Case Name:	D'Angona v. County of LA		07/10/1980
Summary:	LINDA D'ANGONA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Mosk, J. , with Bird, C.J. , Tobriner, Clark, Richardson and Newman, JJ. , concurring. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the present action against Los Angeles County, seeking damages for the aggravation of her disease. After an award of benefits was made in her favor for disability arising from these injuries, she filed the present action in the superior court for damages against the county, fn. However, she served the complaint only upon the county, which is the sole respondent on this appeal. The county in its answer admitted it is engaged in operating the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center.
Note:	Hospital treating injured employee is not an employer; dual capacity exception to exclusive remedy applies.
Citation:	27 Cal.3d 661, 45 CCC 722
WCC Citation:	WCC 24191980 CA

Case Name:	Dalen v. WCAB		06/27/1972
Summary:	STEPHEN JOE DALEN, Petitioner, v.WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ALLSTATE EXCAVATORS AND DEMOLITION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Sims, J. , with Molinari, P.J. , and Elkington, J. , concurring. )He testified as to the duties generally of Group 1 occupations as follows: 'Laborer -- heavy -- unskilled in any particular ' In an opinion attached to his findings and award, the referee stated, 'Applicant's testimony supports the finding of occupation. Permanent disability indemnity is awarded in accordance with the recommended permanent disability rating filed and served herein. 'In a report dated January 2, 1969, Dr.Hurley observed, 'At the present time, I feel that it would be well to have Mr.Dalen register in a school for rehabilitation.
Note:	4651.2 applies only to rehab programs initiated by employer or ins. carrier
Citation:	26 Cal.App.3d 497, 37 CCC 393
WCC Citation:	WCC 24821972 CA

Case Name:	Daniel Ordorica v. WCAB		03/14/2001
Summary:	DANIEL ORDORICA, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LANCE CAMPERS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondents. OPINION ORTEGA, J. - During the initial 30-day period of medical control by the employer following an industrial injury, Daniel Ordorica refused care by the employer's doctor and instead began treatment with a physician he chose. Ordorica further contends the relief afforded by the WCAB is not provided by statute. The same day Lance Campers referred Ordorica to Daniel Mongiano, M. D. , who diagnosed a wound to the forehead which required sutures. However, Dr.Ha'Eri concluded the compression fracture was not work-related because Ordorica had instead hyperextended his spine in the industrial injury.
Note:	Obligation to accept employer treatment w/in 30 days of injury.
Citation:	87 CA 4th 1037, 66 CCC 333
WCC Citation:	WCC 28112001 CA

Case Name:	Daniel v. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co.		03/28/2011
Summary:	MICHELE DANIEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS BOREN, P. J.Michele Daniel (Employee) appeals from the summary judgment entered following the grant of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication by Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Employer). Thus, I would affirm the trial court's order awarding summary judgment to defendant and respondent Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro). On or about March 27, 2009, Tesoro filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of issues. She claims that she was qualified for numerous other positions at Tesoro, but Tesoro refused to even allow her to interview for them.
Note:	A worker's Fair Employment and Housing Act suit should go to trial because triable issues of fact existed about whether the employer ever actually sought to accommodate the plaintiff's work-related disability.
Citation:	B218935
WCC Citation:	WCC 37382011 CA

Case Name:	David Lopez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Yellow Roadway)		11/20/2008
Summary:	Lopez v.Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No.F056266 (Cal. App.Dist. 5 11/20/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No.F056266 November 20, 2008 DAVID LOPEZ, PETITIONER, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, YELLOW ROADWAY CORPORATION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. No appearance by Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115.OPINION THE COURT*fn1 David Lopez petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). BACKGROUND Lopez worked as a truck driver for Yellow Roadway between May 1989 and August 2004, during which time he filed three different workers' compensation claims.
Note:	A truck driver who filed three workers' compensation claims alleging specific and cumulative injuries to various body parts failed to disprove a workers' compensation judge's decision that he had hurt himself not at work, but after a night of beer drinking.
Citation:	F056266
WCC Citation:	WCC 34632008 CA

