Case Name:	Garcia v. Becker Bros. Steel Co.		04/18/2011
Summary:	GARCIA v. BECKER BROS. STEEL CO. ELIAS GARCIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BECKER BROS. STEEL CO. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The original slitter line was sold to Becker Brothers Steel Supply Company in 1973, and Becker Brothers operated the line for 26 years. *fn5 Three years later, Garcia amended his complaint to add Becker Brothers and Shama LLC as defendants. Warren Becker and Sheldon Becker are both principals of both Becker Brothers and Shama and operated the businesses on a day-to-day basis. Garcia filed a non-opposition to Becker Brothers' and Shama's demurrer to Garcia's strict liability claim as to these defendants.
Note:	A steel business that sold its used steel-cutting machinery did not owe a duty of care to the employees of future businesses that bought the machinery.
Citation:	B221096
WCC Citation:	WCC 37452011 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. ESS Prisa II, LLC		09/13/2011
Summary:	ANDREW GARCIA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ESS PRISA II, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Andrew Garcia was seriously injured when he fell through a skylight while performing rooftop air conditioning repairs for his contractor/employer on a building owned by defendant and respondent ESS Prisa II, LLC (ESS). On the day of the injury, Garcia met with ESS manager, Von K. Stroff, who told him there was a problem with one of the air conditioning units. ESS never instructed Garcia about how to do his job and did not supply him with tools or equipment. Here, even if Garcia is correct that ESS maintained control over the premises a dubious point there is no evidence ESS exercised the type of control of the worksite that affirmatively contributed to Garcia's injury.
Note:	The California Supreme Court's decision in Seabright v. US Airways barred another independent contractor's employee from suing the party that hired the contractor.
Citation:	B222128
WCC Citation:	WCC 38002011 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Industrial Accident Commission		11/13/1953
Summary:	2d 689; 263 P. 2d 8 November 13, 1953 EVERARDO GARCIA ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission granting lien. Schauer [41 Cal2d Page 691] Everardo Garcia, an applicant for workmen's compensation, and Pacific Indemnity Company, carrier of the workmen's compensation insurance of Garcia's employer, seek review of an Industrial Accident Commission award of a lien (allowed pursuant to Lab. On August 3, 1950, the employe filed with the commission his application for adjustment of claim for an allegedly industrial injury which was sustained March 17, 1950. The final determinations whether an employe is entitled [41 Cal2d Page 694] to workmen's compensation, the amount of such compensation and the period during which he is eligible therefor, must be made by the Industrial Accident Commission. In such circumstances, the Industrial Accident Commission properly might infer that the disability was work connected and determine that the Department of Employment had established a prima facie case for the amount of its claim.
Note:	The employee and the insurance carrier, if they object to allowance of the lien, must show that it should be disallowed.
Citation:	41 Cal. 2d 689, 263 P.2d 8
WCC Citation:	WCC 33421953 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Oceans Sports Bar, Inc.		04/28/2010
Summary:	FACTS Plaintiffs' father, Reyes A. Garcia (Garcia) worked as a doorman/bouncer at Oceans, located at 14302 Telegraph Road in a strip mall in the City of Whittier. Plaintiffs alleged that while Garcia was working at Oceans on February 9, 2007, a group of men in gang attire attempted to enter Oceans. Plaintiffs alleged that when the men attempted to enter Oceans, Garcia told them to leave the bar and parking lot. While Garcia was in the parking lot, Nunez, who was one of the men who Garcia had kept out of the bar, shot and killed Garcia. They sought adjudication that Garcia was not an employee of Oceans; Oceans did not own or control the property on which Garcia was killed; Oceans did not owe Garcia a duty to protect him from Nunez's unforeseeable criminal acts; Oceans did not breach any duty to Garcia; and Oceans' acts or omissions were not the proximate cause of Garcia's death.
Note:	A bar did not owe a bouncer a duty of care to protect him from a parking lot shooting because it was not foreseeable.
Citation:	B217207
WCC Citation:	WCC 36182010 CA

