Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Fruehauf Corp. v. WCAB | 07/13/1967 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | FRUEHAUF CORPORATION et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and THOMAS C. STANSBURY, Respondents. OPINION MOSK, J. Petitioners, Fruehauf Corporation and its insurance carrier, seek review of a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter board) awarding compensation to Thomas C. Stansbury, an employee who suffered an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of his employment by Fruehauf. Stansbury was employed by Fruehauf from July 21, 1962 to July 5, 1964, as an assembler. It persisted while he was at home and when he was in bed at night, as well as at work. He did not work for Fruehauf after July 2, 1964. | ||
| Note: | Statute of limitations begins on date of last exposure for cumulative injuries. | ||
| Citation: | 68 Cal.2d 569, 33 CCC 300 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 25301967 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Fuentes v. WCAB | 02/02/1976 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | JOHN FUENTES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, PACIFIC STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al. , Respondents In Bank. However, in 1971 the Legislature amended section 4658, establishing a different method for computing the number of weekly benefits to be awarded. From this figure is subtracted the dollar value (§ 6,422. 50) of the 24. 25 percent of the noncompensable, nonindustrial disability. [16 Cal. 3d 6] [1a] We have concluded that formula A is the proper one, and accordingly affirm the decision of the Board. As we have previously noted, the purpose of that statute is to encourage employers to hire physically handicapped persons. | ||
| Note: | 4658 is limited by 4750 only where employee had preexisiting disability. | ||
| Citation: | 16 Cal.3d 1, 41 CCC 42 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 25101976 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Fuller v. County of Los Angeles | 01/22/2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | FULLER v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DOUGLAS FULLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. PERLUSS, P. J. Douglas Fuller, a former firefighter trainee with the Los Angeles County Fire Department, appeals the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County of Los Angeles and County employees Dave Saran and Pitt Gilmore (collectively the County defendants) on Fuller's claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation and related torts. Under County Civil Service Rules, either termination was sufficient by itself to disqualify Fuller from employment with the County Fire Department. On March 17, 2007 the Board of Supervisors denied the claims on the merits, informing Fuller its investigation of the matter "fail[ed] to indicate any liability on the part of the County of Los Angeles. "Fuller's Lawsuit On April 25, 2007 Fuller filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court asserting claims for (1) violation of his federal civil rights (42 U. S. C. § 1983) (against County only); (2) interference with prospective economic advantage (against County and Saran); (3) retaliatory conduct in violation of Los Angeles County Code section 5. 02. 060 and Labor Code section 1102. 5 (against County, Saran and Gilmore); and intentional infliction of emotional distress (against County, Saran and Gilmore). | ||
| Note: | A California appellate court has rejected a former firefighter trainee's claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation and related torts based on the conduct of the fire department and its officials after he boiled his foot during a training exercise. | ||
| Citation: | B228815 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 39742013 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Furtado v. State Personnel Board | 01/07/2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | FURTADO v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD BRUCE FURTADO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Alvin Gittisriboongul for Defendants and Respondents California State Personnel Board and Suzanne Ambrose. INTRODUCTION Bruce Furtado appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate directing the California State Personnel Board (SPB) to set aside its order sustaining the decision of California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) to medically demote Furtado to a non-peace officer position, and not to place Furtado in a newly-created administrative correctional lieutenant peace officer position. The instructor who tested Furtado concluded that Furtado had failed multiple aspects of the test. The instructor gave Furtado an overall rating of "Fail," and noted that Furtado had "very little control over [the] baton when both hands [were] required. " | ||
| Note: | The 4th District Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to medically demote an injured guard to a non-peace officer position as a result of his physical limitations from an off-duty car accident. | ||
| Citation: | D059912 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 39712013 CA | ||
