Case Name:	Kaiser Cement Corp., etc. v. WCAB		05/06/1986
Summary:	When applicant first began his employment with Kaiser Cement in 1966, he worked four to five months as a laborer. The last four years applicant was employed by Kaiser Cement he worked as a heavy equipment operator. Dr. Billings described the occupational noise exposure at Kaiser Cement as 'Mill noise about 20% of the time while employed as a laborer by Kaiser Cement from 1966 to 1968 and about 50% of the time while employed as an electrician/oiler by Kaiser Cement from 1973 to 1979. The medical report of Dr. Riordan noted in applicant's medical history that applicant was exposed to noise while performing his duties for Kaiser Cement. His exposure to noise while employed by Kaiser Cement is the major causative factor of the noise-induced portion of this bilateral sensori-neural hearing loss.
Note:	Issues not raised in Petition for Recon. are waived under Code S. 5904.
Citation:	51 CCC 232
WCC Citation:	WCC 27251986 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Ct of LA County		02/15/2012
Summary:	KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent. INTRODUCTION Anna Rahm and her parents, Lynnette and James Rahm, filed a complaint against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and two Kaiser health care providers. Plaintiffs' Complaint On July 15, 2010, Anna and her parents filed a complaint against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (Kaiser Health Plan or Health Plan), which administered Anna's health care plan. The complaint also named Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kaiser Hospitals) and Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG), which contract with Kaiser Health Plan to provide hospital and medical services to the Plan's insureds. First, the complaint sought punitive damages from Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, which is a "licensed health care service plan" under California's Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Health & Saf.
Note:	A procedural statute did not bar punitive damages claims in a suit alleging that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan conspired to deny costly medical services to health plan members.
Citation:	B233759
WCC Citation:	WCC 38572012 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Brennan)		02/28/1979
Summary:	KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, THOMAS J. BRENNAN et al. , Respondents. OPINION COBEY Acting P. J. , Petitioners Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Kaiser) contend that respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) erred in charging part of a fee awarded an injured worker's attorney to Kaiser's recovery on its lien claim for medical services (see Lab. III We find Quinn v. State of California (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 162 [124 Cal. Rptr. 1, 539 P. 2d 761] and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 776 [151 Cal. Rptr. 537, 588 P. 2d 239]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. In California School for the Deaf the petitioner was 'Kaiser Foundation Hospitals/ Permanente Medical Group. '
Note:	Copy of C&R must be served to lien claimant who is to be charged a portion of atty. fees; claimant has right to notice of hearing before any apportionment.
Citation:	91 Cal.App.3d 493, 44 CCC 294
WCC Citation:	WCC 27531979 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Daly City)		07/25/1985
Summary:	KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF DALY CITY et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Lucas, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )The injury worsened and on March 6, 1981, Martin was admitted to Kaiser Foundation Hospital (Kaiser) in Redwood City where he was furnished medical services. There is no evidence that either Kaiser or City knew before Kaiser sent this letter that Martin's injury was possibly work related. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Breach of employer's duty to notify employee of rights to benefits tolls limitations period; duty arises if employer has constructive knowledge of injury.
Citation:	39 Cal.3d 57, 50 CCC 411
WCC Citation:	WCC 4071985 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Gregory)		12/15/1978
Summary:	KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ROBERT GREGORY et al. , Respondents. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, GEORGE ALBERT JONES et al. , Respondents. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SEVER M. LONE et al. , Respondents. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CARL SMITH et al. , Respondents. [87 Cal. App. 3d 343] Petitioner, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and its affiliate, Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Kaiser) admittedly are the kind of provider of medical services referred to in that section.
Note:	WCAB reduction of lien pursuant to C&R is constitutional, applies retroactively; parties to C&R must serve reports, evidence presented to Bd. to claimant.
