Case Name:	Hastings vs. Dept of Corrections		07/22/2003
Summary:	WALTER W. HASTINGS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant and Respondent. 8 and alleged that he requested an accommodation for an alternate position with CDC to which he never received a formal response. (Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1001; Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 935, 951 (Prilliman). )B. Prima Facie Case under the FEHA The FEHA makes it "an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification . By its terms it is conditional: "Dear Correctional Officer Candidate: The California Department of Corrections is extending you a conditional offer of employment to Correctional Officer.
Note:	A government employee alleging discrimination on the basis of physical disability must comply with the civil service requirements for the position sought for accommodation.
Citation:	110 Cal.App. 4th 963
WCC Citation:	WCC 29522003 CA

Case Name:	Hawkins v. Amberwood Products		06/13/2007
Summary:	CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD En banc decision Case No. SAL 0107814 Valeri Hawkins, Applicant, vs. Amberwood Products and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendants Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration (En Banc) INTRODUCTION We granted defendant's petition for reconsideration of the September 5, 2006 Findings and Award to study the legal issue presented. It is admitted that applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury to her spine while employed by Amberwood Products during a period ending July 16, 2004. FACTS As shown by the minutes, the following facts were stipulated at the hearing on August 14, 2006: "(1) Applicant, born 2/21/57, sustained injury on a cumulative trauma basis ending 7/16/04 to her cervical spine while working for Amberwood Products, then insured for workers' compensation by State Compensation Insurance Fund. (People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 999, 1007 ("Leal") (internal quotations omitted); see also Nickelsberg v. Workers' Comp. The system is intended to automatically provide an injured worker with medical treatment and temporary disability indemnity without delay.
Note:	The limit of 104 compensable weeks within two years described in section 4656(c)(1) begins on the date temporary disability indemnity is first paid.
Citation:	72 CCC 807
WCC Citation:	WCC 32302007 CA

Case Name:	Hawkins v. Travelers Insurance, et al.		03/23/2011
Summary:	JOE PAT HAWKINS et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RIVERA, J. Joe Pat Hawkins (Hawkins) and Paula Hawkins, in propria persona, appeal from judgments of dismissal after orders sustaining demurrers to their first amended complaint. Along with Levitz, Hawkins named as defendants Travelers Insurance and Travelers Property Casualty Insurance (Travelers); Hanna, Brophy, McAlleer & Jensen, LLP (Hanna, Brophy); Francie Lehmer; Richard Foley; Richard Jacobsmeyer; James Vandersloot (Vandersloot); Vincent Scotto; and Scotto's legal assistant, Timothy Egan (Egan); the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)1; and DWC Judge Sauban-Chapla (Judge Chapla). For example, the claims against Vandersloot relate to his legal representation of Hawkins, which ended on June 7, 1995, when Hawkins fired him. The court properly designated Hawkins as a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(1).
Note:	The San Francisco City and County Superior Court was correct to name an applicant who sued numerous practitioners a vexatious litigant.
Citation:	A125526
WCC Citation:	WCC 37342011 CA

Case Name:	Healthsmart Pacific v. Kabateck		12/19/2016
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 ONE .             HEALTHSMART PACIFIC, INC. et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             BRIAN S. KABATECK et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B264300 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiffs Michael D. Drobot and Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. sued certain lawyers and their law firms for defamation and other causes of action arising from statements two of the lawyers made on television and radio programs about a pending lawsuit. Background; Drobot’s Plea Agreement .           Drobot owns and operates Healthsmart Pacific Inc. (Healthsmart), which owned and operated Pacific Hospital of Long Beach (Pacific Hospital) from approximately 1995 until October 2013. That appeal, Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. , et al. v. Golia, etc. , et al. , case No. B266311, is pending.
Note:
Citation:	B264300
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC566549

Case Name:	Healy Tibbitts Builders, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs		04/14/2006
Summary:	Healy Tibbitts subcontracted with John Mannering to build the main duct bank. The District Director of the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs ("OWCP") referred this case to an Administrative Law Judge, who conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 23, 2002. Healy Tibbitts and Mannering petitioned for review. ANALYSIS To qualify for benefits, an individual must be an "employee" as that term is defined in the Act. Instead, the controversy in this case centers on the terms "maritime employment" and "harbor worker," both of which the Act leaves undefined.
Note:	'Harbor worker' includes workers directly involved in the construction of a maritime facility.
Citation:	444 F.3d 1095
WCC Citation:	WCC 31522006 CA

