Case Name:	FRANCISCO GONZALEZ v. JOSE SOARES, as Trustee, etc., et al., unpublished		02/10/2021
Summary:	When a party completely fails to plead an affirmative defense in its answer, it is deemed to have waived the defense. insured Jose Soares dba Jose Soares Dairy, but did not insure the others listed. Jose, Teresa, and Avila met with the broker, and Jose and Teresa chose the coverage to buy. In this case, plaintiff was employed by Jose and Teresa, a married couple who owned and operated the dairy known as Jose Soares Dairy. The parties stipulated that Jose and Teresa were the sole trustees of the J&T Soares 2006 Trust, a revocable living trust.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation law barred a dairy worker’s claim for damages for injuries he sustained when his employer-provided home caught fire.
Citation:	NO. F077672
WCC Citation:	NO. F077672

Case Name:	Francisco Gonzalez vs Jose Soares		02/10/2021
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this action against “Jose Soares, individually and dba Joe D. Soares and Jose D. Soares Dairy; Teresa Soares; J&T Soares 2006 Trust;” and Does. By later amendment, he identified two of the Doe defendants as Jose D. Soares as trustee for the J&T Soares 2006 Trust and Teresa Soares as trustee for the J&T Soares 2006 Trust. The parties also stipulated that: As a result of his injuries, plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim against Jose Soares Dairy, Jose Soares dba Jose Soares Dairy, Teresa Soares, and Jose D. Soares Dairy; plaintiff’s injuries were sustained while he was in the course and scope of his employment with Jose and Teresa; the only policy of workers’ compensation insurance in effect at the time was a policy with Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith); and Zenith filed a notice of lien in this civil action, asserting a lien on any settlement or judgment in favor of plaintiff and against anyone other than Jose Soares dba Jose Soares Dairy. The first amended application for adjudication of claim named Jose Soares Dairy, Jose Soares, individually and dba Jose Soares Dairy, Teresa Soares, and Jose and Teresa Soares Dairy, as plaintiff’s employer; it identified Zenith as the insurer. insured Jose Soares dba Jose Soares Dairy, but did not insure the others listed.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation law barred a dairy worker’s claim for damages for injuries he sustained when his employer-provided home caught fire.
Citation:	F077672
WCC Citation:	F077672

Case Name:	Franczak v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.		05/24/1977
Summary:	JOSEF FRANCZAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Mosk, J. , with Tobriner, Acting C. J. , Sullivan, J. , and Lillie, J. , concurring. We conclude that under the plain language of section 5806 of the Labor Code, the court does have such jurisdiction. Each of the awards contained an order that it was to be paid 'with interest as provided by law. 'Although defendant paid plaintiffs an amount equal to the principal sum of each award, it failed to pay the interest thereon. Franczak was awarded $1,485 by the board on April 22, 1965, but defendant did not pay that sum until April 27, thereby incurring $1. 44 in interest payments.
Note:	Superior court had jurisdiction to enforce interest awarded by WCAB.
Citation:	19 Cal.3d 481, 42 CCC 422
WCC Citation:	WCC 26061977 CA

Case Name:	Frank D. Brown v. Desert Christian Center		03/17/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT F060139 March 17, 2011 FRANK D. BROWN, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. DESERT CHRISTIAN CENTER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OPINION In this personal injury case, defendant Desert Christian Center was successful in proving its affirmative defense that the injuries alleged by plaintiff Frank D. Brown were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the workers' compensation system. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court had jurisdiction to award costs under the particular circumstances of this case. The total amount of costs claimed in the memorandum was $7,909. 88, the majority of which consisted of deposition costs. The trial court agreed that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs and granted the motion to strike the memorandum of costs.
Note:	A trial court had jurisdiction to award a defendant employer $7,910 in costs it incurred while defending against an employee's civil suit.
Citation:	F060139
WCC Citation:	WCC 37302011 CA