Case Name:	David Maxwell v. Home Depot USA		12/22/2010
Summary:	David Maxwell (Maxwell) tested positive for methamphetamine and was terminated from his job at Home Depot USA, Inc.(Home Depot). In 2000, Home Depot hired Maxwell to work with the night crew in its store in Monrovia. Home Depot terminated Maxwell because of his physical disability and his requests for medical leave and accommodation. Regardless, Home Depot argued that Maxwell could not prevail because he could not prove that Lipich unlawfully harassed him. Maxwell alleged that Home Depot and Lipich "engaged in outrageous conduct and an abuse of authority by subjecting [Maxwell] to illegal discrimination, harassment and retaliation. "
Note:	Home Depot defeated a former employee's suit alleging disability discrimination and other causes of action by showing that it terminated him for violating its longstanding drug policy, according to a decision from the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	B222844
WCC Citation:	WCC 36952010 CA

Case Name:	Davis v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners		04/12/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) PAUL JEFFREY DAVIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, Defendant and Respondent. Ct.No.07CS00697) The Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) spent over $72,000 in its disciplinary proceedings against Dr.Paul Davis, a 20-year veteran chiropractor in both neurology and orthopedics, for his treatment and billing of a single patient who suffered two industrial accidents at two places of employment with different insurers. Dr.Davis and his wife both testified that he had very little to do with the billing practices in his chiropractic offices. Unlike Dr.Davis and his expert, Michael Martello, D. C. , Dr.Stahl is not a chiropractic orthopedist or a qualified medical examiner (QME). Dr.Martello testified the Board had not codified any standard of care for the treatment of chiropractic patients in California.
Note:	Board Regulation section 318 is not a safe harbor provision exonerating plaintiff for his negligent acts, and the prohibition for 'excessive treatment' is not unconstitutionally vague.
Citation:	C059588
WCC Citation:	WCC 36142010 CA

Case Name:	Davis v. Fireman's Fund Insur. Co.		10/15/1970
Summary:	COUNSEL: For applicant - James H.Davis, in propria persona. Defendant insurance carrier contends that the permanent disability rating is based upon an arbitrary, artificial rule rather than upon the evidence. In the absence of this established procedure, he probably would have rated the disability in this case as 1 per cent flat. 'A rating specialist 'must consider no more and no less than the information provided to him by the fact finder. 'AWARD SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD IS MADE in favor of James H.Davis against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company of: (a) All repair and replacement of heel lifts reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury herein.
Note:	Award of 1% permanent partial disability was not 'nominal' per Sec. 5802.
Citation:	35 CCC 465
WCC Citation:	WCC 26351970 CA

Case Name:	Davis v. First Health Group Corp.		11/25/2009
Summary:	H032183 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No.M84885) Defendant First Health Group Corporation is a preferred provider organization (PPO) and provides health benefits services to employers throughout the country. Davis brought suit against First Health nearly six months later, claiming, among other things, that First Health was required to give him a fair hearing and fair procedure before it delisted him. In the application, Davis sought a TRO "restraining [First Health] from failing to allow [Davis] to continue as a preferred provider on its Provider Group Network unless and until such time as it has conducted a fair hearing or other fair adjudicatory proceeding . Adamson also stated that First Health had received Davis's summaries "and various QME providers' reports," which had been reviewed by an unnamed Medical Director of First Health, who recommended delisting Davis. According to supplemental materials supplied by Davis in support of his application,*fn3 First Health is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coventry Health Care.
Note:	[Unpublished] The court did not abuse its discretion by denying a requested mandatory preliminary injunction because this did not represent an extreme case in which claimant's right to the relief was clearly established.
Citation:	H032183
WCC Citation:	WCC 35822009 CA

Case Name:	Davis v. WCAB (City of Modesto)		03/10/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             THEODORE DAVIS, Petitioner, .             v..             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF MODESTO, Respondents. .             F074957 .             (WCAB Nos. ADJ9468922 & ADJ9467074) .             OPINION .             THE COURT* .             * Before Levy, A. P. J. , Franson, J. , and Peña, J. .           Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton & Helphrey, Eric G.Helphrey and Joseph F.Schneider for Respondent City of Modesto. .           -ooOoo- .           Theodore Davis (Davis) petitions for a writ of review from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
Note:
Citation:	F074957
WCC Citation:	WCAB Nos. ADJ9468922 & ADJ9467074

