Case Name:	Grupe Co. v. WCAB (Ridgeway)		10/14/2005
Summary:	Filed 10/14/05 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* COPY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT GRUPE COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RUBY RIDGEWAY, Respondents. Ridgeway is awarded costs on appeal. Petitioners' petition for rehearing is denied. BY THE COURT: RAYE , Acting P. J. MORRISON , J. ROBIE , J. Opinion Footnotes ---------------------------- * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976. 1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I, II, and IV.
Note:	Substance of witness testimony not required to be included in pretrial conference statement.
Citation:	C041291
WCC Citation:	WCC 31252005 CA

Case Name:	Guajardo v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company		12/04/2012
Summary:	GUAJARDO v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIANA MADRIGAL GUAJARDO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Diana Madrigal Guajardo, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of her employer, defendant, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, on her first amended complaint. The services center is a third-party department that is operated and managed by an independent vendor, Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The position included intensive and substantial typing duties, high volume of telephone calls and interactions with customers. Defendant, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, is awarded its costs on appeal from plaintiff, Diana Madrigal Guajardo.
Note:	An employer did not discriminate against an injured worker by insisting that its third-party administrator handle her request for a reasonable accommodation, failing to let her work the shift that she wanted or threatening to terminate her if she did not follow the company's procedures.
Citation:	B238075
WCC Citation:	WCC 39592012 CA

Case Name:	Gudino v. Kalkat		05/21/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) .             MARIA GUDINO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             BHUPINDER SINGH KALKAT, Defendant and Respondent. .             C080625 .             (Super. Ct. No. 161834) .             Amador Gudino fell to his death while working on the framing of defendant Bhupinder Kalkat’s new house. .             Amador Gudino was an employee of JKD and worked on the framing of Kalkat’s house. Kalkat provided a forklift and that forklift was near Gudino when he fell; photographs showed two ladders and a plank on the balcony where Gudino fell near the forklift.
Note:	A California appellate court on Monday ruled that the family of a worker who fell to his death during a home construction project could not proceed with claims against the homeowner, as a matter of law.
Citation:	C080625
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 161834

Case Name:	Guia v. Smart & Final Stores		03/09/2018
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 THREE .             LORENA GUIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SMART & FINAL STORES, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. .             B276435 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Jackson Lewis, Theresa M. Marchlewski, Sherry L. Swieca and Christopher M. Habashy for Defendant and Respondent.   .             Plaintiff and appellant Lorena Guia appeals a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Smart & Final Stores, LLC (S&F), her former employer. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS  .           EDMON, P. J. .           We concur: .           LAVIN, J.   .           CURREY, J.
Note:
Citation:	B276435
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC554278

Case Name:	Gund v. County of Trinity		06/04/2018
Summary:	Filed 6/4/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION  IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Trinity) .             JAMES GUND et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             COUNTY OF TRINITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             C076828 .             (Super. Ct. No. 11CV080) .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Trinity County, Richard Scheuler, Judge. .             This lawsuit alleges that a Trinity County deputy sheriff phoned citizens James and Norma Gund -- who do not work for the County -- and asked them to go check on a neighbor who had called 911 for help likely related to inclement weather. .           Mrs. Gund went in first while Mr. Gund stayed in the truck.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that the workers’ compensation system provides the only available remedy to two private citizens who suffered horrific injuries in a knife attack while checking on the well-being of a neighbor at the request of a deputy sheriff.
Citation:	C076828
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 11CV080

Case Name:	Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories		09/28/2001
Summary:	ROSS C. GUNNELL et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. METROCOLOR LABORATORIES, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs Ross C. Gunnell, James L. Walters, and Ronald J. Cohen sued, among other defendants, Metrocolor Lab, Inc. (Metrocolor) and Warner Brothers, Inc. (Time Warner). In 1989, Gunnell, Walters, and Cohen worked for four and one-half months at Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc. , which owned a facility to process and develop television and movie film. Cleaning the interior walls and ceiling of the Metrocolor film lab exposed Gunnell, Walters, and Cohen to the blue-green cleaning substance. Gunnell cites the jury's findings that Metrocolor specifically intended to injure Gunnell, who did not consent to contact with harmful chemicals which caused his injuries, and that in committing a battery on Gunnell, Metrocolor acted with oppression, malice, and fraud.
Note:	Neither battery nor willful physical assault provides an exception to exclusive remedy rule.
Citation:	92 Cal.App.4th 710
WCC Citation:	WCC 28622001 CA

