Case Name:	H.B. Fuller Co., etc. v. WCAB		09/17/1998
Summary:	H. B. Fuller Company, American Motorists Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Eric Weaver, Respondents. However, the parties disputed whether Applicant had made a good faith demand for vocational rehabilitation services. Defendants dispute this as not being a good faith request because, only a few days earlier, Applicant had indicated that he wanted voc. The WCJ recommended that the WCAB deny reconsideration, stating: 'In analyzing the testimony, it appeared that very shortly after being terminated with H. B. Fuller, Applicant was faced with a decision of whether he should pursue vocational rehabilitation. Applicant's main focus was eventually obtaining another position with H. B. Fuller because he wanted to continue his employment there.
Note:	Employer must clarify applicant's willingness to participate in rehab. if request conflicts with statements made by applicant; entitlement to maintenance allowance begins when employer receives application.
Citation:	63 CCC 1287
WCC Citation:	WCC 27961998 CA

Case Name:	Hall v. Curran		05/11/2011
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Respondent Scott Hall (Hall) hired appellant Martin Gerard Curran*fn1 (Curran) to undertake a remodeling project. After disputes arose about workmanship and payment, Curran brought an action against Hall to foreclose on a mechanic's lien. BACKGROUND While only Hall and Curran are parties to this appeal, the underlying action was filed by Coastside Lumber Supply, Inc. (Coastside). Curran filed its own mechanic's lien for $58,109, and in March 2007, filed a cross-complaint against Hall to foreclose on the lien. Hall then dismissed his remaining cause of action against Curran, and the court ordered judgment entered against Curran for $102,740--which represented the entire amount he had been paid for the remodeling project, minus the amount Hall received in settlement from Curran's bonding company, plus $240 in costs.
Note:	A homeowner was able to recoup $102,740 he had paid to a construction firm after discovering that the firm had failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance for some of its workers.
Citation:	A127542
WCC Citation:	WCC 37632011 CA

Case Name:	Hall v. Goodwill Industries of Southern California		03/16/2011
Summary:	MICHAEL HALL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and Appellant Michael Hall filed suit against Goodwill Industries of Southern California (Goodwill) alleging a retaliation claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, 12900 et seq. According to Hall, after Goodwill terminated his employment he was unable to find new work. On December 30, 2005, Hall filed a civil complaint against Goodwill for retaliation in violation of FEHA and wrongful termination. Hall filed a motion for reconsideration but the trial court entered judgment in the case before the motion was heard.
Note:	A worker's Fair Employment and Housing Act suit was untimely because his attorney filed his complaint more than a year after the state issued his right-to-sue notice, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in a published decision.
Citation:	B215860
WCC Citation:	WCC 37272011 CA

Case Name:	Halliburton v. Remington College-Denver Campus, Inc.		04/28/2008
Summary:	According to Halliburton, Cisneros had previously "falsely" stated that Halliburton was sexually harassing her. Halliburton presented deposition testimony from other Halliburton employees including Katrina Shdeed, Manuel Gallegos and Terrence Peterson. Gallegos heard Halliburton complaining about these matters several months before his termination, and he believed Halliburton complained too much and there was no other reason he could think of as to why Halliburton would be fired. Remington thereafter moved for clarification, correction and/or reconsideration of the court's March 2006 order, arguing Remington was not named as a party to Halliburton's defamation cause of action. Background In March 2005, Halliburton served discovery on Remington including special and form interrogatories and a request for production of documents.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because causes of action based on defamation are not barred by the exclusive remedy provision, summary judgement was improper in response to claimant's wrongful discharge and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
Citation:	D049223
WCC Citation:	WCC 33502008 CA

