Case Name:	Mason v. Case		09/13/1963
Summary:	TED MASON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JACK CASE et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Kattenhorn discussed the job with Mason and showed him the location of a sectional ladder which Mason could use in the course of his work. Mason was present when Moore received his instructions and knew that Moore was simply told to 'give him a hand. 'Mason testified that he assumed Moore was holding the ladder, Moore had not held the ladder when Mason had climbed it previously, and Mason had not instructed him to do so. He points out that if the ladder was placed on spilled oil and filings, it was Mason who directed its placement at that point, Mason who selected the ladder without overhangs from the two sections available to him, Mason who could have directed Moore to hold the base of the ladder.
Note:	2801 may apply where employer failed to secure compensation or employment is outside of work comp.
Citation:	220 Cal.App.2d 170, 28 CCC 293
WCC Citation:	WCC 3891963 CA

Case Name:	Mason vs. Lake Dolores Group		04/09/2004
Summary:	JAMES MASON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LAKE DOLORES GROUP, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION KING, J. - INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant, James Mason (Mason), was rendered a paraplegic after he rode down a water slide and crashed into the dam at the end of the slide. The accident occurred at a water park owned and operated by Mason's employer, defendant and respondent, Lake Dolores Group, LLC (LDG). Mason said he went down the Doo Wop Super Drop because "[i]t was the fastest and it was my favorite. "The park's employee manual stated, "'Neither Lake Dolores nor the insurance carrier will be liable for the payment of Worker's Compensation benefits for injuries that occur during an employee's voluntary participation in any off-duty recreation, social or athletic activity sponsored by the Lake Dolores Resort. "
Note:	Injury that occurs after reporting to work but before 'clocking in' is not AOE/COE.
Citation:	117 Cal.App.4th 822
WCC Citation:	WCC 29832004 CA

Case Name:	Massey v. WCAB		07/12/1993
Summary:	1 On April 21, 1988, the decedent's widow, Paulette Thompson, applied for death benefits on behalf of herself, her son, Martin Massey (Massey), who was born on December 15, 1967, and her two older daughters, born in January 1963 and July 1964, respectively. Massey and his two sisters were all alleged to be the dependent stepchildren of the decedent. The WCJ agreed with that argument and awarded death benefits to Massey only. On petition for reconsideration, filed by the employer's insurer, State Compensation Insurance Fund, the WCJ's award was vacated by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 57, 62 [216 Cal. Rptr. 115, 702 P. 2d 197]; Antonucci v. W. C. A. B. (U. S. Steel) (1990) 133 Pa. Commw.
Note:	Death benefits apply regardless of whether child is a minor or an adult.
Citation:	5 Cal.4th 674, 58 CCC 367
WCC Citation:	WCC 25241993 CA

Case Name:	Matea v. WCAB, The Home Depot (modified 12/12/2006)		11/21/2006
Summary:	H029661 (WCAB No. SJO 228156) INTRODUCTION Petitioner Aaron Matea sustained an admitted industrial injury when a rack of lumber fell on his left leg. Matea has filed a timely petition for writ of review, contending that the Board erred when it reversed the WCJ's findings. BACKGROUND Facts Eighteen-year-old Matea began working for The Home Depot in July 2001. The Home Depot further claimed that the issue as to the applicability of section 3208. 3 was raised in its pre-trial statement. [] In asserting that his injury was 'sudden and extraordinary' in this case, [Matea] misinterprets the [Wal-Mart] Court's language in footnote 9.
Note:	Lumber falling from a rack in a store crushing the injured worker's leg was a 'sudden and extraordinary' event that caused compensable emotional injury under LC 3208.3 even though employment was less than 6 months.
Citation:	144 Cal. App. 4th 1435
WCC Citation:	WCC 31942006 CA

Case Name:	Mathews v. WCAB		02/29/1972
Summary:	Cedillo struck Mathews in the forehead with the second rock; Mathews fell and lay unconscious. In this case, the record contains ample evidence to support the Board's finding that Mathews' injuries arose out of an altercation. Since Mathews was several inches taller and 30 pounds heavier than Cedillo, a reasonable man in Cedillo's position might have considered Mathews' acts to be a real, present and apparent threat of bodily harm. Applicant argues that Mathews could not have been the "initial physical aggressor" because he did not "throw the first punch. "Consequently, even if Cedillo used excessive force in repelling Mathews' attack, Mathews was, and remained, the initial physical aggressor.
Note:	Initial physical aggressor cannot recover workers' compensation benefits.
Citation:	6 Cal. 3d 719
WCC Citation:	WCC 31131972 CA

