Case Name:	Catalina Car Wash, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations		01/08/2003
Summary:	CATALINA CAR WASH, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. Chen asked to see proof Catalina had secured workers' compensation insurance coverage, as required by statute. The agent's cover letter stated an invoice was enclosed for the deposit premium, and asked Catalina to "[p]lease remit payment within 10 days. "The hearing officer concluded the evidence established Catalina did not have a current workers' compensation insurance policy in effect on May 3, 2000. Co. v. Department of Industrial Relations, supra, 23 Cal. App. 4th at p.
Note:	Intent to renew a work comp policy sufficient to defeat fine for lack of coverage.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 29082003 CA

Case Name:	Catholic Healthcare West v CIGA		10/05/2009
Summary:	In December 2001, Catholic Healthcare West II merged with its parent corporation, Catholic Healthcare West. Catholic Healthcare West II was the surviving nonprofit public benefit corporation and changed its name to Catholic Healthcare West. Background CIGA's cross-complaint for indemnity alleged that (1) CIGA had mistakenly believed that the claims made by or on behalf of Catholic Healthcare West were covered claims for purposes of section 1063. 1, (2) the claims were not covered claims and CIGA was not authorized to pay them, and (3) Catholic Healthcare West was legally obligated to return the $186,093. 51 paid by CIGA, but had refused to return the payment as demanded by CIGA. Hospital Corporation, then named Catholic Healthcare West Central California, merged with Catholic Healthcare West North State, another subsidiary of Catholic Healthcare West. Catholic Healthcare West II was the surviving corporation and changed its name to Catholic Healthcare West.
Note:	Any claims presented by the corporation that employed the claimant were covered claims despite the fact that the corporation changed its name to a name not listed in the insurance policy.
Citation:	F055842
WCC Citation:	WCC 35692009 CA

Case Name:	Catrell Brown v. Foster Farms Poultry		07/13/2009
Summary:	Filed 7/14/09 Brown v. Foster Farms Poultry CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CATRELL BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FOSTER FARMS POULTRY, Defendant and Respondent. Catrell Brown, in pro. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiff and appellant Catrell Brown was an employee of defendant and respondent Foster Farms Poultry. Appellant subsequently filed an Amended Complaint to Foster Poultry Farms Special Demurrers.
Note:	A worker who believed his co-workers were spitting into his drink failed to clearly state a specific cause of action in his complaint against his employer,.
Citation:	F056603
WCC Citation:	WCC 35412009 CA

Case Name:	Cavanaugh v. WCAB		10/18/1967
Summary:	GEORGE W. CAVANAUGH, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ORANGE COUNTY BUS SYSTEM et al. , Respondents. The Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board filed an order March 9, 1967, in its Santa Ana office, denying George Cavanaugh's petition for commutation. The referee's opinion on the Petition for Reconsideration found the order was served on the parties on March 9, 1967. [1] Under Labor Code, section 5903, a party may petition for reconsideration within 20 days after service of a final order. The court reasoned absent a showing of service of the order, it 'cannot presume' (p. 472) service.
Note:	No presumption of proof of service when endorsement does not contain the date of actual service.
Citation:	255 Cal.App.2d 181, 32 CCC 445
WCC Citation:	WCC 27871967 CA

Case Name:	Cedeno v. American Nat. Ins. Co., etc.		07/21/1997
Summary:	For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the lien claimants' assertion that they were denied due process. The lien claimants alleged that they provided services to applicant and that their liens were served upon defendants in 1991 and 1992. On May 31, 1996, applicant filed an Application for Adjudication and a mandatory settlement conference was held on August 15, 1996. However, neither Neurologic Orthopedic Associates nor the other lien claimants received notice of the mandatory settlement conference. There was insufficient time to complete all of the testimony on September 20 so the matter was continued to October 28, 1996.
Note:	Request for WCJ disqualification denied absent declaration of grounds for request, record of bias.
Citation:	62 CCC 939 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 27681997 CA

Case Name:	Cedillo vs. WCAB		02/14/2003
Summary:	A workers' compensation judge concluded as an unlicensed contractor, Mr. Cedillo was not an independent contractor; hence, Mr. Cedillo was an employee of Mr. Reyes; and Mr. Rodriguez was an employee of the homeowner, Mr. Reyes. The board held: "[A]s between Cedillo, the alleged contractor, and Reyes, (homeowner), Cedillo would be an employee under Labor Code section 2750. 5. However, because Cedillo has no claim against Reyes and does not meet the hour requirement of Labor Code section 3352(h), anymore than the applicant meets the 52 hour requirement, under Division 4, Cedillo cannot be an employee. Therefore, we are not required to revert to the definition of Cedillo, as an employee, as set forth in Labor Code section 2750. 5. [P] Therefore, Cedillo is the employer of applicant. "Mr. Cedillo reasoned as follows: Mr. Reyes was the statutory employer of Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Cedillo; this employment relationship arose from the provision of section 2750. 5; and Mr. Cedillo could not both be an employee of Mr. Reyes, the homeowner, and the employer of Mr. Rodriguez.
Note:	Employee of unlicensed contractor must meet criteria of 3352(h) before customer becomes statutory employer.
Citation:	106 Cal.App.4th 227
WCC Citation:	WCC 29172003 CA

