Case Name:	Camacho v. Target Corp.		06/08/2018
Summary:	Filed 6/8/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION  COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             ADRIAN CAMACHO, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. .           In March 2015, Camacho settled his workers' compensation case with Target. Camacho and Target also executed an addendum (Addendum A) that includes additional terms. 2 Addendum A was attached to the C&R. .           The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order approving the settlement between Camacho and Target approximately a week after the parties executed the C&R and Addendum. .           In April 2015, Camacho received a right-to-sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).
Note:	A compromise and release does not constitute a global release of all possible civil claims against an employer unless settlement language explicitly mentions the intent to settle both the civil and workers’ compensation causes of action, California’s 4th District Court of Appeal said in a decision published Friday.
Citation:	D073280
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. RIC1507049

Case Name:	Camper v. WCAB		10/05/1992
Summary:	Background This case arises out of a workers' compensation claim, alleging specific and cumulative back injuries, filed by Ronald Camper (Camper) in 1989. On July 24, 1991, the WCAB filed its opinion following reconsideration, which was served upon Camper by mail on the same date. On September 12, 1991, 50 days after the WCAB filed its opinion, Camper filed a petition for writ of review in the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District. The procedure for obtaining judicial review of an opinion of the WCAB is set forth in Labor Code section 5950. Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1421, was decided on October 7, 1991, after Camper filed his petition.
Note:	45-day time limit is jurisdictional and commences on filing therefore no extension under Code Civ. Proc. 1013.
Citation:	3 Cal.4th 679, 57 CCC 644
WCC Citation:	WCC 27061992 CA

Case Name:	Campos v. WCAB		06/25/2010
Summary:	JUAN CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. , Respondents. At the time petitioner had been employed by respondent Expert Tree Service for less than six months. This subdivision shall not apply if the psychiatric injury is caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition. "An employee must demonstrate that an employment condition is sudden and extraordinary by a preponderance of the evidence. We remand this cause to the Board for further consideration consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Note:	An incident in which a tree cutter was struck by a falling tree trunk while suspended about 40 feet in the air constitutes a 'sudden and extraordinary employment condition' that allows compensation for a psychiatric injury.
Citation:	A125998
WCC Citation:	WCC 36432010 CA

Case Name:	Canton Poultry v. Stockwell, Harris, et. al.		06/05/2003
Summary:	CANTON POULTRY & DELI, INC. , etc. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WIDOM & WOOLVERTON, et al. , Defendants and Respondents. OPINION ALDRICH, J. - Plaintiff Canton Poultry & Deli, Inc. ("Canton Poultry"), and two of its officers, Shiu Lit Kwan and Cho Wah Kwan (collectively with Canton Poultry, "plaintiffs"), appeal from an order of dismissal entered after a demurrer was sustained to their complaint without leave to amend. We hold that when Canton Poultry was dismissed from the workers' compensation case by operation of law, whatever duties Stockwell had to Canton Poultry ended at that point in time, absent facts to conclude otherwise; here, no such extenuating facts were alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. Additionally, defending the civil suit required the Kwan plaintiffs to spend time on the civil suit and deprived plaintiff Canton Poultry of their services. Thus, Canton Poultry suffered damages in excess of $20,000 because no global settlement was made.
Note:	Defense attorney owes duty to carrier, not employer, after carrier assumes liability.
Citation:	109 Cal.App.4th 1219
WCC Citation:	WCC 29392003 CA

Case Name:	Cantrell v. WCAB (Wal-Mart Stores)		07/16/2009
Summary:	(§ 5908. 5) BACKGROUND Shortly before midnight on November 24, 2004, 30-year-old Cantrell injured his right knee while working as a stocker for Wal-Mart in Turlock. Cantrell was taken by ambulance to the local hospital, treated for the injury, and released in the early morning hours on Thanksgiving Day. In November 2005, Cantrell filed two petitions with the WCAB for increased compensation for discriminating against him under section 132a. One petition alleged Wal-Mart representatives "wrongfully assigned Mr. Cantrell to take a post-accident drug test after Mr. Cantrell had claimed a work injury. "Cantrell petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, claiming the WCJ "failed to appropriately address the legal issues . . . " presented in his discrimination petitions.
Note:	[Unpublished] The WCAB did not make a finding whether a drug testing policy itself discriminated against employee for sustaining an industrial injury and if so, whether employer demonstrated that its conduct was necessary and directly linked to the realities of doing business. Under 132a, the WCAB was required to make this inquiry.
Citation:	F057606
WCC Citation:	WCC 35452009 CA

