Case Name:	Miller v. Filter		05/08/2007
Summary:	Ct. No. 6293) MICHAEL M. MILLER et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. GALE FILTER et al. , Defendants and Appellants. On November 6, 2000, Mark Fussell died in a workplace accident, while Miller was director of the Mine. Filter, Hedum, Mejlszenkier, and Patchett then prosecuted Miller and the Mine, alleging that Fussell's death was caused by the willful violation of occupational safety standards. Filter and Mejlszenkier presented the case to the Sierra County Grand Jury, and Patchett served as the grand jury advisor. Miller and the Mine (plaintiffs) then sued Filter, Hedum, Mejlszenkier, Patchett, and CDAA (defendants) for malicious prosecution, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent employment and supervision.
Note:	CDAA and its deputized employees were absolutely immune from liability in the lawsuit against them and, thus, the trial court should have granted their anti-SLAPP motion.
Citation:	150 Cal. App. 4th 652
WCC Citation:	WCC 32222007 CA

Case Name:	Miller v. WCAB		07/27/2011
Summary:	Miller reported to the Hospital on March 18, 2008, at 10:00 p. m. and was scheduled work until 8:00 a. m. the next morning. Walker arrived an hour after Miller and asked her to distribute medications in the male sexual offender unit. Miller petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration. *fn2 A two-member majority of the reviewing WCAB panel adopted and incorporated the WCJs Report and Recommendation, affirming that the WCJs conclusion that Walkers directions to Miller barred her psychological claim as a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. Nothing in this opinion should be construed as expressing any opinion of this court as to whether, or to what extent, Miller sustained a psychological injury, as that decision has not been reached by the WCAB.
Note:	A split California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel decision did not sufficiently explain its reasoning about why Labor Code 3208.3 barred a registered nurse's psyche claim, a California appellate court ruled.
Citation:	F060092
WCC Citation:	WCC 37862011 CA

Case Name:	Mills v. WCAB		06/20/2008
Summary:	-ooOoo- *Before Ardaiz, P. J. , Wiseman, J. , and Gomes, J. Roger Mills petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Rules of Court, rule 8. 494. ) Mills contends the WCAB misconstrued the law of apportionment as amended by Senate Bill No. 899 (Stats 2004, ch. Mills filed an application for adjudication of claim with the WCAB in April 2004, and the parties obtained a significant amount of discovery. The WCJ filed a report and recommendation to the WCAB recommending the WCAB deny reconsideration. Accordingly, the WCAB agreed with the WCJ's finding that Mills was entitled to only a 40 percent disability award.
Note:	The new apportionment provisions in Senate Bill No. 899 became effective immediately and must be applied to all pending cases 'not yet final at the time of the legislative enactment on April 19, 2004, regardless of the earlier dates of injury and any interim decision.'
Citation:	F054144
WCC Citation:	WCC 33862008 CA

Case Name:	Millsaps v. Doehrman Company, Inc.		04/11/2011
Summary:	Plaintiff Derrick Millsaps appeals from a 2010 postjudgment order granting nearly $40,000 in costs, including expert witness fees, to defendant Doehrman Company, Inc. (Doehrman). Millsaps sued Doehrman for negligent installation of the equipment. Doehrman made a pretrial offer to compromise to Millsaps pursuant to section 998. It offered to pay Millsaps $50,000, in exchange for (among other things) Millsaps' dismissal of the action against Doehrman, and his "agree[ment] to indemnify and hold harmless DOEHRMAN COMPANY, INC. from any and all claims or liens asserted by intervener PEP BOYS, INC. " The action proceeded to jury trial in 2006; Doehrman prevailed after a jury found it did not install the equipment that caused Millsaps' injury. Even had Millsaps settled the underlying personal injury claim against Doehrman, Pep Boys' complaint in intervention could have proceeded to trial.
Note:	An injured worker's products liability suit will cost him $40,000 in costs because he rejected a settlement offer and subsequently failed to prove his case.
Citation:	C064390
WCC Citation:	WCC 37432011 CA

