Case Name:	M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management		10/26/2017
Summary:	Filed 10/26/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             M. F. , Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             PACIFIC PEARL HOTEL MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant and Respondent. .             D070150 .             (Super. II BACKGROUND .           According to the allegations in the complaint, which we must accept as true for purposes of this appeal (Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal. 4th 919, 924), M. F. worked for Pacific Pearl Hotel Management, LLC (Pacific) as a housekeeper at its five-building hotel property. .           The trespasser approached housekeepers cleaning hotel rooms three times while he walked around the hotel property. .           On the third occasion, the trespasser went to the hotel room M. F. was cleaning.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a hotel worker could proceed with a claim against her employer under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for failing to protect her from sexual assault by a trespasser who was known to be on the property and harassing other members of the staff.
Citation:	D070150
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 37-2014-00039787- CU-PO-CTL

Case Name:	M/A Com-Phi v. WCAB		07/29/1998
Summary:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarded benefits based upon the reports of the employer's doctors, who were not provided with impeaching surveillance films. On February 20, 1992, Sevadjian received an electrical shock while repairing a high-voltage 'Ion Implanter,' which is not in dispute. In a subsequent letter to this court, the WCAB pointed out that the employer had more than two months before trial to submit the surveillance films to Drs. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Labor Code section 5906, in relevant part, authorizes the WCAB upon appeal, to 'grant reconsideration and direct the taking of additional evidence. '
Note:	WCAB had duty to develop record and show surveillance film to defense.
Citation:	65 Cal.App.4th 1020, 63 CCC 821
WCC Citation:	WCC 25561998 CA

Case Name:	Mackey vs. Dept. of Corrections		01/27/2003
Summary:	However, Brown told her the move was only temporary and promised Mackey she would continue to receive inmate pay. Later, Brown told Mackey she would not be returning to the reception area and was not entitled to inmate pay. The next day, Mackey reported the incident to Kuykendall, who said he would take care of it. Brown also tried to reach Mackey outside work, and Mackey became stressed and fearful. The interim warden told Mackey in front of another employee that Mackey was "disruptive" and "demanding. "
Note:	Exclusive remedy of employee not the direct victim of sexual harassment or discrimination is work comp.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 945, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 57
WCC Citation:	WCC 29102003 CA

Case Name:	Madden v. Summit View, Inc.		08/11/2008
Summary:	He sued the general contractor, Summit View, Inc. (Summit View), alleging that his injuries were caused by Summit View's negligence in failing to place a protective railing along the open side of the patio. It was undisputed that Summit View was the general contractor and Madden was an employee of the subcontractor at the Welsh construction site. )*fn2 In contrast, Madden produced virtually no evidence here that Summit View retained control over general safety conditions at the Welsh site. He sued the general contractor, Summit View, Inc. (Summit View), alleging that his injuries were caused by Summit View's negligence in failing to place a protective railing along the open side of the patio. It does, however, negate any claim by Madden that Summit View induced him to believe the hazard did not exist or that the hazard was otherwise concealed from him but known to Summit View.
Note:	Plaintiff did not know how high he was off the ground when he fell and no one else witnessed the accident. Plaintiff is therefore unable to establish that a safety railing would have been required by section 1621 at the location where he fell. Since he cannot prove a causal relationship between his injuries and Defendant's asserted omission to perform a nondelegable duty, Plaintiff cannot avoid summary judgment.
Citation:	A117128
WCC Citation:	WCC 34112008 CA

Case Name:	Madin v. Industrial Accident Commission		02/03/1956
Summary:	2d 90 February 3, 1956 MARCO J. MADIN ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, JAMES R. RICHARDSON ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for personal injuries. Carter [46 Cal2d Page 91] Petitioners Madin and his insurance carrier seek the annulment of an award of workmen's compensation to James Richardson and Lethia Richardson, his wife. [46 Cal2d Page 92] At the time hereinafter mentioned, Madin owned certain premises with 14 rental units and the Richardsons were living in one of these rental units. Madin employed the Richardsons to act as caretakers and managers of the property and collect the rent. Therefore, under a liberal interpretation of the compensation act, the accident arose out of and was incidental to the employee's duties.
Note:	Prescribed minimum payments do not violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
Citation:	46 Cal.2d 90
WCC Citation:	WCC 33581956 CA

