Case Name:	Moore v. California Surety Investigations, inc., et al.		01/07/2011
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION ONE D055253 January 7, 2011 JAMES M. MOORE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. CALIFORNIA SURETY INVESTIGATIONS, INC. , ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Plaintiff James Moore injured his back while working as an investigator for defendants California Surety Investigations, Inc. (CSI) and Two Jinn, Inc. (TJ) (together Employer). Thereafter, Tipps spoke with Moore on September 6, 2007, and asked whether Moore would be interested in any job openings available at Employer's corporate headquarters in Carlsbad, California. The Lawsuit and Judgment There were no further communications between Moore and Employer until Moore served his complaint for damages. Reasonable Accommodations and the Interactive Process Reasonable Accommodation The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (§ 12900 et seq. )
Note:	An employer's efforts to find reasonable accommodations for an injured bounty hunter were thwarted by the employee refusing jobs and requesting all communications go through his attorney, California's 4th District Court of Appeals ruled in affirming a trial court's decision to throw out a discrimination suit filed under the Fair Housing and Employment Act.
Citation:	D055253
WCC Citation:	WCC 37012011 CA

Case Name:	Moore v. WCAB (Bob Longpre Pontiac)		11/13/1980
Summary:	ARTHUR MELVIN MOORE, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and BOB LONGPRE PONTIAC, et al. , Respondents. Applicant petitioned for reconsideration contending that the report of Dr. Klein did not constitute substantial evidence to support the apportionment. Absent the industrial stress, it is possible that he would have had 25% less disease and 25% less coronary atherosclerosis. The Board rescinded the findings and award filed by the WCAB Judge and substituted in lieu thereof its own findings and award. On March 24, 1980, applicant's attorney filed a petition for writ of review in the Second Appellate District.
Note:	Petition filing untimely where attorney had knowledge of Board's decision but did not file w/i statutory period.
Citation:	45 CCC 1119
WCC Citation:	WCC 27811980 CA

Case Name:	Mora v. Hollywood Bed & Springs		07/14/2008
Summary:	Salvador Mora appeals a summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Hollywood Bed & Spring (Hollywood Bed), and its president, Larry Harrow. Factual Background Hollywood Bed manufactures metal bed frames, bed rails, rollaway beds, and similar products and parts. Hollywood Bed employed Mora as a power press operator beginning in approximately February 2000. Hollywood Bed filed objections to specific items of evidence submitted by Mora. The court entered a judgment in favor of Hollywood Bed and Harrow and against Mora in March 2007.
Note:	The statutory definition of 'specifically authorized' unambiguously requires an 'affirmative instruction' by the employer. The ordinary meaning of the words 'affirmative instruction' in this context is an express directive statement, rather than an implied statement or tacit acquiescence.
Citation:	B197576
WCC Citation:	WCC 33982008 CA

Case Name:	Morales-Simental v. Genentech		10/19/2017
Summary:	.           During his deposition, Ong gave various reasons for his trip to Genentech that morning. Genentech presented evidence that all of Ong’s lead technician duties were performed at Genentech during work hours. .           Ong resided in Hayward, California and commuted to Genentech in his own vehicle. The record shows no evidence that anyone from Genentech requested that Ong drive to Genentech in the dead of night. .           We concur: .           Ruvolo, P. J. .           Rivera, J. Gisselle Morales-Simental is the daughter of the deceased, Marisol Morales.
Note:	The 1st District Court of Appeal last week ordered publication of a decision it issued last month finding an employer could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of an employee in causing a fatal car accident.
Citation:	A145865
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13678136

Case Name:	Moran v. Bradford Bldg., etc.		05/08/1992
Summary:	Procedural History Of Cases In Moran vs. Bradford Building, Inc. , Permissibly Self-Insured, et al. , LA 63401, a claim form (DWC 1) was mailed to the employer on March 13, 1990, alleging an injury '12/89 Ct in the nature of stress. 'On March 28, 1991, the presiding workers' compensation judge denied relief indicating: 'There is no statutory authority for the relief you seek. 'Carrier's attorneys sought reconsideration contending that it is within the Appeals Board's equitable powers to grant relief by dismissing the claim form. The presiding workers' compensation judge took no action on the petition for dismissal advising the parties: 'There is no provision to dismiss. 'Under the Reform Act, the filing of a claim form with the employer commences proceedings and establishes the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board.
Note:	WCAB has inherent and statutory authority to provide for dismissal of claim forms.
Citation:	57 CCC 273
WCC Citation:	WCC 3671992 CA

