Case Name:	Del Rio vs. Quality Hardware, Republic Indemnity		04/20/1993
Summary:	The reasons for the settlement included a dispute over injury AOE/COE and nature and extent of the employee's disability. The Summary of Evidence reflects that the employee, Jose Del Rio, testified that he complained about medical problems related to his employment in 1987 and 1989. On February 5, 1991, Jose Del Rio was examined by Neurologic Orthopedic Associates and a report of that examination was sent to the employee's attorney on February 12, 1991. Lien Claimants' Exhibit III-A is a letter dated February 26, 1991, from Quality Hardware returning the form letter with insurance information. Neither Neurologic Orthopedic Associates nor Bristol Diagnostics timely raised the issue of penalty and interest under Labor Code section 4622.
Note:	Employer not liable for medical-legal costs prior the filing of a claim form or notice or knowledge by the employer of the injury followed by a reasonable time to accept or deny the claim.
Citation:	58 CCC 147 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 30601993 CA

Case Name:	Del Taco v. WCAB		04/20/2000
Summary:	Facts and Procedural History Jorge Gutierrrez (worker) was employed at a Del Taco restaurant when he injured his lower back. A week later, Del Taco discovered that he was not legally in the United States and that he had provided Del Taco an invalid social security number. The parties stipulate that if worker had produced a valid social security number, Del Taco would have allowed him to continue his work in a modified capacity. Here, Del Taco provided modified work to worker and after he commenced the modified work, Del Taco terminated the employment because it discovered that he was not legally permitted to work in the United States. Nevertheless, the WCAB required Del Taco to provide worker vocational rehabilitation services, apparently in Mexico, because Del Taco was not legally able to provide modified work in the United States.
Note:	Worker gets TD but not voc. rehab. when can't work because he's illegal immigrant.
Citation:	79 Cal.App.4th 1437, 65 CCC 342
WCC Citation:	WCC 24582000 CA

Case Name:	Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc.		02/02/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).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 THREE .             LUZ ELENA DELGADILLO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             TELEVISION CENTER, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. .             B270985 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiffs Luz Elena Delgadillo, Christian Franco, and Valeria Franco (plaintiffs) are the surviving wife and children, respectively, of Salvador Franco (decedent). .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS .           EDMON, P. J. .           We concur: .           LAVIN, J.
Note:
Citation:	B270985
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC512758

Case Name:	Delgadillo v. United States Liability Ins. Co.		03/29/2017
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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             ELENA DELGADILLO ET AL. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. , Defendants and Respondents. .             A143452 .             (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG13681917) .             Plaintiffs Elena Delgadillo and Jesus Cortes appeal an order of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of defendant United States Liability Insurance Company (USLI) without leave to amend. .             Plaintiffs’ insurance policy (the policy) contained the following exclusions pertinent to this case: “d. .           We concur: .           _________________________ Reardon, J. , Acting P. J. .           _________________________ Streeter, J.   Lopez was also named as a defendant.
Note:
Citation:	A143452
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG13681917

Case Name:	Delgado v. PJH Brands		11/08/2011
Summary:	Brothers Juan and Luis Delgado, and Juan's wife Alma Delgado (collectively plaintiffs) sued PJH Brands (defendant or PJH) for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium for injuries that Juan and Luis sustained in a gas explosion at work. Quite the opposite: the parties stipulated that PJH was a customer of APP, and it was undisputed that PJH provided bookkeeping services to APP pursuant to contract. Mr. Land reasoned that the decision not to upgrade the tanks must have been made by PJH, because PJH paid APP's bills. APP's shipping and receiving manager, Margarita Siordia, testified that she considered PJH staff to be her "supervisors," because they caused PJH to issue purchase orders for APP to ship products to PJH. Plaintiff Juan Delgado (an employee of APP but not of PJH) testified that PJH employees instructed APP employees how to more efficiently fill PJH's purchase orders.
Note:	Insufficient evidence showed PJH owed plaintiffs a duty of care under any recognized principles of tort law, as alleged or otherwise.
Citation:	B227522
WCC Citation:	WCC 38232011 CA

