE LIVING et al. , Real Parties in Interest .   G054981 .   (Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00690574) .   OPINION .         Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, William D. Claster,  Judge.   Petition granted.   *                    *                    *   .       Petitioners California Self-Insurers’ Security Fund (the Fund) and Nixon Peabody LLP (Nixon Peabody or the firm) seek a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying Nixon Peabody from representing the Fund in the instant case. (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 17, 23-24;3 Frazier v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal. App. 4th 23, 30. .                                                                                 MOORE, J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a law firm was not automatically disqualified from representing the state Self-Insurers’ Security Fund in an action for reimbursement.
Citation:	G054981
WCC Citation:

Case Name:	California v. Industrial Accident Commission and Gust Erickson		04/19/1957
Summary:	2d 355 April 19, 1957 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION AND GUST ERICKSON ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING by the Subsequent Injuries Fund to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission apportioning liability against several named employers and the Subsequent Injuries Fund. We have concluded that respondent Industrial Accident Commission erroneously applied the section retrospectively, and that the award should be annulled. In the subsequent proceedings the commission found, in accordance with statutory law, that "said date accordingly constitutes the date of injury herein. "The employe initiated proceedings before the Industrial Accident Commission to obtain an award solely against Central Eureka Mining Company, one of his employers during the period when he was contracting silicosis. *fn5 The issue of constitutionality is discussed in the companion case of Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Acc.
Note:	The question here is not what the Legislature might have done with respect to providing for retrospective application of the portions of section 5500.5, which are here involved, but what it did do. It used no language showing that it intended retrospective effect and, therefore, under the rules carefully stated and followed in the Aetna case, no such effect will be given under the guise of construction.
Citation:	48 Cal. 2d 355
WCC Citation:	WCC 33591957 CA

Case Name:	CALSTAR v. SCIF		05/13/2011
Summary:	The medical treatment costs subject to the workers' compensation system include medical treatment travel expenses, as expenses incidental to medical treatment. Judicial review of WCAB decisions or other judicial relief is available only from the appellate court or California Supreme Court. In addition to this court's lack of any subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute, most of the causes of action alleged by CALSTAR here seek remedies not available under California law. CALSTAR therefore has no claim for compensation for its services other than the compensation available through the workers' compensation system. Therefore, CALSTAR cannot seek recovery under causes of action such as breach of implied contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or open book account.
Note:	The defendants' demurrers are sustained, as the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Citation:	FCS036792
WCC Citation:	WCC 37622011 CA