Case Name:	Gaiera v. WCAB		03/28/1969
Summary:	EMILIO GAIERA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ROSALIE GAIERA et al. , Respondents. We have concluded that when the appeals board denies a petition for reconsideration, its order may incorporate and include therein the report of the referee. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753 [68 Cal. Rptr. 825, 441 P. 2d 633], wherein the appeals board issued its order granting reconsideration. Dr. Gaiera, the son of petitioner, stated that petitioner's 'major complaint is irremediable. '[4] The referee's instructions to the Permanent Disability Rating Bureau are, in effect, findings of fact on these issues.
Note:	Selection of factors for disability rating and percentage are sole discretion of WCAB.
Citation:	271 Cal.App.2d 246, 34 CCC 182
WCC Citation:	WCC 25381969 CA

Case Name:	Gallamore v. WCAB		03/26/1979
Summary:	JIM D. GALLAMORE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAN RAMON GLASS COMPANY et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Richardson, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Carrier did not inform applicant of his right to reimbursement for any transportation expenses related to necessary medical examinations. Applicant's attorney advised carrier in late August 1976 that such payments should be made "to avoid the possibility of a penalty. "Thus, as of September 1976, applicant had sought three separate 10 percent penalties pursuant to the two petitions then pending before the board. The question of delay and the reasonableness of the cause therefor shall be determined by the appeals board in accordance with the facts.
Note:	Multiple penalties proper for multiple delinquencies in benefits.
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 815
WCC Citation:	WCC 28731979 CA

Case Name:	Gallo v. WCAB		10/31/2007
Summary:	The WCJ admittedly declined to consider new medical evidence proffered by Gallo at trial after discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference and concluded Gallo did not sustain any additional industrial injuries. Gallo petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration on April 19, 2007, primarily contending the WCJ refused to consider his medical evidence. The WCAB's order indicates the WCAB served Gallo by mail at his current post office box. On May 29, 2007, Gallo wrote a "To Whom it May Concern" letter to the WCAB stating he "received a letter of order denying reconsideration. "There is no indication Gallo petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration on the supplemental award.
Note:	[Unpublished] When a party fails to seek review within the time allotted, both the WCAB and the court is without jurisdiction to hear future challenges to the decision.
Citation:	F053819
WCC Citation:	WCC 32752007 CA

Case Name:	Galloway v. WCAB		05/05/1998
Summary:	Galloway selected Dr. John Kayvanfar as the qualified medical examiner to examine him and evaluate his status following the surgery. Insurer objected to the preliminary rating report in that Galloway had made no claim for a neck injury. As a result, a rating was made by the disability evaluation unit, a copy of which was sent to Galloway. On March 29 and April 1, 1993, Galloway, who was not represented by counsel, telephoned Insurer to discuss his status. In reversing that decision, the WCAB found that Galloway knew or should have known by at least April 1, 1993, making the claim untimely.
Note:	Failure to notify applicant of time limits for filing injury comp. claim tolled statute of limitations.
Citation:	63 Cal.App.4th 880, 63 CCC 532
WCC Citation:	WCC 3751998 CA

Case Name:	Galt v. WCAB		09/21/2007
Summary:	Filed 9/21/07 City of Galt v. WCAB (Ramos) CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) CITY OF GALT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CONCEPCION RAMOS, Respondents. As we will explain, we agree with petitioner City of Galt (the city) that the WCJ used the wrong schedule. While that petition was pending, the WCAB (sitting en banc) decided Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 95. The three dissenting members of the WCAB concluded that the "plain language" of sections 4061 and 4660(d) required a different result.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because a medical report submitted by the plaintiff did not contain an indication of permanent disability, the 2005 schedule applies.
Citation:	C055118, SAC327100
WCC Citation:	WCC 32602007 CA

