Case Name:	Hotel Del Coronado, etc. v. WCAB		03/10/1998
Summary:	Hotel Del Coronado, PSI, Wear & Wood, Inc. (Third Party Administrator), Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Salvacion Managuit, Respondents. Applicant appealed and the WCJ found that the termination order was not supported by substantial evidence and, thus, it must be vacated. The WCAB denied reconsideration and Defendant petitioned for a writ of review, claiming: 1) that Defendant had complied with Code Sec. The findings and conclusions of the WCAB on questions of fact are conclusive and final and are not subject to review. Under these circumstances, the WCAB acted reasonably in deciding the worker was not required to respond to the offer of alternative work.
Note:	Failure/refusal to accept offer of alternative work during statutory time period does not terminate rights to benefits absent evidence on whether applicant could physically perform the job.
Citation:	63 CCC 1077
WCC Citation:	WCC 28011998 CA

Case Name:	Housing Authority v. WCAB		01/14/1998
Summary:	[60 Cal. App. 4th 1079] OPINION MASTERSON, J. - Petitioner Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (L. A. Housing Authority) challenges two findings made by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) in favor of Roger Chandler, the L. A. Housing Authority's Chief of Police: that the Appeals Board had jurisdiction to determine whether Chandler was an employee within the meaning of Labor Code section 4850 as part of Chandler's application for workers' compensation benefits, and that the L. A. Housing Authority was collaterally estopped from denying that Chandler was entitled to the benefits of Labor Code section 4850 because that issue had been resolved against the L. A. Housing Authority in a previous workers' compensation case. We find that the Appeals Board properly concluded that it had authority to determine the jurisdiction issue, and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the L. A. Housing Authority from denying section 4850 benefits in this case. The collateral estoppel issue emanated from the Appeals Board's opinion and order in Chappell v. Housing Authority, City of Los Angeles (1993) W. C. A. B. No. PAS 16292, which held that an L. A. Housing Authority police officer came within the definition of section 4850. Collateral Estoppel [3a] The Appeals Board found that the L. A. Housing Authority was estopped from asserting that Chandler was not entitled to the benefits of section 4850 as a result of the Appeals Board's opinion and order in Chappell v. Housing Authority, City of Los Angeles, supra, W. C. A. B. No. PAS 16292. 4 However, the L. A. Housing Authority has not offered, nor can we imagine, any reason why these distinctions should make a difference to the question of whether a peace officer employed by the L. A. Housing Authority is entitled to the benefits of section 4850.
Note:	WCAB had jurisdiction over whether housing authority's chief of police was an employee.
Citation:	60 Cal.App.4th 1076, 63 CCC 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 26801998 CA

Case Name:	Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc.		08/18/2011
Summary:	HOWELL v. HAMILTON MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC. REBECCA HOWELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HAMILTON MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Rebecca Howell was seriously injured in an automobile accident negligently caused by a driver for defendant Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (Hamilton). At trial, Hamilton conceded liability and the necessity of the medical treatment plaintiff had received, contesting only the amounts of plaintiff's economic and noneconomic damages. Hamilton moved in limine to exclude evidence of medical bills that neither plaintiff nor her health insurer, PacifiCare, had paid. Had Howell been uninsured, or had Howell's providers donated their services, Howell would be entitled to recover the reasonable cost of her medical care.
Note:	Personal injury plaintiffs may not collect the undiscounted portion of a provider's bill that was never paid for by the plaintiff or their health insurer, the Supreme Court of California ruled on Thursday.
Citation:	S179115
WCC Citation:	WCC 37912011 CA

Case Name:	HSR Inc. v. WCAB		09/24/2007
Summary:	On September 6, 2006, HSR Inc. filed a petition for reconsideration with the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board (hereafter WCAB). In denying reconsideration, the WCAB concurred with the WCJ's reasons for her findings and award and adopted and incorporated her report. HSR Inc. now petitions this court to annul, vacate and set aside the WCAB opinion and order denying reconsideration. We shall annul the order and direct WCAB to issue a new decision consistent with this opinion. )*fn3 WCJs hear and decide compensation claims as trial judges, and the WCAB functions as an appellate body.
Note:	[Unpublished] A medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on an inadequate history, speculation or guess.
Citation:	H030998, SJO 0250601
WCC Citation:	WCC 32592007 CA

