Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library



 
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
 
73 Results Page 2 of 8