Case Name:	Morehouse v. WCAB		04/10/1984
Summary:	Morehouse requested preferential rehiring and was subject to recall if Goodyear reopened its Los Angeles plant. In February 1981 Morehouse filed an application for reemployment as a warehouseman in Goodyear's Los Angeles warehouse. On July 23, 1981, Bunderson telephoned Morehouse and said that if he was ready, he could go to work. In response to Bunderson's inquiry regarding Morehouse's back and knee, Morehouse said they were as good as when he was laid off. On August 12, 1981, Morehouse signed a 'Compromise Agreement and Release' (WCAB Form 15) settling his injury claim for $25,000.
Note:	Petition for 132a benefits is procedurally separate and distinct from application for ordinary benefits.
Citation:	154 Cal.App.3d 323, 49 CCC 313
WCC Citation:	WCC 27671984 CA

Case Name:	Morgan v. WCAB		10/24/1978
Summary:	JOHN T. MORGAN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF SANTA MONICA et al. , Respondents. OPINION ALLPORT, J. Petitioner John T. Morgan contends the board and the permanent disability specialist erred in the manner in which they rated the multiple factors of disability from his industrial injury. On March 29, 1977, Morgan filed a petition to reopen his claim, alleging new and further disability. Morgan renewed his objection to the rating by filing a written 'Motion to Strike Rating. 'Second, we observe that in the initial proceedings where Morgan received the 74 percent rating Morgan was rated solely for the hypertension condition.
Note:	Objection to reopen waived by failure to recon; Board must describe all disability, up to evaluator to decide MDT vs duplication.
Citation:	85 Cal.App.3d 710, 43 CCC 1116
WCC Citation:	WCC 26741978 CA

Case Name:	Morris v. County of Marin		02/03/1977
Summary:	RICHARD MORRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MARIN, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Tobriner, J. , with Wright, C. J. , Mosk and Richardson, JJ. , and Sullivan, J. , concurring. [18 Cal. 3d 904] Douglas T. Maloney, County Counsel, Allen A. Haim, Deputy County Counsel, Boornazian, King & Schulze, George King and James L. McIntosh for Defendant and Respondent. The trial court ruled in favor of the county, concluding that even if the county had failed to comply with its statutory obligation, it could not be held liable for monetary damages. In July 1972, defendant Marin County issued a building permit to Guy Cahoon authorizing construction work on a building located in Muir Beach. (See, e. g. , Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal. 2d 258, 262-263 [175 P. 2d 1]; French v. Edwards (1872) 80 U. S. (13 Wall. )
Note:	Failure of public entity to secure WC certificate of insurance from building permit applicant creates civil liability.
Citation:	18 Cal.3d 901, 42 CCC 131
WCC Citation:	WCC 24801977 CA

Case Name:	Morris v. Southern California Edison Company		02/04/2011
Summary:	NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS MORRIS v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY KENNETH MORRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Southern California Edison Company, plaintiff's former employer, is the defendant (SCE). Plaintiff Alleges Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act SCE employed plaintiff for approximately 37 years. In his complaint plaintiff alleged causes of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA, Gov. Code, 12900 et seq. ). "[T]rial error is usually deemed harmless in California unless there is a `reasonabl[e] probab[ility]' that it affected the verdict. "
Note:	A Los Angeles County Superior Court did not make any reversible errors when it ruled that Southern California Edison was not liable for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, an appellate court ruled in an unpublished decision.
Citation:	B221329
WCC Citation:	WCC 37142011 CA

Case Name:	Morton v. WCAB		07/22/1987
Summary:	RALPH W. MORTON, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LUCILLE LYDON, Respondents (Opinion by Feinerman, P. J. , with Ashby and Hastings, JJ. , concurring. )[1] The Board granted reconsideration on its own motion pursuant to Labor Code section 5900, subdivision (b). Appeals Bd. , supra, 119 Cal. App. 3d at page 643 reaffirmed the Marcus holding, noting: 'Unfortunately, the WCAB fails to understand the full reach of the Marcus decision. Labor Code section 134 requires that the WCAB proceed in contempt proceedings in the same manner as courts of record. Accordingly, the WCAB must follow the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure pertaining to contempt.
Note:	The Board, and not the WCJ is empowered to ADJUDGE contempt.
Citation:	193 Cal.App.3d 924, 52 CCC 315
WCC Citation:	WCC 3721987 CA

Case Name:	Mosby vs. Liberty Mutual		06/23/2003
Summary:	FREDDIE CURTIS MOSBY, JR. et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Freddie Curtis Mosby and his wife Sheri Mosby have sued his employer, Best Buy, and his employer's workers' compensation insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, for malicious prosecution and loss of consortium in the wake of Liberty Mutual's reporting Mosby to the local district attorney for workers' compensation insurance fraud. Liberty Mutual deposed Green and showed him surveillance tapes of Mosby walking up stairs the day of his evaluation. Liberty Mutual then stepped up its investigation of Mosby and, in October 1998, presented its case for fraud to the district attorney. Finally, we note the complaint includes allegations of racial animus by a doctor hired by Liberty Mutual to examine Mosby for workplace injuries, and makes other allegations that would further support a finding that Liberty Mutual showed racial bias.
Note:	Carrier has civil liability for malicious prosecution in unwarranted fraud prosecution.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 995
WCC Citation:	WCC 29482003 CA