Case Name:	Huange vs. L.A. Haute		02/14/2003
Summary:	Filed 2/14/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT AI ZHEN HUANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. L. A. HAUTE et al. , Defendants and Respondents. On August 9, 2000, Huang filed this negligence action against Hunter and L. A. Haute (hereafter, Hunter). The next day, Hunter told Huang to damp-mop the grout from new limestone floors after the construction crew left. Instead, she brought a hose into the house to fill the pail and overfilled it, covering the floor with water. After Huang and Hunter got the water out of the newly paved rooms at around 11:30 p. m. , Hunter fired Huang.
Note:	Presumption of negligence in LC 3708 does not extend to presumption of injury AOE/COE.
Citation:	106 Cal.App.4th 284
WCC Citation:	WCC 29182003 CA

Case Name:	Huantes v. Built Right Construction, Inc.		03/07/2012
Summary:	HUANTES, an Incompetent Person, etc. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BUILT RIGHT CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Oscar Huantes (hereafter plaintiff) suffered a workplace injury which left him disabled and mentally incompetent. On March 18, 2005, he was working on a theater room in one of the homes of the development, when a two-by-four joist or scaffolding member, constructed by defendant Built Right Construction, Inc. , gave way. SCIF also waived its right to reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits already paid. As a result of counsel's extensive development of facts, O'Neill was willing to provide testimony in support of liability against defendant Built Right Construction, Inc. , the framer which had constructed the facility that gave way.
Note:	An attorney was entitled to nearly half of his client's recovery in a workers' compensation case as his contingency fee.
Citation:	E053259
WCC Citation:	WCC 38682012 CA

Case Name:	Hubbard v. WCAB		11/03/1993
Summary:	Cyril Hubbard, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Southern California Rapid Transit District, Respondents. OPINION: Applicant, Cyril Hubbard, petitioned this court for a writ of review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) deeming applicant's petition for reconsideration denied by operation of law after applicants case file was lost at the Board. On May 5, 1992, the Board stated that applicant's petition for reconsideration was deemed denied by operation of law. In the present case, applicant's petition was not brought to the Board's attention within the prescribed sixty[-]day period. Accordingly, the present petition must be deemed to have been denied by operation of law pursuant to Labor Code section 5909.
Note:	No automatic denial upon expiration of statutory period when claim file is lost by Board through no fault of applicant.
Citation:	58 CCC 739
WCC Citation:	WCC 27851993 CA

Case Name:	Huffman vs. City of Poway		11/13/2000
Summary:	DAVID W. HUFFMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF POWAY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Foundation (AAF), was injured while rehearsing the play at a facility owned and operated by respondent City of Poway (City). Second, the trial court ruled City was not liable under Government Code section 835 because Huffman was injured on property that City did not own or control. The Workers' Compensation Claim Within weeks following the accident, Huffman filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits with City, claiming he was an employee of City. There Is Substantial Evidence City Owned or Controlled the Property City argued, and the trial court found, that City did not own or control the property that caused Huffman's injury.
Note:	Failure to secure compensation will defeat exclusive remedy doctrine.
Citation:	84 Cal.App.4th 975, 65 CCC 1280
WCC Citation:	WCC 3612000 CA

Case Name:	Hughes v. Argonaut Insurance Co.		04/16/2001
Summary:	The third amended complaint of appellant Michelle Hughes reveals the following: Hughes was an employee of Southern Auto Supply. Respondent Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut) provided workers' compensation insurance to the employer. The parties settled for the sum of $12,104. 75. Argonaut asserted a lien against the settlement; the settlement check was endorsed to Hughes, Argonaut and Hughes's attorney. Hughes tendered $3,549. 38 to Argonaut, representing the full value of the insurer's workers' compensation lien ($5,324. 07) reduced by one-third withheld for attorney fees. D. Argonaut is Not Estopped From Asserting the WCAB's Jurisdiction Hughes also maintains that Argonaut is estopped from asserting the WCAB's jurisdiction.
Note:	Carrier cannot be sued by injured worker for mishandling of its lien on the claimant's settlement with a third party tortfeasor.
Citation:	88 Cal.App.4th 517, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 877
WCC Citation:	WCC 31232001 CA

Case Name:	Hughes v. WCAB		03/27/1989
Summary:	In the waiver, applicant asserted she was not then interested in pursuing vocational rehabilitation and her attorney had advised her regarding rehabilitation. Applicant stated she was temporarily waiving all rights to vocational rehabilitation until she would notify Travelers she wanted rehabilitation. The WCJ concluded the Board had jurisdiction to consider whether applicant is entitled to rehabilitation benefits. After this court summarily denied applicant's petition for a writ of review, applicant filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court. The rehabilitation waiver reads as follows: 'Colleen Hughes, employee hereby represents that she is not presently interested in pursuing possible vocational rehabilitation benefits.
Note:	Employer's breach of duty to file disability status report does not toll filing time limits.
Citation:	54 CCC 115
WCC Citation:	WCC 27431989 CA