Case Name:	Chan v. City & County of San Francisco		04/19/2011
Summary:	CHAN v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ALBERT LAP CHAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS LAMBDEN, J. Albert Lap Chan, plaintiff below, appeals from the trial court's grant of the motion for summary judgment brought by respondent, the City and County of San Francisco (City). Chan sued the City for sex discrimination and harassment under FEHA and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Heller said D. told her on September 18 that Chan was "a pervert," but would not elaborate, and told her on September 30 that Chan had touched her sexually. Also, Dere repeated her accusations about Chan to a San Francisco Police Inspector on September 30.
Note:	A former swimming instructor did not show that the City and County of San Francisco's reasons for terminating him were a pretext for sex-based discrimination, an appellate court ruled.
Citation:	A124330
WCC Citation:	WCC 37532011 CA

Case Name:	Chang v. WCAB		07/24/2007
Summary:	Filed 7/24/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COPY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT RACHEL CHANG, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Respondents. Marks for California Workers' Compensation Institute as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund. FACTS The applicant, Rachel Chang, while employed as a typist by respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund, sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury to her back and upper extremities during a period ending in July 2004. The schedule is based on new legislation that requires the use of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th ed. )for both the "descriptions and measurements" and the "percentages of impairments" as the basis for a disability award.
Note:	The 'liberality rule,' which is found in section 3202 and obligates the court to liberally construe the workers' compensation law in favor of the injured worker, 'cannot supplant the intent of the Legislature as expressed in a particular statute.' If the Legislature's intent appears from the language and context of the relevant statutory provisions, then [the court] must effectuate that intent, 'even though the particular statutory language 'is contrary to the basic policy of the [workers' compensation law].'
Citation:	153 Cal. App. 4th 750; 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 219, 72 CC
WCC Citation:	WCC 32392007 CA

Case Name:	Chavez v City of Los Angeles		01/14/2010
Summary:	Filed 1/14/10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT CHAVEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Los Angeles County Defendants and Respondents. (Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1467, 1474; Steele v. Jensen Instrument Co. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 326, 331. )In November 1989, defendant City of Los Angeles (City) hired plaintiff Robert Chavez as a police officer in the Los Angeles Police Department (Department). (Dorman v. DWLC Corp. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 1808, 1816-1817; Valentino v. Elliott Sav-On Gas, Inc. (1988) 201 Cal. App. 3d 692, 702; Greenberg v. Pacific Tel. Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): Lisa R. Jaskol S. Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 (213) 637-3851 Beth D. Orellana Deputy City Attorney North Main Street, 700 City Hall East Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 978-8291 ==========Footnotes========== .
Note:	Code of Civil Procedure section 1033(a) gives a trial court discretion to deny attorney fees to a plaintiff who prevails on a FEHA claim but recovers an amount that could have been recovered in a limited civil case.
Citation:	S162313
WCC Citation:	WCC 35902010 CA

Case Name:	Chavez v. City of LA		07/21/2008
Summary:	On February 13, 2004 Dr. Samuel Miles, the AME psychiatrist, issued his report and diagnosed Chavez with depression not otherwise specified. The judgment in favor of the City is reversed, as is the November 28 2006 order awarding the City its costs. Chavez and the City are each to bear his and its own costs on appeal. The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment in an unpublished memorandum of decision (see Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. The City insists Chavez admitted in his deposition the City's decision was the product of disability discrimination, not retaliation for his prior lawsuits.
Note:	[Unpublished] Chavez's discrimination claim fails in light of his concession that his disability, either actual or perceived, played no role in the city's employment actions.
Citation:	B196255
WCC Citation:	WCC 34012008 CA

Case Name:	Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (DCA opinion)		02/22/2008
Summary:	Filed 2/22/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ROBERT CHAVEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. BC324514) APPEAL from a post-judgment order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Chavez, a Los Angeles Police Department officer, sued his employer, the City of Los Angeles (City), and three supervisors for violation of FEHA. According to Chavez, the City made no offer to settle except to waive its costs in full satisfaction of Chavez's claims. The City urged the trial court to exercise its discretion to deny or at least substantially reduce Chavez's fee request.
Note:	The trial court erred by basing its denial of plaintiff's request for attorney fees upon Civil Code of Procedure Section 1033.
Citation:	BC324514
WCC Citation:	WCC 35372008 CA