Case Name:	Canty v. WCAB (DMV)		05/31/1996
Summary:	Bertha Canty, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, State of California Department of Motor Vehicles et al. , Respondents. Rather than proceed to hearing and submit the issues for decision on the basis of the medical opinions of Drs. Floyd and Masem, the parties selected Leonard Gordon, M. D. , orthopedic hand specialist, to evaluate applicant as an agreed medical examiner (AME). Dr. Gordon examined applicant in the capacity of an AME on March 22, 1995, and issued his report on that same date. n3 The report begins as follows: 'I am responding to a request to provide a specific date that Bertha Canty became permanent and stationary.
Note:	Supplemental medical report not shown to be 'newly discovered evidence'; good illustration of warranted dismissal.
Citation:	61 CCC 559
WCC Citation:	WCC 27291996 CA

Case Name:	Carpenter v. Universal City Studios		10/30/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS L. L. L. P. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION After plaintiff Christopher Carpenter suffered serious injury to his hand while working as a grip on the set of the Universal Network Television, L. L. C. (UNT) series Dragnet, he sued defendant Universal City Studios L. L. L. P. (UCS) in tort alleging that UCS was liable as the landlord of the soundstage where he was injured. Universal's Production Service Representative Bonita Chan explained that Universal and Universal Studios, Inc. are related entities, and UNT is a department within "Universal. Various of the Universal companies share the same address at Universal City Plaza. Silverstein explained that Dragnet "was a Universal show using Universal equipment on the Universal lot. "
Note:	[unpublished] The evidence supports the jury's special verdict
Citation:	B186031
WCC Citation:	WCC 34492008 CA

Case Name:	Carpenter v. Universal City Studios L.L.L.P.		01/10/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS L. L. L. P. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Universal's Production Service Representative Bonita Chan explained that Universal and Universal Studios, Inc. are related entities, and UNT is a department within "Universal. Various of the Universal companies share the same address at Universal City Plaza. Silverstein explained that Dragnet "was a Universal show using Universal equipment on the Universal lot. "It's Universal Studios Television, but it's Universal  I work for Universal Studios Productions Services.
Note:	[Unpublished] The evidence supports the jury's special verdict that Defendant was Plaintiff's special employer with the result the trial court did not err in denying Carpenter's three motions. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Citation:	B186031
WCC Citation:	WCC 32982008 CA

Case Name:	Carpenter v. WCAB		04/11/1986
Summary:	The change-of-address form was dated August 23, 1983, but bears a WCAB stamp showing receipt by the Board at 1025 a. m. on August 31, 1983. The Board also found 'applicant's attorney has agreed to receive service of process from the Sacramento office [of the WCAB] in that manner [by mail slot]. 'Petitioner's counsel, as an attorney, is presumed to know that service by 'mail slot' is not authorized by statute or by WCAB regulations. Petitioner is therefore bound by his attorney's agreement to accept service of process at his WCAB 'mail slot. 'n3 It is undisputed that delivery by 'mail slot' does not constitute 'personal service' within the meaning of the Labor Code and WCAB regulations.
Note:	Time limit for filing petition for reconsideration runs from date of actual receipt when WCAB serves findings to attorney at unauthorized address.
Citation:	51 CCC 175
WCC Citation:	WCC 27781986 CA

Case Name:	Carr v. Washington Mut. Bank		04/22/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LARESSIA M. CARR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- Laressia M. Carr sued Washington Mutual Bank (Bank), her employer, claiming that she suffered posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as the result of a take-over robbery of Bank's branch where she worked as a teller. After learning from Nawrocki that Bank would not lower her hours, Carr became extremely stressed and starting having more symptoms. Carr also testified that she still considered herself a Bank employee, and Bank does not dispute her status. Bank argues that Carr failed to prove she was entitled to front pay because Carr is, and considers herself to be, an employee of Bank, and there is no evidence that the reinstatement of Carr is not feasible.
Note:	[Unpublished] An employer failed to accommodate a bank teller's post-traumatic stress disorder pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	F051628
WCC Citation:	WCC 35162009 CA