Case Name:	Haniff v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County		03/01/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/1/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION  IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             MOHAMMED HANIFF, Petitioner, .             v. .             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; .             JAMES HOHMAN et al. , Real Parties in Interest. .             H043345 .             (Santa Clara County Super. .             Haniff challenged the order by filing a petition for writ of mandate in this court. .           In September 2013 Haniff filed a personal injury complaint naming Hohman and Kim as defendants. v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 180, 185-186; Raytheon Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 683, 686.
Note:
Citation:	H043345
WCC Citation:	Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 2013-1-CV25

Case Name:	Hanna v. Dental Board of California		12/13/2012
Summary:	HANNA v. DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA SOHAIR HANNA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION CHAVEZ, J. Sohair Hanna (appellant) appeals from a judgment of the superior court denying her petition for writ of mandate. Through the writ of mandate, appellant sought to overturn a decision of the Dental Board of California (the Board) revoking appellant's dental license. In April 2001, George Hanna was convicted of felony Medi-Cal fraud, a violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 14107, subdivision (b)(1). Administrative proceedings In April 2010, Richard DeCuir (complainant), in his official capacity as the Executive Officer of the Board, brought an accusation against appellant.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal has upheld the revocation of a Los Angeles-area dentist's license based on her no-contest plea to a felony count of Medi-Cal fraud.
Citation:	B239336
WCC Citation:	WCC 39642012 CA

Case Name:	Hanna v. LA Co. Sheriff's Dept.		09/17/2002
Summary:	On May 17, 2000, Hanna demanded the Department return her "to her usual and customary job at another station. "The Department responded, stating the Retirement Board's decision denying her disability application was not final because Hanna had filed an appeal. On August 11, Hanna sent a letter to the Retirement Board withdrawing her request for a hearing before a Board-appointed referee. The first amended application states there is no position Hanna "would be able to perform with the County that would not result in a loss of income to [Hanna]. "The Department claims it offered to place Hanna in another position "consistent with" her work restriction, but Hanna "refused to cooperate. "
Note:	Injured county worker must be reintstated despite disability when retirement board denies claim.
Citation:	102 Cal.App.4th 887
WCC Citation:	WCC 28852002 CA

Case Name:	Hanna v. LA Co. Sheriff's Dept.		09/17/2002
Summary:	On May 17, 2000, Hanna demanded the Department return her "to her usual and customary job at another station. "The Department responded, stating the Retirement Board's decision denying her disability application was not final because Hanna had filed an appeal. On August 11, Hanna sent a letter to the Retirement Board withdrawing her request for a hearing before a Board-appointed referee. The first amended application states there is no position Hanna "would be able to perform with the County that would not result in a loss of income to [Hanna]. "The Department claims it offered to place Hanna in another position "consistent with" her work restriction, but Hanna "refused to cooperate. "
Note:	Injured county worker must be reintstated despite disability when retirement board denies claim.
Citation:	102 Cal.App.4th 887
WCC Citation:	WCC 28862002 CA

Case Name:	Hansen Mechanical, Inc. v. Sup. Court		11/29/1995
Summary:	HANSEN MECHANICAL, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NORTHRIDGE EQUIPMENT CO. , INC. , Real Party in Interest. Factual and Procedural Background The complaint herein arises out of an April 1990 construction accident involving personal injuries to Sam Martinez, an employee of Hansen. Northridge filed a cross-complaint against Hansen and others; the third and fourth causes of action of the cross-complaint were based on the theory of express indemnity. 1 The cross-complaint alleged that Hansen, through its 'authorized agent, employee, or representative, executed the agreement attached hereto . . . , which provides that Hansen . . . defend, indemnify and hold harmless cross-complainant. 'After hearing, the trial court denied Hansen's motion for summary adjudication as to Northridge's causes of action for express indemnity.
Note:	Indemnity provision unenforceable because it was not signed before employee's injury.
Citation:	40 Cal.App.4th 722, 60 CCC 1177
WCC Citation:	WCC 23991995 CA