Case Name:	Fred T. Hines v. New United Motors Mfg.		04/30/2001
Summary:	Fred T. Hines, Applicant v. New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. , Great American Risk Management, Defendants W. C. A. B. Nos. Such an award coupled with section 4600 entitles the injured worker to reasonable changes of treating physicians. BACKGROUND Applicant sustained industrial injury to his lower back while employed as a truck conveyer worker on August 18, 1998. On June 29, 2000, Dr. Bernfeld reported that applicant requested chiropractic care and evaluation for his work-related low back injury. The WCJ found that applicant was entitled to the further medical treatment recommended by his newly selected treating physician, Dr. Bernfeld.
Note:	If existing award for treatment, employee does NOT need to follow 4061/4062 for new physician.
Citation:	66 CCC 478 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28152001 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Comp Ins Co vs. Sierra Pine, Ltd.		08/04/2004
Summary:	FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SIERRA PINE, LTD. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Fremont paid Nesmith $125,000 in death benefits pursuant to a Board order, and is obligated for other amounts, such as burial expenses. Code, § 3503), was his actual dependent and would have been entitled to benefits even had they never been married. Because a subrogee stands in the shoes of the subrogor, they argued Fremont had no standing to sue to recoup the benefits. If for some reason he chose not to sue them, Fremont "likewise" could have sued defendants to recoup its payments.
Note:	Carrier has subrogation rights independent of work comp beneficiary.
Citation:	121 Cal. App. 4th 389
WCC Citation:	WCC 30182004 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		03/31/1980
Summary:	FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EMELDA ROCHA; and DOMESTIC LAUNDRY & CLEANING COMPANY, Respondents. OPINION: Petitioner Fremont Indemnity Company (Fremont) contends that respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) has erred in finding Fremont was the workers' compensation insurance carrier for respondent Domestic Laundry & Cleaning Company (Domestic) on March 1, 1977, when Domestic's employee, respondent Emelda Rocha, claims she sustained an industrial injury. Fremont avers the deposition of Henderson is important as therein Henderson testifies concerning the cancellation of Domestic's policy with Fremont. Fremont asserted (1) substantial evidence did not support the findings of coverage by Fremont on the date of injury, and (2) the WCJ failed to comply with Labor Code section 5313. Fremont asserts that the WCJ's report was not served upon Fremont or its counsel as required by WCAB Rules section 10860.
Note:	WCJ's failure to specify reasoning in decision deprives party of meaningful right to petition for recon.; WCJ's Notice of Intention was not sufficient for proper service.
Citation:	45 CCC 391
WCC Citation:	WCC 27361980 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		03/29/1984
Summary:	FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and HENRY H. ZEPEDA, Respondents. OPINION DANIELSON, J. Petitioner Fremont Indemnity Company petitions for review and annulment of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals [153 Cal. App. 3d 968] Board (Board) finding that the applicant sustained an injury to the right hip. Facts Applicant and respondent Henry H. Zepeda (applicant) filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging industrial injury to his back and right leg on March 18, 1976, against Service Greeting Card Company and its insurer Fremont Indemnity. Petitioner, insurance carrier Fremont Indemnity, contested injury to the right hip. Said reports . . . have been stricken due [153 Cal. App. 3d 969] to counsel for Fremont Indemnity Company's objection to the indicated communication and because the record was complete without them. '
Note:	Judge's two phone calls to independent medical examiner denied parties a fair trial.
Citation:	153 Cal.App.3d 965, 49 CCC 288
WCC Citation:	WCC 27971984 CA

Case Name:	French Valley Aviation, Inc. v. Superior Court of Riverside County		10/17/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO No. E046169 October 17, 2008 FRENCH VALLEY AVIATION, INC. , PETITIONER, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, RESPONDENT; AIR PETRO CORP. , REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. The opinion of the court was delivered by: McKINSTER Acting P. J. McKaye himself answered interrogatories indicating ATW was his employer, although in a deposition he stated that both entities were employers. The Supreme Court noted as an additional factor that the worker believed his employment relationship was with the maintenance company. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to set aside its order denying FVA's motion for summary judgment and to issue a new order granting the motion.
Note:	[Unpublished] Under Labor Code section 3864 real party in interest is barred from seeking contribution or indemnity from employer.
Citation:	E046169
WCC Citation:	WCC 34362008 CA

Case Name:	Fresno Unif. School Dist. v. WCAB		11/22/2000
Summary:	* ] FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DANIEL HUMPHREY, Respondents. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW Respondent Daniel Humphrey was employed as a custodian for petitioner Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) between September 15, 1982, and August 20, 1997. FUSD filed a timely petition for reconsideration with the WCAB on December 9, 1999. Although FUSD argues that all three apply in this instance, the WCJ and WCAB found that none do. (Dills v. Redwoods Assocs. , Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 888, 890, fn. 1. ) DISPOSITION The judgment (order) of the WCAB is affirmed.
Note:	Unrelated noncompensable injury means a disabling event which, had it been work-related, would be compensable under the worker's compensation laws; Apportionment requires pre-existing labor disability.
Citation:	84 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 65 CCC 1232
WCC Citation:	WCC 4042000 CA