Case Name:	Les Hall vs. Valley Media (WCAB No. SAC 309589)		09/12/2002
Summary:	We further find that this provision improperly attempts to re-write the C&R, as drafted by the parties. He agreed to settle his case by way of a C&R for $35,000 and signed the settlement papers on November 13, 2001. The entry of this Order of Rehabilitation shall not constitute an anticipatory breach of any such contracts. "The WCJ asked applicant if he wished to be examined by a panel qualified medical examiner (QME). The purpose of this letter is to provide clarification of our procedures of handling workers' compensation claims under Rehabilitation Order.
Note:	C&R valid despite subsequent rehabilitation of carrier; Foreign state no jurisdiction on WCAB; Penalty invalid without hearing
Citation:	67 Cal.Comp. Cases 1147
WCC Citation:	WCC 28752002 CA

Case Name:	Lett vs. LACMTA; Travelers		03/05/2004
Summary:	Defendant apparently had no objection as to the monetary amount of the fee requested. Labor Code section 5710 requires only that the employer or insurance carrier requests a deposition be taken of the injured worker. Furthermore, this defendant's reliance on People v. Post (2001) 94 Cal. App. 4th 467, 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 1503 is completely misplaced. In addition, defendant has failed to show how it is prejudiced in any way by the applicant's failure to sign his deposition. This is because under Penal Code section 124, a conviction for perjury requires that the deponent execute his or her deposition transcript.
Note:	Payment of attorney fees under LC 5710 is not dependent on applicant signing the transcript.
Citation:	68 CCC 250 ; Panel
WCC Citation:	WCC 29742004 CA

Case Name:	Levesque v. WCAB		01/22/1970
Summary:	On March 21, 1968, Dr. Dedinsky cleared petitioner for work: "To Whom It May Concern: Louis LeVesque is under my care for an orthopedic problem. "*fn4 Again on April 8, 1968, Dr. Dedinsky filed a report which the referee quoted: "Mr. LeVesque is showing good progress at the present time. Dr. Dedinsky has reported further visits with petitioner on December 12, 1968, February 14, 1969, and May 22, 1969. We also undertook consideration of the issue whether the appeals board's denial of temporary disability compensation rests upon substantial evidence. The referee summarized the evidence concerning the lifting required by the job: "He [LeVesque] used one overhead crane, but sometimes had to lift stock by hand, in certain areas.
Note:	Appeals Board's order can incorporate referee's report if basis of decision is clear.
Citation:	1 Cal. 3d 627
WCC Citation:	WCC 30341970 CA

Case Name:	Levin v. Canon Business Solutions		03/04/2010
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. [12] Defendants and appellants Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (Solutions) and Canon U. S. A. , Inc. (CUSA)*fn1 appeal from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Gregg Levin (Levin) and from the order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) after a jury returned a special verdict in favor of Levin on his claims for false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. [14] FACTUAL BACKGROUND [15] Levin was employed by Solutions for 21 years as a field technician who serviced Canon copy machines. Later that day, when Levin returned to Solutions' offices to retrieve his car, Cerame again approached Levin, warned him this was his "last chance" to avoid criminal prosecution, and urged Levin to confess to stealing Canon parts and inventory. [68] "Canon Business Solutions, Inc. ____ Yes __X__ No [69] "Canon, U. S. A. , Inc. ____ Yes __X__ No [70] [¶] . [¶] [71] "Question No. 20: [72] "Was Michael Cerame acting on behalf of Canon Business Solutions, Inc. or Canon U. S. A. , Inc. in the conduct identified above?
Note:	Exclusive remedy does not protect an employer that a jury found conducted a campaign of harassment and intimidation against an employee suspected of theft.
Citation:	B218815
WCC Citation:	WCC 36082010 CA

Case Name:	Lewis v. Los Angeles County MTA		04/02/2018
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 EIGHT .             FERGUS LEWIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent. .             B280604 .             (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC582105) .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. .             Plaintiff Fergus Lewis was a bus driver for defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). He sued the MTA and the County of Los Angeles, alleging whistleblower retaliation (Lab.
Note:
Citation:	B280604
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC582105