Case Name:	Halverson v. Orange County Employees Retirement System		01/27/2011
Summary:	JANET R. HALVERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION The Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS) adopted a referee's recommendation made following an administrative hearing and denied the application of Janet R. Halverson for service-connected and nonservice-connected disability retirement. Halverson began working for the County of Orange in September 1980. Dr. Savarirayan found Halverson to be anxious and depressed, prescribed Paxil, and placed Halverson on disability for one month. (Curtis v. Board of Retirement (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 293, 297, quoting Mansperger v. Public Employees' Retirement System (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 873, 876. )
Note:	Substantial evidence that a public guardian was able to return to work supported the Orange County Employees' Retirement System's denial of her request for disability-related retirement benefits.
Citation:	G042276
WCC Citation:	WCC 37082011 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton v. WCAB		05/04/1979
Summary:	In 1975, two years after his retirement, Hamilton entered Kaiser hospital for a routine examination. Instead he said 'lay off the booze,' and recommended a 'dry-out clinic' to which Hamilton went for three or four days. But Hamilton did not stop drinking, at least until about a year after he had filed his claim for workers' compensation. 'Review of records: I reviewed all of the records that were sent to me regarding Mr. Hamilton. These records confirm the fact that Mr. Hamilton did indeed begin to have intermittent hypertension since the middle of the 1960's.
Note:	Presumption must be supported by evidence of causal connection between employment and injury.
Citation:	93 Cal.App.3d 587, 44 CCC 520
WCC Citation:	WCC 4141979 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton vs. Lockheed Corp.		04/30/2001
Summary:	Applicant sustained admitted cumulative industrial injury to the psyche from December 1990 through September 30, 1992. After applicant's evaluation by an A m , the matter was submitted for decision "on the record' at the hearing of July 25, 2000. Filed behind the minutes is a large collection of documents with numbered tabs, which include medical reports and deposition transcripts. There is no way to ascertain which, if any of them, were admitted into evidence. In reliance upon same the Court is of the opinion that applicant is totally (100%) disabled due to her employment at Lockheed Corporation from 12/90 to 9/30/92.
Note:	Minimum necessary to be in Board file for case to be submitted for decision.
Citation:	66 CCC 473
WCC Citation:	WCC 29052001 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton vs. Martinelli & Assoc.		07/23/2003
Summary:	BARBARA ANN HAMILTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARTINELLI & ASSOCIATES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Introduction Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Ronald Martinelli (Martinelli) and Martinelli & Associates Justice Consultants, Inc. (Martinelli & Associates) (collectively defendants), on plaintiff's complaint for personal injuries based on negligence and intentional tort. Defendant Martinelli instructed the course on behalf of Martinelli & Associates. Martinelli and one of his assistants instructed the course through Martinelli & Associates, under contract with the Department. She said Martinelli "harbored bitter feelings against [her] based on a prior dispute" and displayed "reckless and vindictive" indifference to her safety.
Note:	No duty owed to a peace officer who is engaged in training to meet an emergency situation.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 1012
WCC Citation:	WCC 29512003 CA

Case Name:	Hamp v. Harrison Patterson O'Connor & Kinkead, LLP		12/18/2012
Summary:	HAMP v. HARRISON PATTERSON O'CONNOR & KINKEAD, LLP RICHARD HAMP, SR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HARRISON PATTERSON O'CONNOR & KINKEAD, LLP et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Richard Hamp, Sr. , (Hamp) sued Harrison Patterson O'Connor & Kinkead, LLP, its successor Harrison Patterson & O'Connor, LLP, and Harry W. Harrison (collectively Harrison) for alleged deficiencies in Harrison's representation of Hamp in an employment action. Hamp subsequently hired Harrison to represent him in an employment action against Hanson. After a failed settlement attempt, Harrison withdrew from representing Hamp in May 2010 and Hamp obtained new counsel. Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 658, upon which Harrison relies, is distinguishable.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal revived an injured worker's malpractice claim against his former attorney, ruling that the action was not subject to dismissal as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Citation:	D061276
WCC Citation:	WCC 39582012 CA

Case Name:	Hanford Ready Mix, Inc. v. Dominguez		12/27/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) HANFORD READY MIX, INC. , Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. DANIEL DOMINGUEZ, Cross-defendant and Respondent. Gray's decedents filed a wrongful death and negligence action against Daniel Dominguez, Hanford Ready Mix, Inc. (Hanford), and Gray's employer, L. L. & W. Supply, Inc. , doing business as Cen-Cal Wallboard (Cen-Cal). Hanford filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against Cen-Cal and Dominguez, alleging their negligence caused or contributed to the accident. Hanford contends there are triable issues of fact concerning whether Dominguez and/or his agents breached a duty of care to Gray and caused the accident. Hanford cross-complained against Cen-Cal and Dominguez, alleging that Gray's death was caused in whole or in part by cross-defendants.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the evidence failed to show negligence on the part of Defendant, summary judgement was warranted and the issue of whether this action was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law is not addressed.
Citation:	C052180
WCC Citation:	WCC 32932007 CA