Case Name:	Galvan v. WCAB		12/20/1990
Summary:	Marcus Galvan, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, and Ford Motor Company, Respondents. Accordingly, we will annul respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision in this case. Facts and Procedural History Petitioner Marcus Galvan (employee) was employed as a paint mixer by respondent Ford Motor Company (Ford) when the plant closed on July 15, 1983. 1990) 569 A. 2d 697; Dugan v. W. C. A. B. (Fuller Co. ) (Pa. Comwlth. We agree with the board's assessment that MacDonald is distinguishable from the case at bar based on this factual finding. These factual findings will determine whether employee became entitled to receive temporary disability indemnity after his decision to retire.
Note:	Receiving voluntary retirement benefits does not terminate right to disability indemnity.
Citation:	55 CCC 483
WCC Citation:	WCC 24871990 CA

Case Name:	Galvao v. WCAB		12/19/2008
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Petitioner Lavender Galvao (Galvao) petitions for review of an order by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board). Galvao did not return to work at Kinko's, but began working at a less physically-demanding job for a different employer. Specifically, Zurich did not send Galvao a Notice of Potential Eligibility (NOPE) for vocational rehabilitation, did not provide an appropriate written offer of modified work, and did not send Galvao a denial of vocational rehabilitation services. Zurich concludes that allowing Galvao to receive both VRMA and her wages would result in a windfall to Galvao. Galvao should not be penalized for obtaining work to support her family, nor should Zurich be rewarded for its delays in providing services to Galvao.
Note:	Employers are not entitled to credit against vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits for wages earned by an employee because VRMA benefits are not wage replacement benefits.
Citation:	A122284
WCC Citation:	WCC 34712008 CA

Case Name:	Gamble v. WCAB		09/21/2006
Summary:	We agree with Gamble and conclude the Board's finding is unsupported by the statutory or case law. He noted, there was unrebutted trial testimony Gamble and his family were dependent on his two incomes, and concluded Gamble should not be penalized for his continuing work in a much less physically demanding occupation with the School District. United again disputed Gamble was a Qualified Injured Worker and reasserted it should be given credit for wages earned by Gamble at the School District. United did not file a petition to challenge the Board's determination Gamble was a Qualified Injured Worker or its finding Gamble was entitled to receive VRMA benefits. Simply stated, Gamble is entitled to all components of VRMA benefits because he a Qualified Injured Worker.
Note:	An employee's earnings from his second job are not a proper consideration in calculating an employer's liability for VRMA benefits.
Citation:	143 Cal. App. 4th 71
WCC Citation:	WCC 31822006 CA

Case Name:	Gapusan v. Jay		09/09/1998
Summary:	EDMUND GAPUSAN et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DAVID PATRICK JAY et al. , Defendants; CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Intervener and Appellant. Factual and Procedural Background In 1994, Gapusan and McGee were seriously injured when a drunk driver, David Patrick Jay, caused his pickup truck to collide with their patrol car. 3 Jay had liability insurance of $100,000 per injured person and apparently no ability to pay additional damages. 4 City and plaintiffs accepted the policy limits in settlement of their respective claims against Jay, but failed to agree on any apportionment of the funds. In sum, we conclude the court erred in equitably distributing a portion of the settlement proceeds to Gapusan and McGee.
Note:	Employer no subrogation rights to loss of consortium claim.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.4th 734, 63 CCC 1144
WCC Citation:	WCC 23891998 CA

Case Name:	Garau v. Department of Industrial Relations		10/30/2017
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             OLGA H. GARAU, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B276212 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Christopher G. Jagard, Chief Counsel, Christopher Frick, Assistant Chief Counsel, Marilyn Bacon, Counsel, State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Office of the Director, Legal Unit, for Defendants and Respondents. Facts .           Plaintiff worked as an attorney for the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), a division within the State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations (Department). .           ______________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           We concur: .           _________________________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           _________________________, J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that former Division of Occupational Safety and Health attorney who agreed to settle her disability discrimination action could not back out of the deal after cashing the check covering part of the settlement and demanding additional money.
Citation:	B276212
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC483476