Case Name:	Ceradyne, Inc. v. Argonaut Insurance Co.		06/02/2009
Summary:	Relevant to this case, insurance companies providing workers compensation policies are required by law to disclose and seek pre-approval from the Insurance Commissioner and WCIRB of the insurance plan being purchased. )*fn1 In this case, Argonaut Insurance Company provided a workers' compensation plan to a large corporation, Ceradyne Inc. After several years, Ceradyne filed a lawsuit against Argonaut, having concluded the insurance company was liable for mismanaging the workers' compensation claims and finances. It determined the IPA was unenforceable and void because Argonaut did not comply with section 11658, requiring submission of insurance contracts and endorsements to the Department of Insurance. Argonaut argues the IPA does not look like an "insurance policy," and therefore, the insurance commissioner did not need to review or approve it. Argonaut cites one tax law case to support its theory the IPA contract was not an insurance policy requiring review by the Insurance Commissioner.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the Insurance Program Agreement (IPA) contains a severability clause, we conclude the trial court had authority to sever the void arbitration clause, deny arbitration, and deny the stay/dismissal request.
Citation:	G039873
WCC Citation:	WCC 35292009 CA

Case Name:	Cervantes v. El Aguila Food Products		11/19/2009
Summary:	ADJ3675309 (SAL 0081669) ADJ2967795 (SAL 0101259) ADJ3517685 (SAL 0077391) ADJ1962561 (SAL 0077392) JESUS CERVANTES, Applicant, vs. EL AGUILA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. ; SAFECO INSURANCE CO. OF ILLINOIS; SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. , In Liquidation; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; and BROADSPIRE (Servicing Facility), AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant, Jesus Cervantes, sustained several industrial injuries to his low back in 1996, , and 1998, while employed by El Aguila Food Products, Inc. (El Aguila). El Aguila was insured by Safeco for two of these injuries. In the January 16, 2009 report, Dr. Dureza said: "I do feel somewhat confident that the patient would benefit from surgery . . . Accordingly, the implicit legislative purpose in establishing UR was to create an expeditious and inexpensive method to assess treating physician's medical treatment recommendations.
Note:	[En Banc] The procedures and timelines governing objections to a treating physician's recommendation for spinal surgery are contained in Labor Code sections 4610 and 4062 and in Administrative Director (AD) Rules 9788.1, 9788.11, and 9792.6(o).
Citation:	ADJ3675309
WCC Citation:	WCC 35812009 CA

Case Name:	Cervantes vs. Great American Ins. Co.		03/14/1983
Summary:	JESUS CERVANTES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Although the injury required medical care, including surgery, Great American refused to pay or extend Cervantes any benefits. Otherwise, Great American neither requested to [140 Cal. App. 3d 766] have Cervantes examined by a physician of its choice nor contacted Cervantes' treating physician. When Cervantes refused to settle, Great American then paid the award in full. Great American contends, because Cervantes alleged physical as well as mental and emotional injuries, that his suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred.
Note:	Wilful delay in payment of benefits does not remove action from exclusive remedy of comp.
Citation:	140 Cal.App.3d 763
WCC Citation:	WCC 29951983 CA

Case Name:	Chambers v. WCAB		11/14/1968
Summary:	Chambers, a machinist with a third grade education, was employed by an iron company from 1952 until early 1964. Chambers then consulted a Dr. Dickstein, who attributed the emphysema to his constant exposure to dust over a period of many years. *FN 5 Dr. Wasserman, who first diagnosed Chambers' condition, [69 Cal. 2d 562] advised him to stop smoking and he did so. Dr. Dickstein did not refer to cigarettes as a cause of emphysema or of Chambers' disability although his report shows that he was aware of the fact that Chambers had smoked for a number of years. The question is unclear since it cannot be ascertained whether the word "this" refers to Chambers' tiredness or to his emphysema.
Note:	It is the employer's burden of proof to show the employee's knowledge.
Citation:	69 Cal.2d 556
WCC Citation:	WCC 31001968 CA