Case Name:	Demetry v. Leeds		03/29/2013
Summary:	DEMETRY v. LEEDS TAMMY DEMETRY et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. REBECCA LEEDS, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Tammy Demetry, a clerk for the County of Orange, was taking a walk during her break when she was struck by a car driven by another County employee, Rebecca Leeds, as Leeds was exiting a driveway. On appeal, Demetry argues that Leeds failed to meet her burden of production in a manner warranting summary judgment. We disagree, finding that Leeds met her burden with relevant, admissible and undisputed evidence, while Demetry offered none on her own behalf. She crossed the driveway apron to the parking garage where Leeds was exiting, and Leeds struck Demetry with her car.
Note:	An Orange County clerical worker's negligence claim against a fellow county employee for striking her with a car was barred by exclusivity as a matter of law.
Citation:	G046951
WCC Citation:	WCC 39982013 CA

Case Name:	Demkowski v. Lee		08/30/1991
Summary:	LAWRENCE DEMKOWSKI, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOON KEUN LEE, Defendant and Appellant; CITY OF SAN JOSE, Claimant and Respondent. Statement of the Case Plaintiff Lawrence Demkowski filed an action against defendant Soon Keun Lee for personal injuries he suffered when her car collided with his. Demkowski's employer, the City of San Jose (City), filed a complaint in intervention against Lee to recover the workers' compensation benefits it had paid Demkowski as a result of the accident. After a trial, the jury found in favor of Demkowski and the City, awarding them $40,000 and $19,397. 21, respectively. In short, the instructions did not require the jury to segregate damages, and standing alone, they permit the jury to award Demkowski all of his damages and the City all of the benefits it paid to Demkowski, even though the combination of such awards would constitute a double recovery from Lee.
Note:	Jury verdict on civil subrogation case ambigous so judgment as to damages reversed.
Citation:	233 Cal.App.3d 1244
WCC Citation:	WCC 31511991 CA

Case Name:	Denny's Inc. vs. WCAB (BACHMAN)		01/17/2003
Summary:	In November 2001, the WCAB denied Denny's petition for reconsideration and adopted the WCJ's reasoning as its own. DISCUSSION Denny's contends the WCAB erred by dismissing CIGA as a party to the workers' compensation proceedings and requiring Denny's to pay the full amount of Bachman's disability award. The WCAB will hold the multiple employers or insurance carriers in the chain of causation jointly and severally liable for the entire award and allow them to apportion their relative liabilities in separate WCAB {Slip Opn. In summary, the WCAB concluded that Denny's and HIH America were jointly and severally liable for Bachman's disability award. The WCAB therefore properly dismissed CIGA as a party to the workers' compensation proceedings.
Note:	CIGA not liable for portion of CT where employer self-insured for other portion.
Citation:	104 Cal.App.4th1433
WCC Citation:	WCC 29072003 CA

Case Name:	Dept of Rehab vs. WCAB (Lauher)		06/26/2003
Summary:	William A. Herreras and Susan Silberman for California Applicants' Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent Ronald Lauher. The WCJ denied a petition for reconsideration, as did the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or the Board). The WCJ thereafter denied a petition for reconsideration; the WCAB, over one dissent, affirmed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the WCAB, finding Lauher had not met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of discrimination under section 132a. In this way, society supports the program as a[n] integral element of commerce and industry, rather than through tax-supported plans. "
Note:	No TD for time off for post P&S treatment; not discrimination if require use of sick/vacation time.
Citation:	30 Cal. 4th 1281
WCC Citation:	WCC 29402003 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. WCAB		09/10/2008
Summary:	After considering this history, the WCAB here concluded that section 4663(e) was in effect as of the effective date of section 4663. Petitioner, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department), contends that the WCAB erred and section 4663(e) applies only prospectively from the date of its enactment. On September 25, 2007, Judge Robinson recommended in writing that the WCAB deny the petition. On October 4, 2007, WCAB Presiding Judge Cuneo issued an order and decision denying reconsideration and incorporating Judge Robinson's report and recommendation. Section 3212. 2, which applies to custodial, supervisory, and security officers and employees of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of Youth Authority, and Atascadero State Hospital, covers heart trouble.
Note:	Section 4663(e), when enacted, declared existing law. Section 4663 was not intended to repeal the non-attribution presumptions of sections 3212 through 3213.2 and did not do so by implication.
Citation:	C057410
WCC Citation:	WCC 34182008 CA