Case Name:	Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Department		03/29/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE GREGORY MALAIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant and Respondent. Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Kim Rodgers Westhoff, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Gregory Malais, a Captain II with defendant Los Angeles City Fire Department (Department), appeals from the summary judgment in favor of the Department on his second-amended complaint alleging causes of action for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. It is undisputed that the Department refused to assign Malais to platoon duty because of the loss of his leg. Ct. No. BC 321527) (Elizabeth A. Grimes, Judge) ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION GREGORY MALAIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant and Respondent.
Note:	The only reason Malais was dissatisfied with special as opposed to platoon duty was that he preferred the work, schedule, and camaraderie of platoon duty to that of special duty, not that he suffered any adverse employment consequences from being limited to special duty.
Citation:	150 Cal. App. 4th 350
WCC Citation:	WCC 32192007 CA

Case Name:	Maldonado v. Medivators		06/27/2017
Summary:	Maldonado returned to the clinic when his condition worsened and this time the physician referred Maldonado to a pulmonologist. On October 22, 2013, Maldonado filed a lawsuit against Medivators, alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranties. Medivators argued it should be inferred from this evidence Maldonado knew the cleaning chemicals were hazardous. Although not discussed by Medivators in the briefing, Maldonado also revealed during this deposition that Mandas referred him to the employee health nurse who did “nothing. ” Maldonado stated Cox “sent me back to work, told me that I was making things up, I was crazy. ” .           To support its motion, Medivators also relied on Maldonado’s response to an employee “Annual Health Assessment Questionnaire. ” On October 3, 2011, in response to a question about workplace safety issues, Maldonado wrote he was concerned about “‘exposure to fumes. ’” III. Medivators needed additional evidence to conclusively establish this affirmative defense, and the burden did not shift to Maldonado to refute the defense.
Note:
Citation:	G052489
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00682880

Case Name:	Manriquez v. Adams		04/30/2003
Summary:	JAVIER MANRIQUEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES STEPHEN ADAMS et al, Defendants and Appellants. OPINION PERLUSS, P. J. - Javier Manriquez was injured in an automobile accident with James and Reba Adams. After Manriquez sued the Adamses his employer intervened in the suit to recover sums paid to Manriquez in workers' compensation benefits. The trial court awarded Manriquez $17,667. 76 in attorney fees pursuant to Labor Code section 3860, subdivision (c), fn. After Manriquez filed a lawsuit against the Adamses, Ace Property & Casualty Company (Ace), the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Manriquez's employer, intervened in the action, seeking reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits in the amount of $64,754 paid to Manriquez.
Note:	Error to calculate subro attorney fees based on full value of settlement fund.
Citation:	108 Cal.App.4th 340
WCC Citation:	WCC 29332003 CA

Case Name:	Mantel v. WCAB		03/06/1974
Summary:	ALFRED E. MANTEL, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Respondents (Opinion by Sims, J. , with Molinari, P. J. , and Elkington, J. , concurring. )(1972) 24 Cal. App. 3d 282 [100 Cal. Rptr. 899], reconsideration was granted on the petition of the employer-carrier following an award to the employee. This [37 Cal. App. 3d 747] court on review found that each order granting reconsideration was inadequate under the provisions of section 5908. 5. The time to review said order as well as the order granting reconsideration expired on June 11, 1971. In this case the applicant seeks to attack an order which granted him the reconsideration which he sought.
Note:	Procedural deficiencies in Order of Recon. do not render it invalid; party benefiting from order may not complain of deficiencies on appeal.
Citation:	37 Cal.App.3d 739, 39 CCC 223
WCC Citation:	WCC 26981974 CA

Case Name:	Manzano vs. Flavurence Corp., etc., et. al.		07/10/2002
Summary:	The WCJ acknowledges that Republic's timely objection to her NIT did not come to her attention before the Order issued. On November 9, 2001, CIGA filed a petition to join Flavurence Corporation as the employer at the time of injury and its insurance carrier Fremont. Fremont alleges that at the time of the injury, Parker Personnel, Inc. , as a temporary employment agency, had placed applicant for a temporary assignment at Flavurence Corporation. It appears that Superior, now in liquidation, was the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Parker Personnel Inc. and that Fremont was the carrier for Flavurence Corporation. This approach will avoid the necessity for joining and/or rejoining parties depending on the facts that develop in the record.
Note:	CIGA should not be dismissed until a determination is made on issues which could result in CIGA liability.
Citation:	67 CCC 914 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28702002 CA