Case Name:	Huhamaki Americas v. WCAB		11/04/2008
Summary:	Filed 11/4/08 Huhamaki Americas v. WCAB (Madhaw) CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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) HUHTAMAKI AMERICAS, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, and BIMLA MADHAW et al. , Respondents. "*fn1 Thereafter, Huhtamaki determined that it had paid Madhaw an additional $5,278 in PDAs not reflected in the C&R. In his report and recommendation on reconsideration, the WCJ stated: "The language in [the C&R] is clear. Huhtamaki also relies on Vons Companies, Inc. v. WCAB (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 276 to support this point, but it is a Court of Appeal opinion not published in the California Official Reports.
Note:	[Unpublished] The C&R controls, not Injured worker's unstated intention.
Citation:	C057199
WCC Citation:	WCC 34582008 CA

Case Name:	Hulbert v. WCAB		04/29/1975
Summary:	On the petition of Raymond S. Hulbert, we review a partial permanent disability award granted him by the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board. In the proceedings the board received in evidence reports of five medical examiners, three of whom appear to have been engaged by the self-insured employer and two by Hulbert. The board, however, caused a doctor from its own medical bureau to examine Hulbert. This occasional pain, traceable to the 1951 incident, the witness opined, caused Hulbert a 25 percent permanent disability, even before his 1971 injury. The record fairly discloses that Hulbert had long since been rehabilitated with respect to the disability attending his 1951 laminectomy.
Note:	If there's a dispute of facts, WCAB's award must stand; if none, court may set aside.
Citation:	47 Cal.App.3d 634, 40 CCC 823
WCC Citation:	WCC 27381975 CA

Case Name:	Hulse v. WCAB		10/29/1976
Summary:	PHILLIP D. HULSE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Respondents (Opinion by Rattigan, Acting P. J. , with Christian, J. , and Emerson, J. , concurring. )The petition was opposed by respondent insurer, [63 Cal. App. 3d 225] which is the carrier obligated to pay the award. His income is $905. 00 a month from other sources and his wife has an income of approximately $1,400. 00 a month. The referee [63 Cal. App. 3d 226] also received evidence of the financial return to be anticipated from the lump-sum deposit proposed in the petition. 4 The referee denied the petition for reasons which he stated in a report made to the board upon applicant's petition for reconsideration.
Note:	Board's power to commute award into lump sum must be exercised reasonably, not arbitrarily.
Citation:	63 Cal.App.3d 221, 41 CCC 691
WCC Citation:	WCC 26171976 CA

Case Name:	Hunt v. El Camino Community College		03/21/2013
Summary:	HUNT v. EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE CARMEN HUNT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant and Respondent. Hunt assigns as error the trial court's ruling in limine precluding evidence that Hunt was raped by a professor at El Camino College in 1982 (Evid. Hunt and Dr. de Fuentes "figured out pretty early on that [Hunt] could work, [she] just couldn't work at El Camino. "Hunt never applied to transfer from El Camino College to another community college in the Los Angeles area. The jury returned a verdict in favor of El Camino College and against Hunt on all causes of action.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected a challenge by a community college professor to a jury verdict that her employer had not discriminated against her on the basis of her post traumatic stress disorder from an alleged rape on campus over 30 years ago.
Citation:	B235293
WCC Citation:	WCC 39942013 CA

Case Name:	Hurley v. California Department of Parks and Recreation Part 1/2		02/21/2018
Summary:	.             DELANE HURLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION et al. , Defendants and Appellants. .             D070098 .             (Super. .             Stewart and Musell, Wendy E. Musell, and Elisa J. Stewart for Plaintiff and Appellant. .             Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Celine M. Cooper, Christine B. Mersten, and Jodi L. Cleesattle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant California Department of Parks and Recreation. .           During a four-week trial, 26 witnesses testified, including Hurley, Seals, and Dolinar, and 71 exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Note:
Citation:	D070098
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00050757-CU-OE-NC

Case Name:	Hurley v. California Department of Parks and Recreation Part 2/2		02/22/2018
Summary:	Seals disclosed records containing personal information about Ms. Hurley in a manner that would link the information disclosed to Ms. Hurley. "  .           Seals's counsel did not object to that instruction or request any additional or clarifying instructions. The first amended complaint did not specify the particular statute of the IPA under which Hurley sought to impose liability on Seals. That the harm sustained by [Hurley] arose from the normal part of the employment relationship between [Hurley] and [DPR];  .         "2. As noted above, Hurley remained on leave until August 2012, when she accepted an SSA position at DPR's Monterey location.
Note:
Citation:	D070098
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00050757-CU-OE-NC