Case Name:	Lewis v. WCAB		11/26/1975
Summary:	SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA S. F. No. 23258 November 26, 1975 GRAYCE RUTH LEWIS, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, RESPONDENTS Bell & Sandberg, Daniel H. Sandberg and John F. Gisla for Petitioner. At the time of the accident claimant, Grayce Ruth Lewis, and her husband worked for different agencies of the County of Sacramento. Mr. and Mrs. Lewis customarily drove to work together in the family car and parked at a lot leased by the county for the exclusive use of its employees. *fn1 Mr. Lewis had purchased a parking permit from the county which entitled him to park in this lot; for this privilege the county deducted a monthly fee from his salary. Crossing an intersection about one block from her office she slipped and fell, sustaining the injuries which give rise to her compensation claim.
Note:	Going and coming rule does not bar recovery where employee is walking from employer's parking lot to office.
Citation:	15 Cal. 3d 559
WCC Citation:	WCC 30571975 CA

Case Name:	Li v. Department of Justice		01/16/2020
Summary:	United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit  .             KAREN LI,Petitioner .             v. .             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,Respondent .             2019-1046 .             Petition for review of a decision of the Bureau of Justice Assistance in PSOB Claim No. 2011-016. .             Decided: January 16, 2020 .             SUSAN POLL KLAESSY,Foley & Lardner LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for petitioner. Also represented by JILL NICHOLSON; JACK GABRIEL HAAKE, Washington, DC.   .             MEEN GEU OH,Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. ; RAFAEL ALBERTO MADAN,MATTHEW T. SCODELLARO, Office of Justice Programs, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.   .             Before NEWMAN,MOORE,and CHEN,Circuit Judges. .           Ms. Li then filed for PSOB death benefits.
Note:	A federal appellate court ruled that a deputy sheriff’s failure to change the designated beneficiary on his life insurance plan from his ex-girlfriend left his new fiancée unable to collect benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act.
Citation:	No. 2019-1046
WCC Citation:	No. 2019-1046

Case Name:	Li, et al., v. Wu, et al.		01/15/2009
Summary:	B196993 c/w B198266 January 15, 2009 GUO LIANG LI ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. DANIEL WU ET AL. , DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. The owners testified that the contractor asked for additional funds to complete the work he had contracted to perform. In late 2004, after the contractor had stopped work, the owners filed a claim against the contractor's license bond. They alleged that the contractor breached the contract by falling substantially behind schedule, abandoning the project, and performing substandard work. On October 13, 2006, the contractor was deposed, and again indicated the use of his own employees on the project.
Note:	A Los Angeles County Superior Court should have determined that a contractor's license was automatically suspended because he failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance before hiring employees.
Citation:	B198266
WCC Citation:	WCC 34792009 CA

Case Name:	Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. LCL Administrators, Inc.		06/10/2008
Summary:	In this ordinary breach of contract action by plaintiff Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Liberty) to recover workers' compensation insurance premiums, defendant LCL Administrators, Inc. (LCL) filed an answer and cross-complaint alleging that Liberty mishandled its claims. The Pleadings On August 8, 2004, Liberty filed a complaint for breach of insurance contracts and common counts, seeking to recover premiums due on a series of workers' compensation insurance policies issued to LCL by Liberty or its predecessor in interest, Employers Insurance of Wausau, A Mutual Company. (d)), and a belief that the contracts of insurance were improperly implemented and interpreted by Plaintiff [Liberty]; as [Liberty] provides responses to discovery, [LCL] will be able to detail the specific areas of breach. "The response referred to "a belief that the contracts of insurance were improperly implemented and interpreted" by Liberty, and gave the policy number of every insurance policy at issue. LCL named 65 witnesses with "knowledge of these facts," none of whom were associated with LCL, but rather were employees of Liberty or hospital and medical providers.
Note:	Given LCL's months-long lack of cooperation in providing straightforward information, witnesses and documents to support its claims of malfeasance, the trial court could reasonably conclude that the ultimate sanction was appropriate.
Citation:	C053289
WCC Citation:	WCC 33832008 CA

Case Name:	Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. IAC		12/28/1964
Summary:	LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and WALTER F. WALDEN, Respondents. On petition for reconsideration respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, urged that the award of temporary disability benefits was erroneous for various reasons hereinafter discussed. He continued to work with only two or three days of missed employment until about June 1, 1961. During this period, however, he complained of head, neck and back pain, growing increasingly severe with the passage of time. In the meantime, after due proceedings taken, the findings and award of March 18, 1963, were made as above noted.
Note:	Award for further disability upheld despite exceeding 240-week post-injury time limit.
Citation:	231 Cal.App.2d 501, 29 CCC 293
WCC Citation:	WCC 26231964 CA