Case Name:	Ford Construction Co. v. WCAB (Newell)		09/17/2010
Summary:	While he attempted to place a large ripper shank into the tool pocket of a Caterpillar bulldozer, the ripper shank fell, killing Dennis Newell, an employee of petitioner Ford Construction Company, Inc. (Ford). Ford filed a petition for reconsideration with respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), which the WCAB denied. Nelson concluded Ford violated Safety Order 4999, subdivision (b)(1) because the load was not attached by an effective means and properly rigged. The administrative law judge dismissed the citations against Ford for the serious violations, finding them unsupported by the evidence. In the present case, the WCAB reviewed the evidence and concluded it supported a finding of serious and willful misconduct by Ford.
Note:	Substantial evidence showed that an employer did not commit serious and willful misconduct that resulted in a worker's death, the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	C061176
WCC Citation:	WCC 36702010 CA

Case Name:	Ford v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory		01/27/1997
Summary:	Charles Ford, Applicant v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Defendant. W. C. A. B. No. WCK 13904 Workers Compensation Appeals Board CCC 153 January 27, 1997 DISPOSITION: The Findings and Award dated May 3, 1996 are amended, in part, and affirmed, in part. Thereafter, defendant attempted to schedule a medical examination by another orthopedist, under purported authority of Labor Code section 4050. She therefore 'interpret[ed] applicant's filing of the application as being done constructively on the part of the defendant. 'The Board decision left open the possibility that further evaluation might be proper under Labor Code section 5703. 5(a). AMENDED AWARD AWARD IS MADE in favor of CHARLES FORD against LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORY as follows: (a) Permanent disability indemnity in accordance with Finding of Fact number 5, less attorney's fees in accordance with Finding of Fact number 9, (b) Future medical treatment in accordance with Finding of Fact number 6, (c) Increased compensation (10% penalty) in accordance with Finding of Fact number 7.
Note:	No 'constructive' filing of applic. for adjudication by employee for employer liability for atty. fees.
Citation:	62 CCC 153
WCC Citation:	WCC 25641997 CA

Case Name:	Ford v. WCAB (Hernandez)		10/06/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             PEARSON FORD et al. , Petitioners, .             v. .             WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; .             LEOPOLDO HERNANDEZ, Real Party in Interest. .             D070915 .             (WCAB No. ADJ4081602) .             Petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Code, § 5952; Garza v. WCAB (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 312, 317; LeVesque v. WCAB (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 627, 637. ).           The WCJ's determination Hernandez met the second requirement is also vigorously disputed by Pearson Ford. .           As the WCAB points out the AMA Guides are not meant to be a "rigid and standardized protocol .
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a worker convicted of comp fraud was still entitled to collect benefits for a legitimate injury.
Citation:	D070915
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ4081602

Case Name:	Fortich v. WCAB		09/09/1991
Summary:	JOSEPH FORTICH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, KTLA GOLDEN WEST BROADCASTING et al. , Respondents. At the time of the injury, KTLA was insured by respondent Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau). Wausau orally moved for dismissal, and the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) denied Wausau's motion without prejudice. Judge of the Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. The Board later understood this language to mean: 'Sixty days was given to defendant to file a Petition for Dismissal. '
Note:	Lack of notice of intention to order dismissal deprives applicant of due process.
Citation:	233 Cal.App.3d 1449, 56 CCC 537
WCC Citation:	WCC 27201991 CA

Case Name:	Forzetting v. WCAB		06/18/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DOUGLAS FORZETTING, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, OCEANO ICE COMPANY et al. , Respondents. While working as a forklift operator for Oceano Ice Company, Douglas Forzetting industrially injured his back on November 19, 1999, and again on January 27, 2000. Forzetting petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that these PD ratings should have been combined (merged) under Wilkinson v. Workers' Comp. In this case, Forzetting would receive $55,330 if his awards remained separate, but $98,095 if the awards were combined. Forzetting contends that the decisions in Brodie and Benson are unconstitutional because SB 899 did not explicitly repudiate Wilkinson.
Note:	[Unpublished] Each injury must be separately apportioned for cause under sections 4663 and 4664, and PD awards may not be combined.
Citation:	B209323
WCC Citation:	WCC 35352009 CA

Case Name:	Foster v. WCAB		04/17/2008
Summary:	A workers' compensation judge (WCJ) concluded Foster was entitled to two periods of temporary disability indemnity under section 4656(c)(1) for his injuries. The WCAB agreed that Foster was entitled to two periods of temporary disability, but disagreed that the periods should run consecutively. In subsequent workers' compensation proceedings, the WCJ determined that Foster was entitled to two periods of temporary disability benefits. According to the WCAB, the WCJ properly concluded Foster was entitled to two periods of temporary disability indemnity pursuant to section 4656(c)(1) because he suffered two injuries. The WCAB also agreed with the WCJ that Foster could not receive temporary disability indemnity concurrently for both injuries "in the sense that [Foster] cannot collect double benefits. "
Note:	Where independent injuries result in concurrent periods of temporary disability, the 104-week / two-year limitation likewise runs concurrently.
Citation:	C056820
WCC Citation:	WCC 33452008 CA

