Case Name:	Domino's Pizza v. WCAB		11/20/2006
Summary:	Filed 11/20/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DOMINO'S PIZZA; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DON KERR, Respondents. For good cause it now appears that the opinion should be published in the Official Reports and it is so ordered. **** IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DOMINO'S PIZZA et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DON KERR, Respondents. We conclude that Labor Code section 5501. 5, subdivision (c) mandates that venue be changed from San Luis Obispo County to Santa Barbara County. SCIF filed an informal petition to transfer venue to the Goleta district office, which is located in Santa Barbara County.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal certified its opinion dated Oct. 23, 2006, for publication.
Citation:	144 Cal. App. 4th 1316
WCC Citation:	WCC 31922006 CA

Case Name:	Donaldson vs. Nat'l Marine, Inc.		03/14/2005
Summary:	RICHARD DONALDSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATIONAL MARINE, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. COUNSEL Rushford & Bonotto, Phillip R. Bonotto, Brian M. Taylor, John P. Carty III and Carla L. Johansen for Defendant and Appellant. It defended on the theory that the cancer was unrelated to his exposure to asbestos, and resulted from his history of smoking. Defendant also theorized that even if exposure to asbestos was a factor in decedent's lung cancer, tobacco was a greater factor. VI, § 10), we see no fundamental jurisdictional impediment to allowing plaintiff to bring his Jones Act claim in California courts.
Note:	California courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Jones Act injured maritime worker claims.
Citation:	35 Cal.4th 503
WCC Citation:	WCC 30832005 CA

Case Name:	Dorman v. Dept. of Justice		10/23/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CHRISTINE DORMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Dorman and L. A. Impact's Chief Financial Officer Rea Pfeiffer worked together to identify benefits for civilian employees within L. A. Impact's budget, which Dorman negotiated with L. A. Impact Executive Director Jerry Hunter. Dorman Initiates Legal Action On August 29, 2006, Dorman filed a new complaint with the DFEH. The DOJ did not provide compensation to Dorman or L. A. Impact for any services that Dorman rendered in the dispatch office. The State of California Department of Justice is awarded its costs on appeal from plaintiff and appellant Christine Dorman.
Note:	[Unpublished] A simple pleading of personnel management activity is insufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged. If personnel management decisions are improperly motivated, the remedy is a suit against the employer for discrimination.
Citation:	B204217
WCC Citation:	WCC 34382008 CA

Case Name:	Doty Bros. Equipment Co. v. Palp, Inc.		09/20/2010
Summary:	Doty added Palp to its policy as an additional insured, but the policy had a $500,000 self insured retention (SIR). It subcontracted with Doty Bros. Equipment Co. for installation of Department of Water and Power underground conduit and vaults. (Palp v. Doty Brothers Equipment Co. (Super. Ct. L. A. County, 2007, No. EC045359 (case No. A subcontract was sent by Palp to Doty, but Doty made changes, notably to delete Palp's right to indemnification for its active negligence. Doty argues there was an enforceable contract which included the indemnification clause as modified by Doty.
Note:	A general contractor for a Los Angeles roadway improvement contract cannot recoup its settlement with a subcontractor's employee from the subcontractor, because the general contractor did not pursue a breach of contract claim against the subcontractor.
Citation:	B219706
WCC Citation:	WCC 36712010 CA

Case Name:	Douglas Ross Construction, Inc. v. Narver Insurance Agency		10/31/2011
Summary:	DOUGLAS ROSS CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. NARVER INSURANCE AGENCY DOUGLAS ROSS CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Cross-Complainant and Appellant, v. NARVER INSURANCE AGENCY, Cross-Defendant and Respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS PREMO, J. Douglas Ross Construction, Inc. (Ross) sued Narver Insurance Agency (Narver) for negligence on the theory that Narver failed to obtain liability insurance for Ross's subcontractor that covered Ross for construction-job injuries suffered by an employee of the subcontractor's subcontractor. Narver obtained from Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) a commercial general liability insurance policy for Northstate that named Ross as an additional insured. Thus, even supposing that Northstate told Narver that Ross was to be a third party beneficiary of the insurance policy, Narver complied with Northstate's request. Here, however, Ross had no contact with Northstate's insurance broker, Narver, and Narver did not know that the policy must have coverage against Northstate's subcontractors.
Note:	A general contractor has no cause of action against an insurance broker who sold one of its subcontractors a policy that did not cover a workplace injury to an employee of his subcontractor's subcontractor, the California 6th District Court of Appeals ruled.
Citation:	H036119
WCC Citation:	WCC 38182011 CA