Case Name:	Hegglin vs. WCAB		02/23/1971
Summary:	SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA L. A. No. 29804 February 23, 1971 JOSEPH C. HEGGLIN, PETITIONER, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, AIRPORT GARDENA HOTEL CORPORATION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS Kessler & Drasin, Lawrence Drasin and Roger J. Gleckman for Petitioner. Sullivan [4 Cal3d Page 165] Petitioner Joseph C. Hegglin seeks review and annulment of the opinion and decision after reconsideration of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (Board) which limited the rating for his permanent disability to 43 1/4 percent. Because of knee disability applicant should not walk on uneven terrain nor should he climb or descend stairs rapidly. On June 12, 1969, a supplemental hearing was held at which the rating specialist was cross-examined and petitioner testified in rebuttal. Petitioner also sought to call Dr. Field, an internist who had examined petitioner with regard to his hepatitis condition.
Note:	In cases involving multiple factors of disability caused by a single industrial accident the Board must, in any instructions it may direct to the rating bureau, fully describe each separate factor of disability.
Citation:	4 Cal. 3d 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 35941971 CA

Case Name:	Heiman v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		04/11/2007
Summary:	PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Neil P. Sullivan and Vincent Bausano for Respondent, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concluded that petitioner was the employer liable for workers' compensation. *fn 1* We conclude that petitioner and the unlicensed contractor were dual employers that are jointly and severally liable for workers' compensation. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) determined that Hruby was the employer of Aguilera and was liable for workers' compensation including 90 percent permanent disability.
Note:	Petitioner and an unlicensed contractor were dual employers that are jointly and severally liable for workers' compensation.
Citation:	149 Cal. App. 4th 724
WCC Citation:	WCC 32152007 CA

Case Name:	HELMAN v. ALCOA GLOBAL FASTENERS, INC.		03/14/2011
Summary:	James Paul Collins, John P. Kristensen, Terry O'Reilly, Nina Shapirshteyn, Gary Lynn Simms, O'Reilly Collins, San Mateo, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants. I. Appellants are the personal representatives and successors in interest to three United States Navy crewmen killed in a helicopter crash. The case was then removed to federal court by Appellees Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (collectively "Sikorsky"). The district court issued a ruling granting these motions, holding that DOHSA preempts Appellants' state law and general maritime causes of action for wrongful death. The action shall be for the exclusive benefit of the decedent's spouse, parent, child, or dependent relative. U. S. C. 30302 (2006).
Note:	The families of three United States Navy crewmen killed in a helicopter crash cannot file state law claims for wrongful death, because the Death on the High Seas Act preempted their state law claims, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Citation:	09-56501
WCC Citation:	WCC 37262011 CA

Case Name:	Henderson v. Adia Servs. Inc.		06/27/1986
Summary:	Danielson [182 CalApp3d Page 1070] Plaintiff and appellant Patricia M. Comstock Henderson appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, cross-complainant and respondent Adia Services, Inc. in an action [182 CalApp3d Page 1071] for damages for personal injuries. *fn1 Plaintiff was injured on November 19, 1981, when her vehicle was struck from the rear by a vehicle driven by Wrede. Following discovery, she amended the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474, substituting defendant in place of a Doe. Here, the trial court properly determined that the material facts were not in dispute, and properly entertained the motion for summary judgment. "If so, state whether a motor vehicle was necessary to be employed by Adia Services, Inc. " Wrede answered the interrogatory: "3.
Note:	"Coming and going" rule applicable to temp employees traveling from home to businesses that pay the temp agency.
Citation:	182 Cal. App. 3d 1069
WCC Citation:	WCC 30371986 CA

Case Name:	Henry v. Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin		12/09/2011
Summary:	HENRY v. RED HILL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF TUSTIN SARA HENRY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RED HILL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF TUSTIN, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Sara Henry sued Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin (sometimes the church) for wrongful termination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code,*fn1 § 12900 et seq. I FACTS The Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin was incorporated in California in 1957. Henry filed a complaint against the Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin (erroneously sued as the Red Hill Lutheran School) alleging in the first cause of action that the church terminated her employment based upon her marital status, in violation of the FEHA. As stated above, Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin operates its school as a part of its ministry.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a Lutheran school is not liable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for terminating a teacher for religious reasons, thanks to the ministerial exception.
Citation:	G044556
WCC Citation:	WCC 38322011 CA