Case Name:	Fotheringham v. Avery Denison Corp.		02/13/2013
Summary:	FOTHERINGHAM v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION SILVANA FOTHERINGHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The litigation between Fotheringham and Avery Dennison has consumed more than a decade. FOTHERINGHAM v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION SILVANA FOTHERINGHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. FOTHERINGHAM v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION SILVANA FOTHERINGHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. FOTHERINGHAM v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION SILVANA FOTHERINGHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.
Note:	A worker whose disability discrimination allegations against her former employer spawned litigation lasting more than a decade has lost her challenge to the attorney fee and cost award she received for prevailing at the second of the two trials on her claims.
Citation:	B238282
WCC Citation:	WCC 39862013 CA

Case Name:	Fotheringham v. Avery Dennison		03/19/2008
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Pre-Litigation Background Silvana Fotheringham was a representative in Avery Dennison's Consumer Call Service Center, where she answered consumer inquiries about Avery Dennison products. Breakdown of the Interactive Process Avery Dennison contends that Fotheringham caused the breakdown in the interactive process because after her attorney wrote the November 27 letter to Avery Dennison, Avery Dennison "offered to sit down and discuss the issues with [counsel]," but "nothing else happened. "What Avery Dennison neglects to mention is that its letter offering to discuss the employment issues came after Avery Dennison had told Fotheringham that she no longer had a job. Whether in 1999 Avery Dennison tried to mislead the DFEH with the date on a job analysis, if this is what Fotheringham could prove, is not relevant to whether Avery Dennison properly accommodated Fotheringham's disability. Fotheringham also contends that because Avery Dennison's insurer made the workers' compensation payments and there was no evidence that the insurer had assigned collection rights to Avery Dennison, Avery Dennison was not entitled to the offset for the workers' compensation settlement.
Note:	[Unpublished] It was up to Fotheringham to demonstrate that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether Avery Dennison terminated her employment in retaliation for engaging an attorney to represent her and seek accommodations. Fotheringham met that burden. She produced evidence that Avery Dennison fired her the day after it received her attorney's letter requesting accommodations.
Citation:	B187949
WCC Citation:	WCC 33282008 CA

Case Name:	Fotheringham v. Avery Dennison Corporation		03/22/2011
Summary:	FOTHERINGHAM v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION SILVANA FOTHERINGHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ZELON, J. Silvana Fotheringham sued her former employer, Avery Dennison Corporation, and a jury found that Avery Dennison failed to accommodate her disability. "Silvana Fotheringham was a representative in Avery Dennison's Consumer Call Service Center, where she answered consumer inquiries about Avery Dennison products. Whether in 1999 Avery Dennison tried to mislead the DFEH with the date on a job analysis, if this is what Fotheringham could prove, is not relevant to whether Avery Dennison properly accommodated Fotheringham's disability. A review of the opposition papers filed by Avery Dennison demonstrates that Avery Dennison raised numerous arguments concerning the reasonableness of the fees requested by Fotheringham.
Note:	A plaintiff worker who proved that her employer failed to accommodate her disability, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, is entitled to more than $474,000 in attorney fees and costs in addition to her $54,000 damages award.
Citation:	B217757
WCC Citation:	WCC 37362011 CA

Case Name:	Francies v. Kapla		03/30/2005
Summary:	Francies was diagnosed as HIV positive shortly after Kapla became his primary care physician in 1993. Kapla testified that although he continued to treat Francies for two months after the disclosure and knew that Francies was upset that his employer had learned of his HIV status, Kapla did not know that the report had been faxed to the restaurant until after Francies filed this lawsuit. Kapla contends Francies is precluded from asserting a cause of action based on the first report because the report is a privileged communication under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). Kapla contends Francies did not meet his burden of proof because "(1) neither Dr. Kapla nor Janet Blair intentionally disclosed that Francies was HIV-positive; (2) there was no egregious breach of social norms; (3) there was no public disclosure of private facts; (4) Francies consented to the disclosure; and (5) Francies did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. "*fn10 Kapla points out correctly that Francies did not raise his other arguments concerning the calculation of recoverable damages in the trial court.
Note:	Filing of work comp claim does not amount to consent to disclosure of HIV status.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 1381
WCC Citation:	WCC 30882005 CA