Case Name:	Jimenez v. San Joaquin Valley Labor		01/24/2002
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARIA YOLANDA JIMENEZ, Applicant, vs. SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY LABOR; and SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. In the former case the prediction of earnings need only be made for the duration of the temporary disability. Specifically, there is no significant evidence applicant likely would have worked during the off-season, had she not been injured. Second, the finding of two different temporary disability indemnity rates for a seasonal employee is fully consistent with the governing law. Vocational rehabilitation is one of the most important benefits under the Labor Code (Martinez v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	On-season & off-season TD rates; 2 tiered VR rates.
Citation:	67 CCC 74 [En Banc]
WCC Citation:	WCC 28352002 CA

Case Name:	JKH Enterprises Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations		09/11/2006
Summary:	JKH filed the petition for writ in an effort to overturn the administrative stop work order issued and upheld by the Department of Industrial Relations, respondent here. The drivers turn in their delivery logs and JKH keeps track of those in order to bill its customers. Cheng asked the dispatcher for a list of the names of drivers then working for JKH, which the dispatcher provided. JKH contested the "Stop Order-Penalty Assessment" and requested a hearing before the Department. [JKH] obtains the clients who are in need of delivery services and provides the workers who conduct the service on behalf of [JKH].
Note:	All but one of the employer's drivers were functioning as its employees rather than as true independent contractors.
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 1046
WCC Citation:	WCC 31802006 CA

Case Name:	John Futrell et al. v. Payday California, Inc., et al.		12/16/2010
Summary:	Between July and December 2008, Payday and Futrell filed arguments, evidence and evidentiary objections on the issue of whether Payday had been Futrell's employer. Futrell submitted his own declaration attesting he "understood" he was a Payday employee because of the payroll documents that Payday processed, and because representatives of Payday made statements to that effect. The pay stubs provided with Futrell's paychecks identified Futrell as the "employee" and identified Payday as the "employer of record. "Payday did not and could not hire or fire Futrell, nor did Payday have any control over Futrell's work activities. Our references to "Payday" include Payday California, Inc. , Screaming Eagle, Inc. , Payday LA, Inc. , Payday Management, Inc. , and PDSI, Inc. .
Note:	A class action suit against a payroll company for unpaid overtime and other wages failed because the payroll company was not his employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded in a published opinion.
Citation:	B215110
WCC Citation:	WCC 36962010 CA