Case Name:	Draper v. Aceto		11/01/2001
Summary:	PEGGY M. DRAPER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BYRON A. ACETO et al, Defendants and Respondents. FACTS On January 26, 1995, while driving a vehicle in the course and scope of her employment for the Compton Unified School District (CUSD), Peggy M. Draper (Draper) was injured in an automobile accident. To obtain further compensation for the same injury, Draper also brought a personal injury action in superior court against Byron A. Aceto and Ben Aceto (defendants), respectively the driver and owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident. Because the settlement amount was insufficient to fully reimburse CUSD, none of the settlement proceeds were payable to Draper. And because Draper received no benefit from the settlement, her attorney could not recover his fees from the settlement proceeds.
Note:	Subrogation: contingency fee attorney gets nothing if net result to client is zero.
Citation:	26 Cal.4th 1086, 66 CCC 1297
WCC Citation:	WCC 28242001 CA

Case Name:	Drasin & Assoc. v. WCAB		02/28/1992
Summary:	On June 13, 1984, based on stipulations of the parties, applicant was awarded $9,105 in retroactive temporary disability indemnity and applicant's counsel, Kessler & Drasin, was awarded a fee of $1,300. 71. Lawrence Drasin and other attorneys from Kessler & Drasin and its successor firms fn. The WCJ awarded attorney fees of $500 to Ms. Itatani and $3,500 to Mr. Drasin, payable from permanent disability indemnity. Mr. Drasin also argued that, even if the permanent disability indemnity were not increased on reconsideration, $10,000 in attorney fees would be appropriate. Kessler & Drasin became Drasin, Sparagna, Polan, Kessler & McNulty, and then Drasin, Sparagna, Polan & Sparagna. The firm later became Drasin & Polan and is now Lawrence Drasin & Associates.
Note:	WCAB should request counsel for info to determine fee if record lacks basis to value services.
Citation:	3 Cal.App.4th 1564, 57 CCC 142
WCC Citation:	WCC 26841992 CA

Case Name:	Draus v. WCAB		02/21/1995
Summary:	Peter Draus, Horizon Medical Group, Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Pasadena Scottish Rite Temple et al. , Respondents. He sustained an industrial hip injury on June 15, 1990, and medical treatment was provided by defendants. Applicant filed two workers' compensation claims, alleging both specific and cumulative orthopedic industrial injuries, as well as injury from work-related stress and strain. 'Prior to filing the claims, applicant became a patient at the Horizon Medical Group (Horizon), which provided evaluation in orthopedic and internal medicine. On June 17, 1991, defendants' orthopedic surgeon, Richard M. Siebold, M. D. , reported that applicant was permanent and stationary,' with certain work restrictions.
Note:	Lien claimant's failure to timely object to C&R clause settling lien does not waive right to hearing when clause is ambiguous.
Citation:	60 CCC 79
WCC Citation:	WCC 27511995 CA

Case Name:	DuBois v. WCAB		06/28/1993
Summary:	When Rohrer Trucking failed to make such payments, DuBois requested a supplemental hearing before the WCAB, seeking, pursuant to section 3716, subdivision (a), to collect from the UEF the award DuBois had received against Rohrer Trucking, and seeking, pursuant to section 5814, an additional amount in penalties for the unreasonable delay on the part of Rohrer Trucking in paying the benefits. On the same date, this stipulation was entered by a WCJ as an award in favor of DuBois against the UEF. At that proceeding, DuBois stated he had received no payments under the December 14, 1989, award, and a UEF representative stated that the UEF had been unable to determine whether payments to DuBois had been made. Thereafter, the Court of Appeal summarily denied DuBois's petition for a writ of review, and DuBois petitioned for our review. Subsequent enactments pertaining to the UEF add no support to the foregoing assertion by DuBois and amicus curiae.
Note:	UEF not liable for penalties from unreasonable delay in payment of award.
Citation:	5 Cal.4th 382, 58 CCC 286
WCC Citation:	WCC 24391993 CA

Case Name:	Duenas v. WCAB		08/19/2010
Summary:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) found Juan Jose Ayala was an employee of Guillermo Duenas, while performing landscaping work at Duenas's private residence. We find there was no dispute Ayala was hired by Duenas, and thus was presumptively an employee. After the work at the home sites was completed, Duenas then hired Ayala to work at Duenas's private residence in Chino Hills. Duenas testified that he did not pay Ayala for the work done at the job assignment at his residence in Chino Hills. The Board found Ayala was presumed to be an employee pursuant to section 3357, since he rendered service for Duenas.
Note:	A homeowner who hired a landscaper to replant some flower beds at his home was not an employer for workers' compensation purposes because there was no evidence the applicant had worked long enough to waive the statutory exclusion for casual labor.
Citation:	B215894
WCC Citation:	WCC 36582010 CA