Case Name:	Motallebi vs. Astro Business Solutions		03/18/2003
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHAHIN MOTALLEBI, Applicant, vs. ASTRO BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC. ; CANON USA; YASUDA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE, Defendant(s). The workers' compensation lien claim was settled by defendant on June 4, 2001, the same day as the OACR was issued. EDD thereafter sought recovery from applicant of the UCD benefits paid during the period for which no lien claim was filed. On September 18, 1998, CUIAB issued a decision denying applicant UCD benefits for the period from May 8, 1998 through September 9, 1998. Thereafter, EDD paid additional UCD benefits for the period from September 10, 1998 through October 14, 1998.
Note:	Conditions under which the Board had no jurisdiction to determine an applicant's liability for repayment of UCD benefits to EDD.
Citation:	68 CCC __(2003)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29222003 CA

Case Name:	Mote v. WCAB		07/24/1997
Summary:	The workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found that Mote is entitled to indemnity for temporary total disability (TTD) and further medical treatment. Mote petitions for review to annul the order of the WCAB denying reconsideration of his petition to impose multiple penalties against respondents, Kimstock, Incorporated, his employer, and the California Compensation Insurance Company (Cal. The WCAB unreasonably denied a variety of statutory penalties due Mote for failures and delays in providing TTD, for untimely and incorrect adjustments to TTD, for failing to provide medical and psychiatric treatment and medications. Mote sustained industrial injury to his thumb, arm, leg, back, neck, internal systems, hearing and psyche. The parties stipulated that at the time Mote hurt his thumb his earnings of $800 per week warranted indemnity of $336 per week for TTD.
Note:	Employer liable for delay in increasing rate of TTD even though stipulated amount.
Citation:	56 Cal.App.4th 902, 62 CCC 891
WCC Citation:	WCC 24731997 CA

Case Name:	Motheral v. WCAB (Golden Empire Council)		08/25/2011
Summary:	BILL MOTHERAL, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GOLDEN EMPIRE COUNCIL (BSA) et al. , Respondents. )1 Bill Motheral worked as a camp ranger for Golden Empire Council, Boy Scouts of America (the Council). Motheral was injured at work in August 2007 and was paid temporary total disability benefits from the date of his injury. At the hearing, an accounting specialist with the Council acknowledged that Motheral received lodging as part of his employment. The accounting specialist further testified that at the time of his injury, Motheral was paid $6. 62 an hour in cash wages.
Note:	A camp ranger's lodging, utilities, and car allowance should factor into his average weekly wage for the purpose of calculating his temporary disability benefits.
Citation:	C063646
WCC Citation:	WCC 37932011 CA

Case Name:	Mottahedi v. Moose Holding Co.		01/26/2012
Summary:	Stores leased the building from the mall landlord, Moose Holding Company (Moose). Ms. Mottahedi filed a personal injury tort action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Moose and others in August 2009. By that time, Ms. Mottahedi had served interrogatories on Moose, which Moose answered, and Moose had deposed Morris Rhone, identified by Stores as its most knowledgeable person with respect to its property and, in particular, the store at Reseda Plaza. Moose responded, and Ms. Mottahedi filed motions to compel, which were calendared for hearing at a date subsequent to the previously set trial date. Judgment was duly entered in favor of Moose, from which Ms. Mottahedi (hereafter, appellant) filed a timely notice of appeal.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld a summary judgment for a property owner on a premises liability claim filed by a tenant's employee.
Citation:	B228319
WCC Citation:	WCC 38482012 CA

Case Name:	Moulton v. WCAB		11/06/2000
Summary:	JILL MOULTON, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Real Party in Interest. [84 Cal. App. 4th 841] We annul the order of the WCAB with directions to impose penalties consistent with this opinion. The County failed to do so; it made no payment until Moulton filed and served a petition for penalty on July 13, 1999. [2] 'In considering a petition for writ of review of a decision of the WCAB, this court's authority is limited. 'Decisions of the WCAB reported in California Compensation Cases are citable as authority, although they are not binding on this court.
Note:	Failure to issue self imposed 4650 penalty for late TTD payment creates 5814 liability.
Citation:	84 Cal.App.4th 837
WCC Citation:	WCC 24672000 CA

