Case Name:	Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. WCAB		08/12/1980
Summary:	LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LEVON APRAHAMIAN, Respondents. [1a] Petitioner Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) seeks review of the summary denial by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) of Liberty's petition to reopen the workers' compensation award of respondent injured worker, Levon Aprahamian. We agree with Liberty that such summary denial was in error and accordingly annul the Board's decision. Citing Polach v. American Smelting & Refining Co. (1969) 34 Cal. Comp. Cases 511, and WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (Cal. Liberty then sought reconsideration by the Board, asserting it had been denied the opportunity to present evidence on its petition to reopen.
Note:	Appeals Bd. may not deny petition to reopen without hearing specifics of case.
Citation:	109 Cal.App.3d 148, 45 CCC 866
WCC Citation:	WCC 25291980 CA

Case Name:	Life Technologies Corp. v. Joyce		07/14/2011
Summary:	LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, Respondent; TIMOTHY H. JOYCE, Real Party in Interest. Introduction Real party in interest Timothy Joyce has sued petitioner Life Technologies Corporation (LTC) for wrongful termination, claiming, among other things, that he was discriminated against on the basis of his age and retaliated against because he complained about such discrimination. Joyce spoke with Frazier about the chart and the "three people being `managed out,' all of whom were over 40. "Two days later, Joyce met with Van Bronkhorst, who denied any discrimination and said no investigation would be done. DISPOSITION Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue commanding respondent Superior Court of San Mateo County to set aside that portion of its order filed February 2, 2011, in Joyce v. Life Technologies Corporation, et al. (Super.
Note:
Citation:	A131120
WCC Citation:	WCC 37812011 CA

Case Name:	Light v. California Department of Parks and Recreation Part 1/2		08/08/2017
Summary:	.              D070361 .              (Super. .              Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General, Christine Mersten and Jodi L. Cleesattle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent California Department of Parks and Recreation. .            Plaintiff Melony Light appeals judgments in favor of her employer, defendant California Department of Parks and Recreation (Department), and her former supervisors, defendants Leda Seals and Kathy Dolinar, following orders granting defendants' motions for summary judgment. .            A month after Light returned in fall 2011, Seals recommended Light for an "outof-class" assignment as an Office Technician. Before Light met with investigators, Seals told Light she and Dolinar expected Light and other employees to lie to the investigators.
Note:	A California appellate court panel ruled that an employee may pursue a tort claim against her supervisor for intentional infliction of emotional distress, creating a conflict with another panel's reading of a 2008 state Supreme Court opinion.
Citation:	D070361
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00069437- CU-OE-CTL

Case Name:	Light v. California Department of Parks and Recreation Part 2/2		08/08/2017
Summary:	As between the Department and Light, Light shall recover costs on appeal. In the trial court, Light sought judicial notice of various documents purporting to show the Department did not have genuine budget issues.   Light also relies on a Department e-mail sent in early September, prior to her notification, seeking alternative employment for a Department employee. Light relies on this e-mail in several other arguments, including to claim that the Department spread false information about her.   To the extent Light is relying on the Department e-mail discussed in footnote 7, ante, it is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed.
Note:	A California appellate court panel ruled that an employee may pursue a tort claim against her supervisor for intentional infliction of emotional distress, creating a conflict with another panel's reading of a 2008 state Supreme Court opinion.
Citation:	D070361
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00069437- CU-OE-CTL

Case Name:	Little v. WCAB		11/16/2007
Summary:	-ooOoo- Jack Little petitions for a writ of review contending the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) erred in concluding he filed a deficient skeletal petition for reconsideration and that he failed to prove he required erectile dysfunction medication on an industrial basis. Little petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending the WCJ failed to note that certain issues had been deferred at the mandatory settlement conference and that substantial evidence supported a finding that he required Viagra on an industrial basis. Little again petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration claiming the WCJ's decision was not supported by the evidence. On May 14, 2007, Little petitioned the WCAB a third time. Although he also refers to off the record comments by the WCJ, Little points to nothing in the record to suggest the WCJ was concerned with, let alone exerted some control over, documents filed with the WCAB.
Note:	[Unpublished] Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that the petitioner filed a deficient skeletal petition for reconsideration and that he failed to prove he required erectile dysfunction medication on an industrial basis.
Citation:	F053519
WCC Citation:	WCC 32782007 CA