Case Name:	Milpitas Unified School District v. WCAB (Guzman)		08/19/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. H034853 August 19, 2010 MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND JOYCE GUZMAN, RESPONDENTS. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION In this original proceeding the Milpitas Unified School District (District) challenges a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or Board) applying Labor Code section 4660*fn1 to the disability evaluation of a District employee. In his December 2, 2005 report, Dr. Feinberg noted Guzman's history of injuries prior to her employment with the District. The WCAB, however, granted the petition for reconsideration and combined the case with an ongoing dispute in Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services (Almaraz). The WCAB granted the petition and, in the interests of consistency, granted reconsideration on its own motion in Guzman's case.
Note:	The court concluded that the language of Labor Code 4660 permits reliance on the entire Guides, including the instructions on the use of clinical judgment, in deriving an impairment rating in a particular case.
Citation:	H034853
WCC Citation:	WCC 36572010 CA

Case Name:	Miner v. Superior Court		04/09/2001
Summary:	Miner v. Superior Court , 30 Cal. App. 3d 597 [Civ. GEORGE H. MINER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; PEDRO JIMINEZ, JR. , Real Party in Interest (Opinion by Brown (G. The cause comes to us upon a petition by Miner for a writ of mandate to direct the trial court to sustain the demurrer. v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 180, 185, fn. (Babb v. Superior Court (1971) 3 Cal. 3d 841, 851 [92 Cal. Rptr. 179, 479 P. 2d 379]. )
Note:	An employee has limited rights to sue another employee for damages apart from work comp.
Citation:	30 Cal.App.3d 597, 38 CCC 210
WCC Citation:	WCC 4082001 CA

Case Name:	Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship		01/31/2013
Summary:	MINISH v. HANUMAN FELLOWSHIP DIANE MARIE MINISH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HANUMAN FELLOWSHIP et al. , Defendants and Respondents. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiff Diane Marie Minish filed an action against the Hanuman Fellowship (Hanuman), Mount Madonna Institute, and the Mount Madonna Center seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries and other losses she sustained when she fell off a forklift allegedly due to defendants' negligence. She submitted evidence that Hanuman regularly compiled a list of volunteers for its compensation carrier, and Hanuman did not add plaintiff's name to the list until after the accident was reported to its carrier. She further contends that she could not have become a covered volunteer because she never agreed to that status. Plaintiff complains, "Here, of course, without the slightest advance warning, Hanuman plunged Minish into the toils of the workers compensation system not only without her knowledge but, as soon as she learned of it, very much against her will. "
Note:	Factual questions about whether a volunteer was covered by workers' compensation prevented a trial court from deciding the case on a motion for summary judgment.
Citation:	H035737
WCC Citation:	WCC 39842013 CA

Case Name:	Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship Part 1/3		03/06/2018
Summary:	.             H041888 .             (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. CV158348) .             Plaintiff Diane Minish sustained serious personal injuries after she fell off a forklift on premises owned by defendant Hanuman Fellowship (the Fellowship). 1 Minish initially reported that her injuries occurred while she was working as a volunteer, doing construction work for the Fellowship. Both Minish and the Fellowship reported the injury to the Fellowship’s workers’ compensation carrier and Minish received more than $270,000 in workers’ compensation benefits. This court reversed the summary judgment in a prior appeal in Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 437, 443 (Minish I). .           The Fellowship reported the accident to its workers’ compensation carrier, the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), which provided workers’ compensation benefits to Minish.
Note:
Citation:	H041888
WCC Citation:	Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. CV158348

Case Name:	Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship Part 2/3		03/06/2018
Summary:	Since Minish relies on the exception for public entities in section 3363. 5, we also review the language of that section. .           The Legislature amended former section 3363. 6, but not former section 3363. 5, in 1976 and 1978. .           In reviewing this statutory history, we note that the Fellowship was formed in 1974, the same year section 3363. 6 was enacted. .         Finally, Minish argues against applying the rule of liberal construction from section 320213 in this appeal. We nonetheless mention Beverly Fabrics and Eckis, since they demonstrate that this issue may ultimately be resolved adversely to Minish.
Note:
Citation:	H041888
WCC Citation:	Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. CV158348

Case Name:	Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship Part 3/3		03/06/2018
Summary:	The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment based on the trial court’s failure to analyze whether the bunkhouse rule applied. Fortunately, copies of some of the documents pertaining to Board of Directors Meetings were kept in [Ward Mailliard’s] home. ” Before trial, Minish challenged the authenticity of documents produced by the Fellowship. As we have noted, this court construed section 3363. 6 in Minish I, which is the only published opinion construing section 3363. 6. Minish cites a similar report from 1978 to the same committee for Senate Bill No. 1468 (1977-1978 Reg. The Fellowship made a motion to stay the superior court action in 2014, which the trial court denied.
Note:
Citation:	H041888
WCC Citation:	Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. CV158348