Case Name:	Davis v. WCAB and Allied Security, et al., and Torres v. WCAB and Williams Tank Lines et al.		11/30/2006
Summary:	H029544 (W. C. A. B.No.SJ0236711) MOISES TORRES, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WILLIAMS TANK LINES et al. , Respondents. Davis had suffered a prior work-related injury for which she received an award for permanent partial disability of 35 percent. The question before us, therefore, is whether these changes demonstrate that the Legislature clearly intended to alter the Fuentes rule. DISPOSITION In case No.H029544 (Davis v.WCAB et al. ), the order of the WCAB denying reconsideration is affirmed. In case No.H029834 (Torres v.WCAB et al. ), the order of the WCAB denying reconsideration is affirmed.
Note:	When an employee's overall permanent disability is subject to apportionment for a preexisting disability the calculation of compensation is to be made by subtracting the preexisting percentage of permanent disability from the overall percentage of permanent disability.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 324
WCC Citation:	WCC 31972006 CA

Case Name:	Davis vs. Interim Healthcare		09/15/2000
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARY DAVIS Applicant, vs.INTERIM HEALTHCARE, ITT SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC. ; WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendants. Both injuries were sustained while applicant was employed as a nurse by Interim Healthcare, insured by ITT Specialty Risk Services from October 8, 1996 to September 26, 1997, and by Wausau Insurance Company from September , 1997 to October 8, 1997. Dr.Hunt also concluded that applicant was in need of further medical treatment, and that she was a candidate for vocational rehabilitation. There was no indication that Dr.Hunt changed any of the conclusions reached in his March 23, 1999 report. Dr.Wertheimer submitted a final report dated October 8, 1999, after viewing a sub rosa videotape of the applicant.
Note:	4062.9 presumption may be raised at trial for first time, but not on reconsideration.
Citation:	65 CCC 1039
WCC Citation:	WCC 29042000 CA

Case Name:	De La Cerda v. Intermountain Slurry Seal		11/14/2011
Summary:	Plaintiff Juan De La Cerda worked for defendant Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc.(ISS) as a driver and laborer on a seasonal basis. ISS did not rehire De La Cerda in 2007; it claimed it could no longer accommodate his disability and could not afford to have extra labor present to assist De La Cerda with lifting. Olsen declared that after De La Cerda's accident, De La Cerda performed "light duty" work for ISS. ISS provided an assistant to help De La Cerda with lifting and De La Cerda performed other light work such as posting notifications on homes, driving, and training. The court noted De La Cerda had failed to provide evidence of how ISS could furnish sufficient accommodations such that it would enable De La Cerda to perform his former job.
Note:	An employer won summary judgment against a worker's disability discrimination and failure to accommodate suit because he was unable to show a reasonable accommodation existed.
Citation:	C066086
WCC Citation:	WCC 38252011 CA

Case Name:	de la Huerta v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.		10/18/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             PAZ DE LA HUERTA, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v..             LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B271844 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Fox Rothschild, David Aronoff and Rom Bar-Nissim for Defendants and Respondents. .             Actress Paz de la Huerta appeals from the order partially granting an anti-SLAPP motion as to claims based on the use of a voice double. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS .           EPSTEIN, P.J.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that her breach-of-contract action against Lions Gate Entertainment had been properly dismissed as a strategic lawsuit against public participation and because her workers’ compensation remedy was her exclusive recourse for her physical injuries.
Citation:	B271844
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC124294

Case Name:	De Los Reyes v. Hanley		05/25/2012
Summary:	DE LOS REYES v.HANLEY ALEXANDER A. DE LOS REYES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.KEVIN F.HANLEY, Defendant and Respondent. De Los Reyes sued defendant Kevin F.Hanley, M. D. , alleging that defendant filed a false medical report in connection with plaintiff's application for workers' compensation benefits. On appeal, plaintiff has failed to show that he has stated a viable cause of action. The complaint purported to state causes of action against defendant for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
Note:	An injured California worker could not assert a civil action against the qualified medical examiner who allegedly prepared a false report in connection with the worker's claim for benefits.
Citation:	C066453
WCC Citation:	WCC 38992012 CA