Case Name:	Garcia V. Paramount Citrus Association, Inc.		07/21/2008
Summary:	on rehearing) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IGNACIO GARCIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PARAMOUNT CITRUS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. Similarly, in the present case, this court's original opinion and judgment were vacated automatically upon the grant of rehearing. In both of those cases, an appeal had been decided by a three-member panel of the federal circuit court of appeals. We set forth our opinion and judgment in this case, as follows: Facts and Procedural History This is an appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent Ignacio Garcia and against appellant Paramount Citrus Association, Inc. On April 2, 2001, Andrade had a crew picking oranges on the Burdick Ranch, which was adjacent to appellant's Abercrombie Ranch, which also consisted of citrus groves.
Note:	Appellant owed no legal duty to respondent.
Citation:	F050528
WCC Citation:	WCC 34002008 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Paramount Citrus Association, Inc.		03/26/2008
Summary:	Filed 3/26/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IGNACIO GARCIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PARAMOUNT CITRUS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- This is an appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent Ignacio Garcia and against appellant Paramount Citrus Association, Inc. On April 2, 2001, Andrade had a crew picking oranges on the Burdick Ranch, which was adjacent to appellant's Abercrombie Ranch, which also consisted of citrus groves. At about 7 a. m. , Andrade drove west on Abercrombie Road at about 35 miles per hour, looking for Road 172. Without slowing appreciably, he rammed a van in which respondent and other farm workers were being transported to a worksite.
Note:	The foreseeability of the type of negligent act at issue in the present case does not outweigh the high burden the proposed duty would place upon rural landowners to prevent such conduct.
Citation:	F050528
WCC Citation:	WCC 33312008 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. The Vons Co. (WCAB En Banc)		03/14/2001
Summary:	On or about March 10, 1999, Valley Subrogation served the Board with notice that it was now representing La Mirada. On March 23, 1999, the matter came on for trial on all pending issues, including La Mirada's lien. On May 20, 1999, the Board served notice of the June 21, 1999 lien trial on La Mirada. On July 9, 1999, Valley Subrogation filed a letter objecting to the June 21, 1999 notice of intention to disallow La Mirada's lien. The July 16, 1999 order also set the issue of La Mirada's lien for another trial on August 31, 1999.
Note:	Duty on petitioner to apprise WCAB of correct address; WCAB service of decision is effective, petition untimely.
Citation:	66 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 27862001 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. The Vons Co. (WCAB En Banc)		03/14/2001
Summary:	On or about March 10, 1999, Valley Subrogation served the Board with notice that it was now representing La Mirada. On March 23, 1999, the matter came on for trial on all pending issues, including La Mirada's lien. On May 20, 1999, the Board served notice of the June 21, 1999 lien trial on La Mirada. On July 9, 1999, Valley Subrogation filed a letter objecting to the June 21, 1999 notice of intention to disallow La Mirada's lien. The July 16, 1999 order also set the issue of La Mirada's lien for another trial on August 31, 1999.
Note:	Sanctions may be awarded for frivolous Reconsideration.
Citation:	66 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 3552001 CA

Case Name:	Garcia-Laverentz v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services		04/17/2017
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 EIGHT .             KARLA GARCIA-LAVERENTZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. .             B267176 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiff Karla Garcia-Laverentz filed a complaint against her employer Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (Sedgwick), alleging myriad disability-related claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .           Sedgwick provides workers’ compensation and disability claims administration and related services to large employers throughout the United States. .           On April 20, 2010, Sedgwick retained engineers to conduct an air quality study, which did not uncover any dangerous air contaminants.
Note:
Citation:	B267176
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC485324

Case Name:	Garza v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd.		03/28/2008
Summary:	Bockstahler prepared a document around 1982 to show the amounts of chrysotile asbestos used by Eagle-Pitcher in its production processes and the suppliers of that asbestos. Bockstahler stated that Asbestos Corporation Limited ("ACL") was the sole supplier of chrysotile asbestos fiber to Eagle-Pitcher between 1935 and 1957. ACL's company brochures published in 1956 and 1961 described extensively the nature and extent of the company's asbestos operations, including the mining techniques employed, the tonnages of asbestos extracted, the grades and types of asbestos produced, the physical and chemical properties of asbestos, the special characteristics of its asbestos fibers, and the types of products for which its different grades of asbestos were suitable. Moreover, Charles Ay explained asbestos can be friable or non-friable--friable asbestos you can crumble by hand and easily release the fibers, whereas the fibers from non-friable asbestos have to be released mechanically. A friable product like the insulating cement releases asbestos much easier than other non-friable products Joseph Garza had worked with like gaskets and packing.
Note:	By filing an answer and litigating the case to trial, Defendant made a general appearance and submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the court.
Citation:	A116523
WCC Citation:	WCC 33332008 CA