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

Case Name:	Harris v. McCutchen		03/29/2013
Summary:	HARRIS v. McCUTCHEN HARTWELL HARRIS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BINGHAM McCUTCHEN et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Bingham McCutchen, Debra L. Fischer, Robert A. Brundage and Jessica S. Boar for Defendants and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Defendants, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Seth Gerber and Jonathan Loeb, appeal from an order denying their petition to compel plaintiff, Hartwell Harris, to arbitrate her California employment discrimination and wrongful termination claims. The issue at hand is whether Harris has properly resorted to the superior court in the first place. *fn1 Plaintiff Hartwell Harris is awarded her costs on appeal.
Note:	A former Bingham McCutchen attorney could not be compelled to arbitrate her disability discrimination claims against the law firm.
Citation:	B240522
WCC Citation:	WCC 39972013 CA

Case Name:	Harris v. Superior Court of LA County		12/29/2011
Summary:	HARRIS v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FRANCES HARRIS et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Real Parties in Interest. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; FRANCES HARRIS et al. , Real Parties in Interest. Recognizing that the law was unsettled, the court suggested the parties seek interlocutory review by the Court of Appeal. (f)(1); North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 1145, 1160; Hood v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 319, 322-323. )Defendants contend that if the Court of Appeal erred, this court should decertify the class in its entirety.
Note:	The California Supreme Court on Thursday vacated a lower court ruling finding claims adjusters are not exempt from the state's overtime laws, without answering whether the adjuster should be exempt.
Citation:	S156555
WCC Citation:	WCC 38402011 CA

Case Name:	Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County		08/16/2007
Summary:	B195121 c/w B195370, B195370 c/w B195121 August 16, 2007 FRANCES HARRIS ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, RESPONDENT; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. , REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, RESPONDENT; FRANCES HARRIS ET AL. , REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 690, 701-702; see also Bell II, supra, 87 Cal. App. 4th at p. 2002) 299 F. 3d 1120, 1125, quoting Bratt v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. (Bratt v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 912 F. 2d at p. 1070; see also Martin v. Cooper Elec.
Note:	The plaintiffs are not exempt from the overtime compensation requirements imposed by California law.
Citation:	B195121
WCC Citation:	WCC 36302007 CA

Case Name:	Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County		07/23/2012
Summary:	HARRIS v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FRANCES HARRIS et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Real Parties in Interest. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; FRANCES HARRIS et al. , Real Parties in Interest. These writ proceedings are before us on remand from the Supreme Court following the court's decision in Harris v. Superior Court (2011) 53 Cal. 4th 170 (Harris). Recognizing that the law was unsettled, the court suggested the parties seek interlocutory review by the Court of Appeal. The court reversed our judgment and remanded to this court to reconsider the matter in light of "the appropriate legal standard set out herein. "
Note:	Claims adjusters are not exempt from state overtime laws.
Citation:	B195121
WCC Citation:	WCC 39162012 CA

Case Name:	Harsco Corp. v. Kiewit Pacific Co.		05/27/2008
Summary:	Savage; Chapman, Clucksman & Dean, Arthur J. Chapman and Dominic J. Fote for Cross-Defendant and Respondent Kiewit Pacific Company. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Kiewit Pacific Corporation (Kiewit) was hired as the general contractor to build 60-foot sewage tanks. Ninety-nine per cent of the shoring frames on tank 19 were rented by Quality from Harsco Corporation (Harsco). Third, Harsco had the authority to rent the shoring pursuant to a June 15, 1992 contract with Kiewit. On January 6, 2005, Harsco filed its reply to Mr. Villegas's summary judgment opposition which stated: "Defendants Harsco Corporation, Patent Construction Systems, A Division of Harsco, SGB Construction Services, Inc. , and SGB, Inc. .
Note:	Employer's failure to raise the issue of damages until after it had propounded discovery devices, litigated a summary judgment motion, and participated in a trial waived, forfeited, and estopped it from asserting it was not subject to a potential damage award in this case.
Citation:	B194481
WCC Citation:	WCC 33732008 CA