Case Name:	De Santiago v. D and G Plumbing, Inc.		09/19/2007
Summary:	Lee, Bazzo, & Nishi, Ted M.Lee and Allison M.Hunt for Defendant and Respondent D and G Plumbing. Facts Plaintiff Joaquin De Santiago suffered a work-related injury when a coemployee, defendant Daniel Flores, discharged a nail gun and struck De Santiago in his left eye. On February 2, 2001, De Santiago filed a personal injury complaint against Flores and his employer, D and G Plumbing (D&G). The register of actions states that on August 8, 2005, the trial court vacated the August 8, 2005, trial date. The trial court replied: "You're not going to see a date until July of next year at the best. "
Note:	Where there is a possibility that the case could have been brought to trial before the expiration of the five-year mark, despite continuances, the continuances themselves do not result in impracticability. The court must look at whether the moving party exercised due diligence in getting its case in front of a judge.
Citation:	155 Cal. App. 4th 365; 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 882
WCC Citation:	WCC 32562007 CA

Case Name:	DeCelle v. City of Alameda		11/22/1960
Summary:	ROBERT E.DeCELLE, Respondent, v.CITY OF ALAMEDA et al. , Appellants. COUNSEL Frank Annibale, City Attorney, and Ralph Reisner, Assistant City Attorney, for Appellants. * Robert E.DeCelle petitioned for alternative and peremptory writs of mandate directing the city of Alameda to pay him a disability pension pursuant to its Ordinance No.1079 New Series. Judgment was for petitioner, and from that judgment and the peremptory writ of mandamus entered in accordance therewith, the city of Alameda now appeals. The petition further alleges that by reason of said injury petitioner was permanently disabled from performing his duties as a member of said fire department of the city of Alameda.
Note:	Disability in this section is not as to earning power only, but efficiency in ordinary pursuits of life.
Citation:	186 Cal.App.2d 574, 25 CCC 247
WCC Citation:	WCC 25321960 CA

Case Name:	DeCunha v. IAC		12/14/1964
Summary:	Josephine DeCunha sustained an industrial injury to her leg in May, 1959. The insurance policy specifically excluded sisters-in-law of the employer from coverage. The carrier voluntarily furnished temporary disability benefits and medical treatment for four years. The issue of coverage was not raised in the answer to the application nor the pretrial conference. You are counseled to consult the full case for an accurate citation.
Note:	Voluntary provision of benefits does not estop carrier from denying coverage on relative exclusion.
Citation:	29 CCC 272
WCC Citation:	WCC 3861964 CA

Case Name:	Dedekian v. Central Unified School Dist.		10/24/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULINE DEDEKIAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.CENTRAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- Defendant Central Unified School District (CUSD) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Pauline Dedekian (Dedekian) after a court trial on her claim that CUSD violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq. In March 1999, Dedekian became interim principal of Central High School West (Central West). Dedekian became the permanent principal of Central West for the 1999-2000 school year, and continued in that position for the 2000-2001 school year. Powell told Dedekian that "half of [her] school" had been "coming in droves" to complain about her and she created the low morale at the school.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the issue of the appellant's obligation to engage in the interactive process is primarily a factual one, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.
Citation:	F050381 & F050977
WCC Citation:	WCC 32702007 CA

Case Name:	DeFrates v. Clark		11/08/2011
Summary:	DeFrates argues that the trial court erred when it found that Clark was not personally liable for DeFrates' on-the-job injuries, because Clark's actions as the hirer of DeFrates's employer, R. G.Clark Construction, Inc. , did not affirmatively contribute to DeFrates's injuries. He contends that Clark is personally responsible for his (DeFrates's) injuries because Clark, in his capacity as the person who hired DeFrates's employer, R. G.Clark Construction, supplied defective safety equipment to the jobsite. In addition, DeFrates describes Clark as not only the owner of the property, but also as the "representative of the employer R. G.Clark Construction. "DeFrates's catalogue of various activities Clark engaged in on the property does not establish that when Clark gave DeFrates safety instructions he did so as an individual, rather than as DeFrates's employer. Thus, even assuming that Clark gave DeFrates safety instructions in his capacity as the hirer of R. G.Clark Construction, Inc. , he was not liable for DeFrates's injuries because there was no affirmative contribution.
Note:	A construction foreman's sole remedy for his roof injury was workers' compensation.
Citation:	A131222
WCC Citation:	WCC 38222011 CA