Case Name:	Hansen Mechanical, Inc. v. Superior Court		11/29/1995
Summary:	HANSEN MECHANICAL, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NORTHRIDGE EQUIPMENT CO. , INC. , Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. MC000806, Ross Amspoker, Temporary Judge. 1 The cross-complaint alleged that Hansen, through its 'authorized agent, employee, or representative, executed the agreement attached hereto . . . , which provides that Hansen . . . defend, indemnify and hold harmless cross-complainant. 'After hearing, the trial court denied Hansen's motion for summary adjudication as to Northridge's causes of action for express indemnity. (See, e. g. , Regan Roofing Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 425, 436-437 [29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 413]. )
Note:	Indemnity provision unenforceable because it was not signed before employee's injury.
Citation:	40 Cal.App.4th 722
WCC Citation:	WCC 23971995 CA

Case Name:	Hansen v. WCAB		06/07/1989
Summary:	JAMES HANSEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and KATY RADIO et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Gilbert, J. , with Stone (S. We review a decision of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying applicant James Hansen's petition for removal. 1 We conclude the Board erred in determining the ordered examination complied with section 4051. By letter counsel for defendant insurer notified applicant a medical examination of applicant by Dr. Markovitz in Los Angeles had been arranged. The order included a provision it would be void if good cause to the contrary were stated in writing.
Note:	Ordering a worker to attend a medical exam 185 miles from home violates Sec. 4051.
Citation:	211 Cal.App.3d 717, 54 CCC 193
WCC Citation:	WCC 24021989 CA

Case Name:	Hardesty, et. al. v. McCord & Holdren, etc.		03/17/1976
Summary:	The defendant insurance carrier filed an answer, placing in issue, among other things, the fact of injury and raising the defense of intoxication. Unfortunately for the applicant, there is little information as to the precise manner in which Mr. Hardesty met with this accident. Denial of these discovery remedies would unfairly prejudice the applicant in the presentation of her case. 'We infer from the contents of the pleadings filed subsequent to the order that counsel for both parties agree with our interpretation. In our opinion, good cause for discovery of the employer's report is not established at this time.
Note:	Trial judge has power to invoke liberal pre-trial discovery orders to effect efficient processes.
Citation:	41 CCC 111
WCC Citation:	WCC 3681976 CA

Case Name:	Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. WCAB		07/31/1967
Summary:	HARDWARE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and HENRY W. HARGROVE, Respondents. While working for the other firm he incurred a back injury, for which he was compensated. After his return to John Geer the foreman favored him with lighter work because of his back condition. [253 Cal. App. 2d 64] Hargrove was pushing a car on February 25, 1966, when he slipped in an oil slick and fell. He had been unemployed since the time he left John Geer and had earned no money.
Note:	Separate cause of inability to work is separately evaluated, specific findings required.
Citation:	253 Cal.App.2d 62, 32 CCC 291
WCC Citation:	WCC 25021967 CA

Case Name:	Harris v. City of Santa Monica		02/07/2013
Summary:	HARRIS v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA WYNONA HARRIS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Defendant and Appellant. Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney, Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney, Barbara C. Greenstein, Carol Ann Rohr, Jeanette Schachtner, Anthony P. Serritella and Meishya Yang, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendant and Appellant. A bus driver alleged that she was fired by the City of Santa Monica (the City) because of her pregnancy in violation of the prohibition on sex discrimination in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). When the City hired Harris, it gave her its "Guidelines for Job Performance Evaluation," which said: "Preventable accidents . In October 2005, Harris sued the City, alleging that the City fired her because she was pregnant, a form of sex discrimination.
Note:	California's Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that an employer can mount a "mixed-motive" defense to a worker's discrimination claim, but such a defense, if accepted by a jury, is not absolute.
Citation:	S181004
WCC Citation:	WCC 39832013 CA