Case Name:	Hart v. WCAB		08/08/2012
Summary:	Applicant Stephen Hart injured his right shoulder in the course of employment, which later led to an overcompensation injury to his left shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. We shall remand the matter to the WCAB to reconsider applicant's temporary total disability claim. A more comprehensive summary is unnecessary, considering our conclusion that the WCJ and WCAB did not weigh the evidence relating to applicant's cervical problems. The WCAB denied reconsideration of the WCJ's decision based on the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, which the WCAB incorporated by reference with some minor, non-substantive corrections.
Note:	An injured retail worker may be entitled to further temporary total disability benefits arising from a 13-year old injury.
Citation:	C069347
WCC Citation:	WCC 39192012 CA

Case Name:	Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. WCAB		11/01/1978
Summary:	HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and NANCY PHILLIPS, Respondents. Accordingly, we reverse a determination of the WCAB that petitioner Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company's petition for reconsideration was untimely and remand the matter to the WCAB for consideration on the merits. It designates as attorney of record for Hartford 'Bernardo A. Hernandez, ESQ' at '3435 Wilshire Blvd L. A. , CA 90010. 'The findings and award were not received in the Wilshire Boulevard office of Hartford until August 29, 1977. It did not serve either Hartford or its attorney of record at their respective 'addresses of record. '
Note:	Service must be made to address on record with WCAB; statutory period begins when order received by attorney on record.
Citation:	86 Cal.App.3d 1, 43 CCC 1193
WCC Citation:	WCC 27821978 CA

Case Name:	Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.		09/18/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. By a letter to Hartford dated January 20, 2006, PG&E acknowledged receipt of Hartford's claim and informed Hartford that Nash had settled her lawsuit with PG&E. Once Nash settled her action and agreed to release her rights against PG&E, Hartford had no rights against PG&E. Consequently, although PG&E might have contractual or equitable indemnity rights against Nash, PG&E could not escape liability for Hartford's claim for reimbursement. As a matter of law, PG&E had no duty to notify and/or obtain the consent of plaintiff Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company ('Hartford') to the pending settlement. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Appellant's right to pursue a direct action against PG&E was not precluded by the settlement and dismissal of injured employee's lawsuit against PG&E.
Citation:	A119344
WCC Citation:	WCC 34262008 CA

Case Name:	Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. vs. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.		10/21/2004
Summary:	Valley Metal fulfilled that obligation by purchasing a CGL policy from Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (Hartford), effective through April 27, 2000. Hawley addressed, but failed to resolve, the issue of whether Hartford would provide PCS with indemnity. Per the contract, Hartford policy is primary and indemnification is owed for all except sole negligence or willful misconduct of [PCS]. "Hawley Insurance Company is facing a large potential exposure, and they should participate and contribute toward a resolution of this claim. "Hawley, seeking declaratory relief, contribution, and indemnity based on the amounts Hartford had paid to defend and settle the lawsuit by Cortez and Fremont.
Note:	Where a general contractor is not liable to a subcontractor under an indemnity provision, so the general contractor's own insurer is not liable to the subcontractor's insurer for an employment injury..
Citation:	123 Cal. App. 4th 278
WCC Citation:	WCC 30612004 CA

Case Name:	Hartsuiker v. WCAB		01/11/1993
Summary:	RUSSELL HARTSUIKER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HARTSUIKER & CO. et al. , Respondents. We now conclude that the WCAB does not have authority to reserve jurisdiction to make such an award more than five years after the date of injury. On December 15, 1991, the WCAB issued its opinion and order denying a petition for reconsideration. The WCAB continued: 'Ruffin also contends that jurisdiction should be reserved in his case to award further temporary disability indemnity. Also, as observed by the Court of Appeal, the WCAB did not reserve jurisdiction to award Nickelsberg further temporary total disability.
Note:	No WCAB continuing jurisdiction to award disability for hospitalization more than 5 years after injury.
Citation:	12 Cal.App.4th 209, 58 CCC 19
WCC Citation:	WCC 26671993 CA