Citation:	87 Cal.App.3d 336, 43 CCC 1300
WCC Citation:	WCC 25371978 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Foundation v. WCAB (Yturralde)		08/12/1996
Summary:	Applicant Melody Yturralde worked for Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital as a registered nurse and lab technician. The parties submitted stipulations in 4/93, and the WCJ issued an award. In the opinion denying defendant's Petition for Writ of Review, the Appellate Court stated: "The Board correctly relied on Smyers v. Workers' Comp. (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 36, 42-43 to allow benefits for housekeeping and child care services which are medically necessary and reasonable. You are counseled to consult the full case for an accurate citation.
Note:	Child care may be awarded as reasonable medical per Smyers.
Citation:	61 CCC 876 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29551996 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser v. Calif. Electric, Calif. Casualty Exch.		10/28/1998
Summary:	On March 20, 1998, defendant filed a Petition for Removal with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) pursuant to Labor Code section 5310. After reviewing the record, the Board will deny removal, but will return this matter to the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) for further proceedings and decision. It is premature to file either an Application or a petition for reconsideration since no arbitrator's decision has been issued in this case. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Removal filed April 20, 1998, be, and it hereby is, DENIED. [sic] and that this matter be, and it is hereby, RETURNED to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision consistent with this opinion.
Note:	WCJ has authority to dismiss application if injury covered by alternative resolution process under 3201.5.
Citation:	63 CCC 1391 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3931998 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser v. Simpson		05/15/2009
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CYNTHIA KAISER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SEAN DANIEL SIMPSON et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Cynthia Kaiser appeals a judgment after a jury found against her in this action for professional negligence against her former law firm, Simpson & Brenner, LLP, and its attorneys. On September 27, 2002, Kaiser retained Simpson & Brenner to prosecute a third-party liability claim against Palomar. In this appeal, Kaiser contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated its prior in limine ruling by allowing expert King to testify that Simpson & Brenner did not violate the standard of care in failing to seek leave to file a late claim because the initial six-month statute of limitations had expired by the time Kaiser retained Simpson & Brenner and therefore, the case was "dead on arrival. "Kaiser nonetheless points out that King repeatedly testified that her case was "dead on arrival" at Simpson & Brenner's office, and that, by the time she brought her case to Simpson & Brenner, her rights were "set in stone" because of her failure to act diligently.
Note:	[Unpublished] An injured worker waived her right to challenge a San Diego Superior Court's admission of expert testimony in her legal malpractice action by failing to object to the admission of such testimony during the trial process.
Citation:	D053348
WCC Citation:	WCC 35242009 CA

Case Name:	Kamel v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation		03/29/2011
Summary:	KAMEL v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION LOUIS KAMEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant and Respondent. We examine the documents presented in the trial court and independently determine their effect as a matter of law. The timely filing of an administrative complaint is a prerequisite to the bringing of a civil action for damages under the FEHA. The second amended complaint names only the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as defendant. All four were employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Prison Health Care Services in Sacramento.
Note:	A trial court must decide whether the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation unlawfully revoked a psychiatrist's job offer in retaliation for prior complaints about discrimination.
Citation:	F059186
WCC Citation:	WCC 37392011 CA

Case Name:	Kamel vs. West Cliff Medical		12/24/2001
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA WAHBY KAMEL Applicant, vs. WEST CLIFF MEDICAL; SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. BACKGROUND Applicant, while employed as a medical technologist on November 10, 1998, sustained industrial injury to his back, left hip and lower extremity. In Findings and Award issued on February 2, 2000, it was determined, among other things, that this injury caused permanent disability of 48 percent. Following defendant's failure to appear at the May 21, 2001 mandatory settlement conference, this matter was set for trial on June ,2001. The question of delay and the reasonableness of the cause therefor shall be determined by the appeals board in accordance with the facts.
Note:	In a 5814 penalty, applicant must first establish delay or refusal in the payment of compensation and then the defendant
Citation:	66 CCC ___ (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29032001 CA