Case Name:	CHP v. WCAB (Griffin)		11/19/2010
Summary:	The WCAB found Griffin had timely filed a petition to reopen, which included the heart by amendment. Relying on Dr. Blau's reports, the WCAB further found, even without application of the presumption, Griffin had established his heart condition developed during, and was caused by, his CHP employment. The WCAB issued an opinion and order denying reconsideration, reiterating their conclusions in the earlier decision on reconsideration. In its writ petition, CHP argued its position only under section 5410, making no mention of the fact that the WCAB expressly rested its original decision on reconsideration on section 5803. This "misnomer did not affect the jurisdiction of the [WCAB] nor did it prejudice [CHP]. "
Note:	A Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel decision to reopen a claim was valid because the commissioners found "good cause" to reopen the award under Labor Code 5803, the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	C062712
WCC Citation:	WCC 36842010 CA

Case Name:	Chrishard Medical Group v. WCAB		07/12/1988
Summary:	Chrishard Medical Group, et. OPINION: We issued a writ of review in this Workers' Compensation case to determine whether an order denying the lien claims of petitioners Chrishard Medical Services, Cranford L. Scott, and Courtney Medical Services, should be upheld. Courtney Medical Services filed a lien claim for $ 669. 50. Chrishard Medical Group filed a lien claim in the amount of $ 480. In the addendum Irwin and Johns-Manville state that Chrishard Medical Group had submitted a lien claim for an Otologic/Ophthamalic Evaluation,' Dr. Scott had submitted a lien claim for an Internal Medical Evaluation,' and Courtney Medical Services had submitted a lien claim for laboratory tests purportedly performed in the evaluations by Scott and Chrishard Medical Group. The order denying the lien claims of Chrishard Medical Group, Cranford Scott, M. D. , and Courtney Medical Services is annulled.
Note:	Failure to serve lien claimant with C&R that disallows lien results in anullment of order denying lien.
Citation:	53 CCC 306
WCC Citation:	WCC 27521988 CA

Case Name:	Christian v. WCAB.		05/12/1997
Summary:	KAY CHRISTIAN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MORRIS, POLICH & PURDY et al. , Respondents. That Christian may have given the insurance carrier more than one notice that penalties would be sought for each biweekly payment is irrelevant. Here, after each refused payment, Christian notified respondents of her objection to the refusal and intent to seek a separate penalty for each refused payment. Christian has elected to rely on her petition for writ of review and answer to the SCIF petition for review in this court. SCIF disputes the statement of the Court of Appeal that Christian notified it of her intent to seek penalties after each withheld payment.
Note:	Multiple penalties apply if delay or refusal attributable to seperate and distinct acts only.
Citation:	15 Cal.4th 505
WCC Citation:	WCC 28681997 CA

Case Name:	Chu v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, et al.		07/20/2010
Summary:	ANGELINE CHU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTS The General Employment History In 1988, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kaiser) hired Angeline Chu to work as a registered nurse at Kaiser's West Los Angeles Hospital (Kaiser WLA). In accord with the CBA between Kaiser and UNAC, Gatewood decided to initiate a "Level IV Corrective Action" for Chu. Based on these facts, Kaiser argued that Chu could not show, among other elements, any causal nexus between acts by Kaiser and any loss by Chu. In other words, if Kaiser properly initiated the Level IV process which Chu did not complete, then Kaiser did nothing wrong and did not cause Chu any wrongful harm.
Note:	A former nurse's Fair Employment and Housing Act suit failed to establish triable issues of fact, according to an unpublished decision from the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	B216827
WCC Citation:	WCC 36502010 CA

Case Name:	Church Mutual Ins. Co. v. Newport Dunes Resort and Marina		11/29/2012
Summary:	CO. v. NEWPORT DUNES RESORT AND MARINA CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NEWPORT DUNES RESORT and MARINA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Church Mutual Insurance Company (Church Mutual), the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Gillentine's employer, sued Newport Dunes Resort and Marina, a California general partnership doing business as Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort, Newport Dunes Marina, LLC, and Dunes Resort, LLC (collectively, Newport Dunes). Church Mutual then filed a complaint against Newport Dunes, alleging premises liability, negligence, and failure to warn. Newport Dunes filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred all of Church Mutual's claims. Judgment was entered in favor of Newport Dunes, and Church Mutual timely appealed.
Note:	A church pastor who became paralyzed after striking his head on the floor of a lagoon assumed the risk of such injury by diving into the lagoon, and so the lagoon's owner had an absolute defense to a tort claim by the church's workers' compensation insurance carrier based on the pastor's mishap.
Citation:	G046346
WCC Citation:	WCC 39602012 CA