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

Case Name:	Henry v. WCAB		12/18/1998
Summary:	JENNIFER HENRY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA et al. , Respondents. Jennifer Lee Henry (Henry) injured her back while employed as a seasonal ski instructor at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (Mammoth Mountain). Henry rejected the offer and petitioned for additional relief through the workers' compensation and judicial systems. Henry contended that the offer does not comply with section 4644, subdivision (a)(6)(B) which requires that the employer offer alternative work in a regular position lasting at least 12 months. Henry requested reconsideration by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) which also upheld the consultant's decision.
Note:	Seasonal employee is entitled to only 12 months of alternate seasonal work, not to 12 months of continuous work.
Citation:	68 Cal.App.4th 981, 63 CCC 1481
WCC Citation:	WCC 27901998 CA

Case Name:	Henstorf v. State Compensation Ins. Fund		09/04/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE JAN E. HENSTORF et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. In 2004, State Fund issued 51 percent of the workers' compensation insurance written in California. In early 2005, State Fund established a medical provider network of physicians to provide care to the worker's compensation patients of State Fund's insureds. State Fund now issues 36 percent of the worker's compensation insurance written in California. Respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund is awarded its costs on appeal.
Note:	[Unpublished] State Fund's conduct in combining with Blue Cross to form an efficient bargaining unit is expressly exempt from antitrust and unfair competition laws under Business and Professions Code section 16720, Health and Safety Code section 1342.6, and Insurance Code section 10133.6.
Citation:	B210943
WCC Citation:	WCC 35622009 CA

Case Name:	Herek v. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association		10/30/2017
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 TWO .             MICHAEL HEREK, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. .             B275805 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Petitioner Michael Herek (petitioner) applied for a disability retirement from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (Department), and his application was denied. Application for Disability Retirement .           In February 2008, petitioner filed an application with respondent Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association’s Board of Retirement (the Board) for a disability retirement due to “[c]ardiovascular, high blood pressure, gastrointestinal, [and] back” injuries. .           ______________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           We concur: .           _________________________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           _________________________, J. CHAVEZ
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the denial of a former law enforcement officer’s claim for disability retirement benefits, finding substantial evidence supported a determination that he was not permanently incapacitated from duty.
Citation:	B275805
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS155097

Case Name:	Heritage Residential Care v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement		01/26/2011
Summary:	HERITAGE RESIDENTIAL CARE, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT et al. Division of Labor Standards, Department of Industrial Relations, Legal Section, Anne Hipshman, Attorney for Respondent. BACKGROUND The parties to this appeal are Heritage Residential Care, Inc. (appellant) and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (respondent, sometimes referred to herein as DLSE or Labor Commissioner). Mandamus Petition In February 2009, appellant filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Civil Penalties for Violation "When proven, Labor Code violations give rise to civil penalties. "
Note:	A misclassification statute's use of the word 'inadvertent' did not excuse a nursing home's $72,000 fine for its inadvertent misclassification of 16 health care workers.
Citation:	H034994
WCC Citation:	WCC 37072011 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. DeGroot & Sons		11/28/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. C. DEGROOT & SONS, Defendant and Appellant. Ct. No. CV017461) ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. C. DEGROOT & SONS, Defendant and Respondent. He and his wife Maria sued his employer's landlord, C. DeGroot & Sons, a general partnership (the Landlord). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Landlord, a general partnership of Jerry DeGroot (DeGroot) and his three brothers, owned a cheese making facility on 20 acres or so in Manteca. "If you decide, one, that C. DeGroot & Sons [(the Landlord)] violated this law and, two, that the violation was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, then you must find .
Note:	[Unpublished] Where there is a tenable claim of concurrent negligence, the consideration that an injured worker has workers' compensation coverage is no bar to recovery from the concurrent tortfeasor.
Citation:	C051254
WCC Citation:	WCC 32812007 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Gray Lift, Inc.		05/31/2012
Summary:	HERNANDEZ v. GRAY LIFT, INC. JOSE HERNANDEZ, JR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GRAY LIFT, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. In the FAC, plaintiffs Jose Hernandez, Jr. , Yunalesca Hernandez, and Noemi Hernandez sought damages under the wrongful death statute against defendants Gray Lift and Wells based upon the alleged negligent driving of Wells while in the scope of Wells's employment with Gray Lift, Inc. , resulting in the fatal accident that caused decedent's death. Plaintiffs further admit that CRS is a dba of Gray Lift, Inc. , yet they attempt to sue Gray Lift, Inc. as a separate entity. That is, defendants sought to prove that CRS was one and the same entity as Gray Lift, Inc. and therefore Gray Lift Inc. was decedent's employer. Gray Lift, Inc. , provided all tools used by Plaintiffs' decedent in his work for Gray Lift, Inc. doing business as [CRS].
Note:	A California corporation could assert workers' compensation exclusivity as an affirmative defense to a wrongful death claim filed by the family of a laborer who was killed while working for it, pursuant to a contract under the corporation's fictitious business name.
Citation:	F061759
WCC Citation:	WCC 39042012 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Henkel Loctite Corporation		03/22/2018
Summary:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             PEDRO HERNANDEZ, Applicant, .             v. .             HENKEL LOCTITE CORPORATION; ZURICH AMERICAN INS. .             Based on our review of the relevant statutes and case law, we hold that: .           1. .           (C) Has provided treatment authorized by the employer or claims administrator under Section 4610. .           The WCJ issued her Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision on December 29, 2017, and found, in pertinent part: .           2. .           WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD (EN BANC) .           /s/Katherine A. Zalewski____________________ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, Chairwoman .           /s/ Deidra E. Lowe_________________________ DEIDRA E. LOWE, Commissioner .           /s/ Marguerite Sweeney_____________________ MARGUERITE SWEENEY, Commissioner .           /s/ José H. Razo ____________________ JOSÉ H. RAZO, Commissioner .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           03/22/2018 En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and WCJs.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ6726149
WCC Citation:	ADJ6726149