Case Name:	Litzmann v. WCAB		09/27/1968
Summary:	LEWIS D. LITZMANN, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, AZUSA WESTERN, INC. et al. , Respondents. (Jarkieh v. Badagliacco, 68 Cal. App. 2d 426 [156 P. 2d 969]; Pfingst v. Mayer, 93 Cal. App. 2d 265 [208 P. 2d 1002]. )On appeals, a common custom is to allow a reasonable time within which to file amended briefs complying with the rules. (See Lady v. Worthingham, 55 Cal. App. 2d 396 [130 P. 2d 435]; Wiersma v. City of Long Beach, 32 Cal. App. 2d 405 [89 P. 2d 1107]. )While he was doing this, Mr. Dean doubled up his fist and said, 'I'll teach you to call me an S. O. B. ' Mr. Litzmann said, 'I didn't but I will now'.
Note:	Review awarded even though filed a day late when petition wrongfully rejected by clerk on last day for filing.
Citation:	266 Cal.App.2d 203, 33 CCC 584
WCC Citation:	WCC 27091968 CA

Case Name:	Lockheed Litigation Cases		02/02/2004
Summary:	LOCKHEED LITIGATION CASES. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, V. Thomas Meador III and Deanne L. Miller for Defendant and Respondent Union Oil Company of California. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Former and current employees of Lockheed Corporation (Lockheed) sued Lockheed and manufacturers and suppliers of chemicals, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by occupational exposure to chemicals. The actions were coordinated in Lockheed Litigation Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2967. (2) "Do the proffered experts' opinions for the wrongful death cases satisfy the standard of admissibility under California law?
Note:	An expert opinion must be based on matter that provides a reasonable basis for the opinion.
Citation:	115 Cal.App.4th 558
WCC Citation:	WCC 29682004 CA

Case Name:	Lockheed v. WCAB (McCullough)		03/19/2002
Summary:	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and VIRGINIA McCULLOUGH, Respondents. Employer Lockheed Martin (Lockheed) and its insurer, Bankers Standard Insurance Company (Bankers), petitioned for review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board or WCAB) reversing the finding of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) that employee applicant Virginia McCullough suffered no compensable psychiatric injury. Lockheed and Bankers (hereafter collectively "Lockheed") filed a timely petition for writ of review; G. E. did not. "An erroneous interpretation or application of the law by the WCAB is a ground for annulment of [its] decision. Nor would employers like Lockheed challenge Board decisions employing the compensable consequence test.
Note:	3208.3 threshhold applies to physical injuries, overrules REBELO
Citation:	96 Cal.App.4th 1237
WCC Citation:	WCC 28412002 CA

Case Name:	Lohnes v. Astron Computer Prod.; Crum & Forster		12/27/2001
Summary:	MARY ELLEN LOHNES, Plaintiff, v. ASTRON COMPUTER PRODUCTS, et. Al. , Defendants and Respondents; CRUM & FORSTER, Intervener and Appellant Appeal from a order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David T. McEachen, Judge. Intervener Crum & Forster appeals from a trial court's order granting a motion to strike its complaint in intervention filed in an action against defendants Astron Computer Products and John Lee. FACTS Plaintiff Mary Ellen Lohnes sued defendants for damages she sustained in an auto accident, which occurred almost a year earlier. About two and one-half months before trial, intervener, plaintiff's employer's worker's compensation carrier, filed a complaint in intervention seeking indemnification.
Note:	Court abused discretion dismissing intervention when local practices relied on.
Citation:	94 Cal.App.4th 1150
WCC Citation:	WCC 28312001 CA

Case Name:	Longval v. WCAB		12/16/1996
Summary:	Factual and Procedural Background M. J. Longval (Longval) represents applicants for workers' compensation benefits before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). On May 3, 1995, Longval petitioned the WCAB for $337. 60 in fees for obtaining vocational rehabilitation benefits on behalf of sanitation worker [51 Cal. App. 4th 798] Arthur Amaral (Amaral v. Workers' Comp. The court did not reach the validity of the amendments, which Longval now challenges after the WCAB denied his fee requests. Longval further contends representatives presenting fraudulent claims can lose their ability to practice before the WCAB. Longval and other lay representatives had no fundamental right to appear before the WCAB and receive compensation for their services.
Note:	Only attorneys licensed by State Bar of CA may receive attorney's fees.
Citation:	51 Cal.App.4th 792, 61 CCC 1396
WCC Citation:	WCC 26021996 CA