Case Name:	Mathies v. Buhrer		02/28/2013
Summary:	MATHIES v. BUHRER EUGENE MATHIES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROBERT BUHRER, Defendant and Respondent. On appeal, Mathies makes a new argumentthat the moment Caldwell's license was suspended he (Mathies) no longer was the employee of an independent contractor, but rather under section 2750. 5, was a "statutory" employee of Buhrer and therefore Privette does not apply. Another time, Mathies told Buhrer the gutter contractor needed to get the gutters up for the work to proceed. According to Mathies, Buhrer said the workers could use any of his tools, although Mathies specifically recalled use of only several ladders and perhaps a vise. Further dispositive motions may be appropriate upon a more developed record, including with respect to the workers' compensation claim Mathies has filed against Buhrer.
Note:	A trial court must decide whether an uninsured contractor's decision to hire several employees could result in a homeowner's liability for a work-related injury.
Citation:	A133832
WCC Citation:	WCC 39892013 CA

Case Name:	Maureen DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula		06/29/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MAUREEN DESAULLES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Consistently with that ruling, at trial, the court granted Hospital's in limine motion excluding evidence and argument that Hospital had failed to accommodate deSaulles. Hospital Facility, The Registrar Position, and Patient Contact In early 2005, deSaulles interviewed with Hospital for a per diem*fn3 position as a night inpatient registrar within Hospital's Patient Business Services department. Present at the meeting were deSaulles, her husband, Zehm, and Mary Goodby, a Hospital human resource representative. deSaulles believed that rather than "taking away [her] shifts," Hospital should be "trying to work with [her]. "
Note:	The Superior Court did not err in dismissing a FEHA lawsuit filed by a disabled worker whose employer placed her on unpaid leave while awaiting more information on her medical restrictions and offered her an alternative position that the worker found unsuitable.
Citation:	H033906
WCC Citation:	WCC 37782011 CA

Case Name:	Maxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation		01/27/2017
Summary:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             BRADLEY MAXHAM, Applicant, .             vs. .             CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. .             Case No. ADJ3540065 (SAC 0361552) .             OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL (En Banc) .             Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and State Compensation Insurance Fund seek removal in response to an Order (Order) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 2, 2016. .             We received an Answer from applicant. .           Defendants filed a Petition for Removal seeking review of the Order on June 27, 2016. .           WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD (EN BANC) .           /s/ Frank M. Brass______________________ FRANK M. BRASS, Commissioner .           /s/ Deidra E. Lowe______________________ DEIDRA E. LOWE, Commissioner .           /s/ Marguerite Sweeney__________________ MARGUERITE SWEENEY, Commissioner .           _/s/ Katherine A. Zalewski_________________ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, Commissioner .           _/s/ Jose H. Razo______________________ JOSÉ H. RAZO, Commissioner .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           1/23/2017 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ3540065 (SAC 0361552)
WCC Citation:	ADJ3540065 (SAC 0361552)

Case Name:	Maxim Crane Works v. Tilbury Constructors		08/08/2012
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION DUARTE, J. Appellant Maxim Crane Works (Maxim) was hoist by its own petard when the trial court enforced an unfavorable choice-of-law provision in a form contract written by Maxim. Maxim cross-complained against Tilbury Constructors (Tilbury), Gorski's employer, seeking indemnity. Maxim had provided Tilbury a crane and operator pursuant to a contract signed that day. Maxim cross-complained against Tilbury for breach of contract and indemnity, and in part alleged Tilbury had a duty to defend Maxim, and that Tilbury had been negligent. Tilbury also contends that once Gorski and Maxim settled, Maxim still had to show the amount of the settlement was fair, before recouping that amount from Tilbury.
Note:	Pennsylvania law applied to a California construction worker's injury at a job site in Stockton.
Citation:	C067054
WCC Citation:	WCC 39182012 CA

Case Name:	McCarthy v. WCAB (Best Sanitizer's, Inc.)		01/25/2006
Summary:	Law Offices of Jeffrey R. Toff and Richard V. DeGruccio for Petitioner, Ann McCarthy. McCarthy filed petitions seeking relief under section 5814 on May 6, 2002, and May 14, . On January 5, 2005, before the WCAB acted on the petition for reconsideration, the WCJ issued its new findings, award, and order based on Abney. McCarthy was still "litigating" her legal claims when she petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration of the WCJ's findings in January 2005, and petitioned this court for a writ of review. McCarthy complains that when construing SB 899 in Abney, the WCAB ignored the amendment to former section 5814.
Note:	New Labor Code section 5814 applies to penalty claims pending as of 06/01/04.
Citation:	135 Cal. App. 4th 1230
WCC Citation:	WCC 31352006 CA