Case Name:	Holmes Eureka Lumber Co. v. IAC		10/11/1940
Summary:	HOLMES EUREKA LUMBER COMPANY (a Corporation) et al. , Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and OLEY J. HANSON, Respondents. By means of a writ of certiorari the petitioners seek to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission, denying their application for rehearing after a final award of compensation was made in favor of Oley J. Hanson, an employee of the Holmes Eureka Lumber Company. [41 Cal. App. 2d 152] [1] The claimant, Oley J. Hanson, was injured August 23, 1935, in the course of his employment, while he was hauling logs for the Holmes Eureka Lumber Company. The Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company was the insurer of the lumber company. The hearing on that petition was held at Eureka on April 18, 1940.
Note:	Award annulled b/c physicians' reports received in evidence after hearing.
Citation:	41 Cal.App.2d 150, 5 CCC 230
WCC Citation:	WCC 25821940 CA

Case Name:	Holsome v. Exel, Inc.		09/17/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO KEVIN HOLSOME, et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EXEL, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Law Offices of Mark Peacock and Mark J. Peacock for Plaintiff and Appellant Kevin Holsome. Arkin & Glovsky and Sharon J. Arkin for Plaintiffs and Appellants Kevin Holsome and Fressy Holsome. Law Offices of Christopher A. Kall and Christopher A. Kall for Plaintiff and Appellant Fressy Holsome. INTRODUCTION On June 21, 2004, Kevin and Fressy Holsome (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for damages resulting from the negligent conduct of Michael Thomas Brown (Brown).
Note:	[Unpublished] Because there is a material issue of fact in dispute between the parties, summary judgement cannot be granted for either side.
Citation:	E040658
WCC Citation:	WCC 32552007 CA

Case Name:	Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. v. Lundy		01/28/2013
Summary:	HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. v. LUNDY HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WILLIAM LUNDY, Defendant and Appellant. SSA Terminals LLC, SSA Terminals (Long Beach) LLC, and SSA Pacific, Inc. are employers of longshoreman and are insured for worker's compensation benefit claims through Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. (Homeport). Homeport prepared a separate written settlement agreement for Lundy's worker's compensation claim, which was signed by both Lundy and his worker's compensation attorney. Following entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining Lundy from working for SSA, Lundy filed an appeal challenging the enforceability of the "no reemployment" provision. (Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. , et al. v. Lundy (Nov. 5, 2012, B236276 [nonpub.
Note:	An employer who successfully sought enforcement of a provision in a settlement agreement for a longshoreman's workers' compensation and personal injury claims which barred him from ever seeking reemployment with any company covered by his employer's insurance carrier was entitled to an award of attorney fees.
Citation:	B238296
WCC Citation:	WCC 39772013 CA

Case Name:	Homeport Insurance Services, Inc., v. Lundy		11/05/2012
Summary:	HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. v. LUNDY HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WILLIAM LUNDY, Defendant and Appellant. Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. (Homeport) provides insurance for SSA, including workers' compensation insurance under the LHWCA. Following entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining Lundy from working for SSA, Lundy filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION On appeal, Lundy challenges the trial court's order granting summary judgment for SSA and denying summary judgment for Lundy. Homeport thereafter dismissed its complaint against Lundy without prejudice, and is no longer a party to this action.
Note:	A provision in a settlement agreement for a longshoreman's workers' compensation and personal injury claims which barred him from ever seeking reemployment with his employer was enforceable as a matter of law.
Citation:	B236276
WCC Citation:	WCC 39502012 CA

Case Name:	Honeywell vs. WCAB (Wagner)		12/20/2002
Summary:	Page 2} OPINION CROSKEY, J. - The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that petitioner, Honeywell, formerly known as Allied Signal Aerospace Company (Honeywell), was "reasonably certain" in 1998 that its employee, respondent William Wagner, was psychiatrically injured or was claiming psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 5402. fn. 1 The WCAB therefore determined that Honeywell had a duty to provide a claim form under section 5401, fn. In this case, Honeywell filed for reconsideration with the WCAB. The WCAB also remanded for the record to be further developed, if needed, to determine whether the employees involved had sufficient authority to impute notice or knowledge to Honeywell. Honeywell also asserts that Wagner was not a final adjudication requiring appeal, because the WCAB remanded to the WCJ for a new decision whether Honeywell was "reasonably certain" and the alleged injury should be presumed compensable.
Note:	Employer must have actual notice of knowledge of an injury before duty to provide claim form arises.
Citation:	104 Cal.App.4th 829
WCC Citation:	WCC 29002002 CA