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.		01/24/2017
Summary:	.             Plaintiff and appellant Yvonne Hernandez worked for defendant and respondent Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (Pacific Bell). .           In the years Hernandez was ineligible for leave under the FMLA/CFRA, Pacific Bell granted CIL to her. B. Pacific Bell moves for summary judgment .           Pacific Bell moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication. .           Hernandez submitted “me too” evidence (declarations from other fired Pacific Bell employees and their civil complaints) showing that Pacific Bell fired other disabled employees. D. Pacific Bell’s reply  .           In reply, Pacific Bell submitted additional deposition testimony from Ross and from Williams showing, for example, that Pacific Bell considered leave given to accommodate a disability as protected.
Note:
Citation:	B260109
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC507337

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Target Corp.		02/19/2008
Summary:	INTRODUCTION While working for defendant and respondent Target Corporation (Target), plaintiff and appellant Martha Hernandez (plaintiff) injured her knee. *fn6 On or about March 12, 2004, plaintiff submitted to Target a doctor's note indicating that she could only work sitting. Plaintiff told several Target employees about her knee pain, including the "secretary," but was told to continue working in her Go-Backs position. Moreover, Garcia admitted that Target had a cashier who performed the essential job functions of that position in a wheelchair. As noted above, plaintiff's DFEH charge against Target alleged that Target illegally discriminated against her on May 11, 2004, when it fired her because of her disability.
Note:	[Unpublished] The trial court did not err in making the evidentiary rulings challenged by plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies in connection with certain of her claims under the FEHA.
Citation:	B195625
WCC Citation:	WCC 33192008 CA

Case Name:	Herrera v. CU Cooperative Systems		01/29/2013
Summary:	HERRERA v. CU COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. ROXANNE HERRERA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CU COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant, Roxanne Herrera, sued her former employer, defendant and respondent, CU Cooperative Systems, Inc. (CO-OP), alleging three violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq. Herrera Tells Freer She is Pregnant On July 15, 2008, Herrera told Freer she was pregnant. Herrera showed Freer a copy of her meal plan and asked him for permission to eat at her desk. On November 4, 2008, while Herrera was still on PDL, Monise contacted Herrera by telephone and terminated her effective November 5, 2008.
Note:	An employer defeated a pregnancy discrimination suit by showing that it had actually fired the plaintiff because she had coached a coworker on how to skip work
Citation:	E052869
WCC Citation:	WCC 39802013 CA