Case Name:	Guptill v. WCAB		03/07/1991
Summary:	Lois Guptill, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, et al. , Respondents Civil No. B051580 Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 6 CCC 184 March 7, 1991 DISPOSITION: Proceeding to review decision. On October 7, 1987, she informed the Employment Development Department (EDD) her workers' compensation claim had 'verbally' been denied by the employer. In November 1987 EDD sent applicant a letter stating she might be entitled to workers' compensation benefits instead of disability insurance. EDD explained she needed to file an application with the Board and provide the Board case number to EDD to receive disability insurance benefits. On April 2, 1988, defendants filed an answer denying applicant sustained industrial injury to the low back.
Note:	When approving a C&R or reinstating order of dismissal, WCAB examines applicant's understanding of rights to benefits, significance of dismissal.
Citation:	56 CCC 184
WCC Citation:	WCC 25731991 CA

Case Name:	Gutierrez v. Girardi		08/13/2017
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 THREE .             LUIS GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             THOMAS V. GIRARDI et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B271272 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Appellant/plaintiff Luis Gutierrez (Gutierrez) appeals from a judgment following an order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of respondents/defendants Thomas V. Girardi and Girardi & Keese (collectively G&K). (See Gutierrez v. Girardi (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 925 [reversing summary judgment]; Gutierrez v. Girardi (Jan. 12, 2015, B251857) [nonpub. Defendants Thomas V. Girardi and Girardi & Keese are awarded their costs.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a worker was time-barred from pursuing a lawsuit against his former attorneys in a toxic tort action for their alleged mishandling of settlement proceeds.
Citation:	B271272
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC400560

Case Name:	Gutierrez v. Girardi		04/27/2011
Summary:	GUTIERREZ v. GIRARDI LUIS GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THOMAS V. GIRARDI et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought by plaintiff and appellant Luis Gutierrez on behalf of himself and all other persons who were represented by defendants and respondents Thomas V. Girardi and his law firm Girardi & Keese (collectively G&K) in a previous lawsuit by employees of Lockheed Corporation (Lockheed) against Lockheed and other defendants (Lockheed Action). According to Gutierrez, G&K did not have a fee agreement with Gutierrez in connection with the Lockheed Action. From October 1991 to February 2001, Gutierrez received 13 settlement checks from G&K totaling $81,310. 41. On April 18, 2002, three defendants in the Lockheed Action (the non-settling defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment against Gutierrez. Breach With respect to the element of breach, G&K argues that Gutierrez cannot prove G&K misappropriated settlement funds because at his deposition, Gutierrez testified that there was no written fee agreement between G&K and Gutierrez.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal resuscitated an injured worker's malpractice suit, which charges that his famous former attorneys misappropriated more than $20 million from a $131 million class-action settlement with Lockheed Corp.
Citation:	B226614
WCC Citation:	WCC 37572011 CA

Case Name:	Guzman v. WCAB (Sun Garden Packing)		07/26/1991
Summary:	Maria Guzman, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, and Sun Garden Packing, Respondents. At a joint hearing in June 1990, the two cases were consolidated and SJ 102401 was designated as the master file. . . . RE-SERVED BY MAIL ON PERSONS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD [¶] Date: OCT 31 1990' (Emphasis in original. )The substance of the petition was that the record did not support the WCJ's findings and award. The board then agreed with the substance of Citation's petition and remanded the matter back to the trial level for further proceedings.
Note:	No presumption of proof of service when order is not signed by person making service; statutory period begins with proper service/actual receipt.
Citation:	56 CCC 472
WCC Citation:	WCC 27881991 CA