Case Name:	Honeywell vs. WCAB (Wagner) (Cal Sup Crt)		02/10/2005
Summary:	Honeywell obtained a rebuttal medical opinion from psychologist Mory Framer, who concluded Wagner's psychiatric condition was caused by nonindustrial factors or by good faith personnel actions. The WCAB granted Honeywell's petition for reconsideration and issued an en banc decision. On remand, Nyssa Hawkins, the Honeywell disability coordinator, testified she was reasonably certain that Linda Wagner was reporting a work injury in October 1998. At this point, Honeywell "reasonably should have known" an emotional injury arising from events at work was being claimed. [FN 9] We briefly address the estoppel issue to provide guidance to the WCAB on remand and in future cases.
Note:	Injured worker must actually deliver the Claim Form to the employer before the 90 day limitation on investigations in LC 5402 starts to run.
Citation:	35 Cal. 4th 24
WCC Citation:	WCC 30802005 CA

Case Name:	Hong v. Creed Consulting Inc.		12/28/2012
Summary:	HONG v. CREED CONSULTING INC. SOOBOK L. HONG, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CREED CONSULTING INC. , Defendant and Appellant. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION O'LEARY, P. J. Soobok L. Hong hired Creed Consulting Inc. (Creed) to remodel her house. Despite alerting Creed to defects and shoddy workmanship, on December 21, 2010, Creed wrote to Hong the job was finished and demanded she pay the remaining contract balance of $11,430 immediately. Hong subsequently dismissed her remaining causes of action with prejudice, and Creed dismissed its cross-complaint with prejudice, and a judgment for Hong was entered. Creed argues the trial court also erred by allowing Hong to rely upon statements in the written contract and in Creed's unverified cross-complaint to establish as undisputed facts that: Creed and Hong entered into a contract; Creed agreed all work would be performed by properly licensed persons; the contract period was September 1, 2010, to October 31, 2010; and Hong paid Creed $85,000.
Note:	A contractor which allegedly lost its license due to its failure to carry workers' compensation coverage is getting a second chance to defend its entitlement to payment for work it performed on a homeowner's property.
Citation:	G046954
WCC Citation:	WCC 39692012 CA

Case Name:	Hooker v. Department of Transportation		01/31/2002
Summary:	ROSEANNE HOOKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Respondent. He was employed by a general contractor hired by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to construct an overpass. Shortly before the fatal accident, Hooker retracted the outriggers and left the crane. When Hooker returned, he attempted, without first reextending the outriggers, to swing the boom. The evidence produced on summary judgment showed that California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) employees had permitted construction traffic on the overpass where plaintiff's decedent was working, and had driven Caltrans's own vehicles on the overpass.
Note:	A hirer of an independent contractor is not liable to an employee of the contractor merely because the hirer retained control over safety conditions at a worksite, but that a hirer is liable to an employee of a contractor insofar as a hirer's exercise of retained control affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries.
Citation:	27 Cal.4th 198
WCC Citation:	WCC 31042002 CA

Case Name:	Horangic v. Ebara Technologies Inc.		10/26/2007
Summary:	Plaintiff, Craig Horangic, appeals from a judgment of dismissal following an order granting summary judgment to defendants Ebara Technologies Incorporated (Ebara) and Raymond Campbell (Campbell). On April 18, 2003, plaintiff met with Moyle and Michael Kelly, another Ebara attorney, regarding an April 17 memorandum he had prepared. Kelly indicated "Ebara was making an illegal decision, that other companies were being fined regularly for not paying overtime, and that this issue would expose Ebara to a great deal of liability. "Two weeks after plaintiff's meeting with Ebara's counsel, Ebara contacted Speer Associates, an employment law and employment relations counseling firm. Speer was also engaged to "provide information that could help Ebara take steps to improve problems affecting the Human Resources Department. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Whether a termination in violation of public policy is sufficiently outrageous to support an intentional infliction claim is a material issue of fact for remand and therefore, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgement.
Citation:	C053199
WCC Citation:	WCC 32722007 CA

Case Name:	Horizon Med. Group v. WCAB		06/27/1996
Summary:	Horizon Medical Group, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Constitution State Service Company, Target Stores, Respondents, (Aileen Angulo), Real Party in Interest. Still suffering pain and dissatisfied with her treatment at Foothill, Angulo contacted an attorney, who referred her to petitioner Horizon Medical Group (Horizon). Horizon continued to treat Angulo through November 16, 1992, then returned her to unrestricted duty. Constitution referred Horizon to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) if it disagreed with Constitution's position. Again, Constitution referred Horizon to the WCAB if it had any disagreement with Constitution's position.
Note:	Lien claimant denied due process when applicant fails to notify of medical objection; should be cured by amending pleadings.
Citation:	61 CCC 654
WCC Citation:	WCC 25251996 CA