Case Name:	Johns-Manville vs. Sup. Court (Rudkin)		07/03/1980
Summary:	It requested the trial court to take judicial notice of an application filed by plaintiff seeking workers' compensation benefits for disability caused by "[e]xposure to asbestos. "The court declared that the Legislature never intended that an employer's fraud was a risk of the employment. However, the court concluded that having undertaken treatment in a doctor-patient relationship, the employer should be liable in tort for acts of malpractice. [27 Cal. 3d 488] I would issue the writ and order respondent court to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court reasoned that the Legislature did not intend to deny an employee all redress for that tort.
Note:	Employer civil liability if conceals knowledge of potential injury and connection with employment.
Citation:	27 Cal.3d 465
WCC Citation:	WCC 28601980 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. John Deere Landscapes, Inc.		03/28/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. C05-02210) A temporary employment agency assigned appellant Kenneth Johnson to work for respondent John Deere Landscapes, Inc. (John Deere). He further contends John Deere is bound by the initial determination of its workers' compensation carrier that John Deere was not Johnson's employer. Labor Connection did not direct the manner in which Johnson performed his daily assignments for John Deere, and Johnson did not undertake work on his own initiative. John Deere argued that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that it was Johnson's special employer, rendering John Deere immune from tort liability for Johnson's injuries. Johnson contends that the "admission" by John Deere's workers' compensation carrier that John Deere was not Johnson's employer vitiates the affirmative defense based on workers' compensation exclusivity.
Note:	[Unpublished] Although the special employment factors do not unanimously favor a finding of special employment, there is no requirement of unanimity and there was no error in finding that John Deere Landscapes, Inc. was Claimant's 'special employer' and thus the relationship falls under the exclusive remedy provision.
Citation:	A116643
WCC Citation:	WCC 33342008 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. Pacific International Bearing, Inc.		12/27/2012
Summary:	JOHNSON v. PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL BEARING, INC. RICK JOHNSON, JR. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL BEARING, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Johnson did not come close to making his monthly sales goals at any time during his employment by Pacific. He was concerned that many of the accounts Johnson was targeting were too small or needed products Pacific was not selling, so he began to mentor Johnson and redirect him toward more productive efforts. On April 6, Sweeney and Johnson exchanged e-mails over a scheduled performance review for Johnson and other employees. Johnson's Termination On April 10, at 8:36 a. m. , Sweeney sent Davis an e-mail, copied to Johnson, instructing her to go on certain sales calls with Johnson.
Note:	Substantial evidence supported a jury's determination that an employer had not fired a poorly performing salesman with a history of lying to his boss because of a known or perceived physical disability.
Citation:	A129774
WCC Citation:	WCC 39662012 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (City of LA)		07/13/1989
Summary:	James Johnson, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and City of Los Angeles, Respondents. Dr. Hyman reported applicant has reflux esophagitis and the condition was neither caused nor aggravated by the employment but rather was entirely congenital. Dr. Markovitz noted applicant was taking medication for his arm and some medications, including aspirin, upset applicant's stomach. Dr. Markovitz recommended applicant receive medication and occasional examinations by a physician for the gastrointestinal condition. In the present case, however, the WCJ's letter clarifying his decision concerned the precise issue as to which applicant sought reconsideration.
Note:	Time limit for filing begins when WCJ issues a clarification of issues based in Petition for Reconsideration.
Citation:	54 CCC 256
WCC Citation:	WCC 27331989 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (Lentz)		07/30/1970
Summary:	JEAN JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, LENTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. , Respondents. Mr. Johnson died on January 2, 1969; his widow filed her claim for death benefits on January 27. On February 4 the referee, without hearing or responsive pleading from the employer or insurance carrier, dismissed petitioner's application on the basis of the release executed by Mr. Johnson. We conclude that Labor Code section 5000 empowers an employee to compromise and release claims of his dependents. [7] Petitioner alleges that Mr. Johnson, in executing the compromise and release, did not know that he was releasing her claim to death benefits and did not intend that result.
Note:	Release of dependent's benefits valid;
Citation:	2 Cal.3d 964, 35 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 25551970 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (TWA)		11/19/1984
Summary:	In July of 1977, Johnson filed applications with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or board) for adjudication of his claims for permanent disability compensation benefits arising from the two injuries. Johnson filed a petition for writ of review and requested the Court of Appeal to order Hartford to reimburse him for the printing costs. To assess the accuracy of the Rodriguez court's statement, it is helpful to survey the history of WCAB practices in this area. However, in 1971, the WCAB adopted a new policy under which it no longer answered such petitions unless they challenged WCAB procedures or policies. Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the WCAB with directions to award Johnson reasonable appellate costs.
Note:	Printing costs awarded to worker in answering petition for writ of review.
Citation:	37 Cal.3d 235, 49 CCC 716
WCC Citation:	WCC 26241984 CA

Case Name:	Johnston v. Kelly		01/03/2012
Summary:	JOHNSTON v. KELLY GEORGE PATRICK JOHNSTON et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SHARON KELLY et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Johnston and Dairy filed their complaint in this action, alleging two causes of action for malicious prosecution and unfair business practices against Kelly and her law firm. Johnston contacted the union because another employee would have to be laid off in order to reinstate Toro, and Johnston wanted the union's input in determining which employee would be terminated. Toro testified at trial that he talked to Johnston when Johnston returned from vacation and Johnston said he had received a letter from EDD indicating Toro had quit; Johnston told Toro to come back and talk to him after he resolved the problem with EDD. At another point, Toro testified he went to see Johnston and ask for work; Johnston told him there was no work for him then.
Note:	An employer defeated a plaintiff's motion to strike a malicious prosecution suit that emanated from a failed Labor Code 132a claim.
Citation:	F060909
WCC Citation:	WCC 38422012 CA