Case Name:	Chavira v. WCAB		10/21/1991
Summary:	ERNEST CHAVIRA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. Facts Ernest Chavira, applicant, was employed by Johns-Manville Sales Corporation (Manville) from October 24, 1952, through May 23, 1958. Dr. Campisi concluded: 'There is a [235 Cal. App. 3d 467] mild restrictive ventilatory defect without evidence of air flow obstruction. Dr. Herman Schoen examined applicant on February 7, 1986, and obtained new chest X-rays and pulmonary function studies. Petitioner, Ernest Chavira, shall recover his appellate costs.
Note:	Asbestos claim not barred by SOL when he did not yet have disability.
Citation:	235 Cal.App.3d 463, 56 CCC 631
WCC Citation:	WCC 25351991 CA

Case Name:	Chevron, Inc. v. WCAB		01/25/1999
Summary:	On May 18, 1995, the Board issued an opinion and order denying reconsideration, and Chevron sought review in the Court of Appeal. Except in certain situations not applicable here, the death benefit is a dependent's exclusive remedy against the employer for the employee's work-related death. A total dependent relies on the now-deceased employee for substantially all of his or her support. (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 674, 677 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 825, 854 P. 2d 117]; ARCO, supra, 31 Cal. 3d at p. Chevron did not raise this argument prior to its briefing in this court and promptly abandoned it at oral argument.
Note:	No limitation on type of income for partial dependent's death benefits; for such benefits use date of injury not of death.
Citation:	19 Cal.4th 1182, 64 CCC 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 25761999 CA

Case Name:	Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		10/08/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR No. A127580 October 8, 2010 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER OAKLAND, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, RESPONDENT; SUZANNE MCKNIGHT, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Case No. SFO 0469788). INTRODUCTION Petitioner Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland (Hospital) has filed this writ petition seeking review of a discovery order made in a proceeding before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Although the Program is run by the Hospital, it is not a medical program and it provides no health care or medical treatment. "*fn4 By order dated May 19, 2007, the workers' compensation judge referred this discovery request to a special master.
Note:	The 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board discovery order against a children's hospital should be annulled, because the order sought information that could be used to identify its patients.
Citation:	A127580
WCC Citation:	WCC 36782010 CA

Case Name:	Chin v. Namvar		09/11/2008
Summary:	Namvar believed that Chin was trustful and would tell Namvar if his license was revoked. Namvar would not have hired Chin on the shopping center project if he knew that Chin was no longer a licensed contractor. At that time, Chin began providing painting services to Namvar on several projects and Namvar paid KPC Painting for that work. There was no dispute that Chin was a licensed painting contractor doing business as KPC Painting when he first began work for Namvar in 1996, and no dispute that Namvar, at the time he first hired Chin, discussed with Chin that the latter was licensed. Namvar would not have awarded Chin the contract to paint the shopping center if he knew that Chin was no longer licensed.
Note:	Under section 2750.5 the presumption of employee status can be rebutted only as to persons who hold a valid contractor's license; the presumption cannot be rebutted as to persons who do not hold a valid contractor's license.
Citation:	B198986
WCC Citation:	WCC 34192008 CA

Case Name:	Chmielewski v. Target Corp.		05/14/2008
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Pakamas Chmielewski (plaintiff) took an unpaid medical leave of absence from her job at defendant and respondent Target Corporation (Target). When plaintiff's medical leave exceeded 120 days, Target filled plaintiff's position with Mata on a permanent basis, as promised. Consequently, when Mitchell informed plaintiff on March 11, 2005, that she would be performing a level 1 position, plaintiff believed Target "demoted" her. Nevertheless, plaintiff did not fill out any "Target Promotional Opportunity Applications," the document Target used to consider existing employees for promotion to open positions. Soon thereafter, she claims that Target retaliated against her when it issued four disciplinary write-ups, the first disciplinary action taken against her in 17 years with Target.
Note:	[Unpublished] In light of Target's substantial evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, plaintiff's evidence of pretext was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning either discrimination or retaliation under the FEHA.
Citation:	B199456
WCC Citation:	WCC 33562008 CA