Case Name:	Husain v. 3M Companies		11/16/2016
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD  STATE OF CALIFORNIA  .             SYED HUSAIN, Applicant, .             v. .             3M COMPANIES; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendants. .             Case No. ADJ7941062 (Anaheim District Office) .             OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION .             We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. .             For the foregoing reasons, .             IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           DC I ORA E. LOVvE .           !CONCUR, .           JOSE H. RAZO .           DEPUTY CRISTINE E. GONDAK .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           NOV l 7 2016 .           STATE OF CALIFORNIA .           Division of Workers' Compensation Workers' Compensation Appeals Board .           ANAHEIM DISTRICT OFFICE .           CASE NO(s). ADJ7552459; ADJ7941062 .           SYED HUSAIN .           vs. .           3M COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION JUDGE: HOWARD LEMBERG .           DATE: October 10, 2016 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON RECONSIDERATION  I  INTRODUCTION  .           Applicant, in propria persona, has filed timely and verified Petitions for Reconsideration wherein he disputes the Findings, Awards and Orders dated 09/01/2016 finding that he did not sustain injury to eyes, fingers except right middle finger, psyche, neurological system, digestive system and head in case number ADJ7552459 and that he did not sustain injury A OE/COE in case number ADJ794 l 062.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ7941062
WCC Citation:	ADJ7941062

Case Name:	Hustedt v. WCAB		12/07/1981
Summary:	I. Petitioner, Edward F. Hustedt, was admitted to the practice of law in this state on January 5, 1966. In 1978, Hustedt was retained to represent a defendant employer in a compensation case pending before the Board. The next day, Hustedt called the judge and informed him that he could not appear until the afternoon. After some discussion, [30 Cal. 3d 334] the judge told Hustedt that if someone from his firm were not present at 9 a. m. , contempt proceedings would be initiated against Hustedt. As a result of the judge's recommendation, concurrent contempt and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Hustedt in July 1979.
Note:	WCAB can punish contempt, but cannot prohibit atty. from practicing before the board.
Citation:	30 Cal.3d 329, 46 CCC 1284
WCC Citation:	WCC 25661981 CA

Case Name:	Hustedt v. WCAB (Sup. Ct. En Banc)		12/07/1981
Summary:	I. Petitioner, Edward F. Hustedt, was admitted to the practice of law in this state on January 5, 1966. In 1978, Hustedt was retained to represent a defendant employer in a compensation case pending before the Board. The next day, Hustedt called the judge and informed him that he could not appear until the afternoon. After some discussion, [30 Cal. 3d 334] the judge told Hustedt that if someone from his firm were not present at 9 a. m. , contempt proceedings would be initiated against Hustedt. As a result of the judge's recommendation, concurrent contempt and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Hustedt in July 1979.
Note:	WCAB has power to punish attorneys for contempt, but cannot prohibit practice before Board.
Citation:	30 Cal.3d 329, 46 CCC 1284
WCC Citation:	WCC 3701981 CA

Case Name:	Huston v. WCAB		09/07/1979
Summary:	Morris H. Rivers, M. D. , one of the treating physicians, in his report of March 9, 1977, indicated that he had last seen Huston on December 28, 1976, advised Huston to continue with physical therapy and told Huston to return for 'recheck' examinations but Huston had not kept his appointments. 5 Dr. Rivers reported on November 9, 1977, that he had last seen Huston when Huston had planned to return 'to his job in Venezuela. 'Huston also stated that he was last examined by Dr. Rivers in March 1977 and he did not return to see Dr. Rivers as it 'was like a release' the last time Huston saw Dr. Rivers. 19 and WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (WCAB Rules), sections 10462 fn. Further, while Dr. Reiswig says he 'presently' views Huston as permanent and stationary, he offers no opinion on whether Huston was permanent and stationary before then.
Note:	Comp. carrier had burden to prove TD before return to work, worker's burden after.
Citation:	95 Cal.App.3d 856, 44 CCC 798
WCC Citation:	WCC 24861979 CA