Case Name:	Cifuentes v. Costco Wholesale Corp.		07/10/2012
Summary:	CIFUENTES v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION CARLOS CIFUENTES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant Carlos Cifuentes was a part-time employee who worked in the food court at respondent Costco Wholesale Corporation's store in Goleta. After meeting with Cifuentes, DeBrum prepared a counseling notice suspending Cifuentes for three days pending investigation of the incident. On that day, Cifuentes called Mario Padillo, Costco personnel specialist, and complained about unfair treatment. Cifuentes proceeded to trial on his contract claims against Costco and obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $301,378.
Note:	A retail worker attempting to sue his employer for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence for having allegedly fired him in retaliation for reporting a fellow employee's violation of the company's sexual harassment policy could not proceed with his claims because of workers' compensation exclusivity.
Citation:	B231684
WCC Citation:	WCC 39122012 CA

Case Name:	CIGA v. WCAB (American Motorists Ins. Co.)		04/07/2005
Summary:	CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Real Party in Interest. CIGA's petition for reconsideration was denied by the WCAB, which adopted the WCJ's report on reconsideration as its own without further comment. CIGA petitioned this court for a writ of review on the ground that the reimbursement ordered by the WCAB is precluded by section 1063. 1, subdivisions (c)(5) and (c)(9). (c) & (e)), such proceedings would not lie against CIGA due to Insurance Code section 1063. 1, subdivision (c)(4) [now subd. We remand with instructions to respondent WCAB to vacate its order and issue a new order denying AMIC's lien claim.
Note:	CIGA is not required to reimburse solvent carriers in a CT claim for a portion of temporary disability and medical benefits.
Citation:	128 Cal. App. 4th 307; 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 845
WCC Citation:	WCC 30922005 CA

Case Name:	CIGA v. WCAB (Argonaut Ins. Co.)		04/18/2005
Summary:	We conclude that this distinction is of no legal significance and that the WCAB erred when it directed CIGA to reimburse real party in interest Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut), a solvent insurance carrier. CIGA petitioned this court for a writ of review on the ground that the reimbursement ordered by the WCAB is precluded by section 1063. 1, subdivisions (c)(5) and (c)(9)(ii). We remand with instructions to respondent WCAB to vacate its order and issue a new order denying Argonaut's reimbursement claim. CIGA also argued that the WCAB had no jurisdiction to issue an award against it because it was not properly joined as a party defendant and that the statute of limitations barred the claim. CIGA's petition for review to this court included an argument that the WCAB lacked jurisdiction over disputes involving reimbursement claims against it by other insurers.
Note:	There is no legal distinction between a claim for 'contribution, indemnity, or subrogation' and claims that are characterized as 'joint and several' for purposes of CIGA liability under Insurance Code section 1063.1.
Citation:	128 Cal. App. 4th 569
WCC Citation:	WCC 30962005 CA

Case Name:	CIGA v. WCAB (Carls)		06/04/2008
Summary:	CIGA also challenges the Board's finding that CIGA was estopped to assert the statute of limitations due to its delay in determining that the 1997 injury was a covered claim. As a defense to the claim, CIGA raised the one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 5405, subdivision (a). The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation, and incorporated them into its order denying reconsideration. On January 25, 2007, the WCJ entered a compensation award for the 1997 injury, and after the WCAB denied CIGA's petition for reconsideration of that order, CIGA timely filed its petition for review by this court. To carry its burden, CIGA was required to overcome a rebuttable presumption that Carls was ignorant of his compensation rights.
Note:	Claimant's awareness of his right to compensation for a past injury did not necessarily inform him of his potential right to compensation for the subsequent injury.
Citation:	B199404
WCC Citation:	WCC 33792008 CA

Case Name:	CIGA v. WCAB (Oracle)		02/06/2012
Summary:	We affirm the ruling that Pinnacle is not excluded from pursuing the claims against CIGA for two reasons. CIGA sought reconsideration, again contending that a claim asserted by an assignee is not a covered claim. The WCAB opined that CIGA had failed to prove that legal title to the medical providers' claims had been transferred to Pinnacle, and therefore there was no assignment but only a delegation of the task of collection to Pinnacle. Though "liability claim" is not defined by the CIGA statutes, "covered claim" is defined as an obligation of an insolvent insurer. One issue was whether the employee could have made a third party claim against CIGA if the insurer had been a CIGA member.
Note:	A collections service agency acting as a lien representative for three medical service providers can pursue claims against the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) under Insurance Code Sec. 1063.1(c)(9).
Citation:	B231491
WCC Citation:	WCC 38542012 CA