Case Name:	Moyer v. WCAB		03/31/1972
Summary:	J. M. MOYER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, Respondents (Opinion by Kaufman, J. , with Gardner, P. J. , and Kerrigan, J. , concurring. )Applicant filed an application for additional benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Fund pursuant to Labor Code, sections 4751 through 4755. Under date of August 6, 1970, Applicant's attorney had obtained a written informal advisory rating of certain of the medical reports. The issue of apportionment is germane to proceedings between an employee and his employer and its insurance carrier. Nevertheless, in the context of claimed successive disablements, the issues of apportionment and preexisting permanent partial disability are correlative.
Note:	A preexisting permanent partial disability must interfere with one's ability to do work.
Citation:	24 Cal.App.3d 650
WCC Citation:	WCC 24781972 CA

Case Name:	Moyer v. WCAB		10/19/1973
Summary:	JAMES M. MOYER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Respondents In Bank. OPINION SULLIVAN, J. Petitioner James Moyer seeks review of a decision of respondent Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (Board) following reconsideration. Petitioner was awarded a permanent disability indemnity of $1,942. 50 based on a rating, after apportionment, of 9 1/4 percent. [2] We also reject at the start as without merit petitioner's claim that the provision under examination conflicts with section 3202. fn. I would affirm the decision for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Bray in the opinion prepared by him for the Court of Appeal in Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (Cal.
Note:	'Voluntary' acceptance requires notice that perm. disab. rating may be lesser if determined after completion of program.
Citation:	10 Cal.3d 222
WCC Citation:	WCC 26461973 CA

Case Name:	Moyles v. WCAB		03/23/1982
Summary:	He was hospitalized for six days, though not in the cardiac unit, and remained off work for about five weeks. The applicant and Argonaut submitted the compromise and release to the workers' compensation judge for approval. On January 6, 1978, the workers' compensation judge issued an order approving the compromise and release. An approved compromise and release agreement has the same force and effect as an award made after a full hearing. '[s] Ernest W. Moyles ERNEST W. MOYLES, Applicant LEVY, KOSZDIN, GOLDSCHMID & SROLOFF By:[s] Charles Burke Attorney for Applicant' NOTE: This is a summarization of the CCC citation.
Note:	Cum. injury C&R not set aside for want of sufficient consideration evident only after the fact.
Citation:	47 CCC 328
WCC Citation:	WCC 26051982 CA

Case Name:	Mt. Diablo Unified School District v. WCAB		08/08/2008
Summary:	DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and NICOLE ROLLICK, Respondents. Diablo) to decide whether temporary disability payments commence when a school district pays an injured employee his or her normal wages under Education Code*fn1 section 44043. Diablo, its "insurer"*fn7 issues a "voucher" equal to the injured worker's temporary disability rate directly to the school district. Diablo Unified School District v. WCAB, A120204 Counsel for Petitioner: Pulley & Cohen LLP Warren A. Diablo Unified School District v. WCAB, A120204 =========Footnotes========== .
Note:	Given that section 44043 payments are, in part, temporary disability benefits under the workers' compensation laws, temporary disability payments commence when a school district pays an injured employee his or her normal wages under Education Code section 44043.
Citation:	A121204
WCC Citation:	WCC 34092008 CA

Case Name:	Muna v. WCAB		09/06/2007
Summary:	Rules of Court, rule 8. 494. ) Muna contends the WCAB improperly amended a stipulation and that its decision lacked substantial evidence. Muna filed a declaration of readiness to proceed with the WCAB and the matter proceeded to a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) in August 2004. Based on prior WCAB decisions, the WCAB concluded the "presumption is properly rebutted when applicant's own evidence proves that applicant's injury is not compensable. "Muna petitioned the WCAB to reconsider its decision, which the WCAB denied on May 1, 2007. Muna does not specify how the WCAB amended the stipulation and whether he alleges legal error by the WCAB or regret on his part for adopting the stipulation.
Note:	[Unpublished] Employer met its burden of proof in rebutting the presumption of compensability.
Citation:	F052976
WCC Citation:	WCC 32532007 CA

Case Name:	Munoz v. Pacific Maritime Association et al.		08/28/2012
Summary:	PEDRO MUNOZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Clifford D. Sethness and Jason M. Steele for Defendant and Respondent Pacific Maritime Association. FACTS Respondents and defendants in this matter are Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) and International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13 (Local 13) (collectively Defendants). Munoz, on appeal, glosses over the trial court's findings and insists that, "[i]t is undisputed that Mr. Munoz was disabled. "There is no indication in the record and Munoz has offered no evidence that Defendants regarded Munoz as disabled.
Note:	A former longshoreman with a poor attendance record, who admittedly lied to his employer about having an alcohol problem to excuse his absences, failed to establish his claim that his termination was a discriminatory action based on his alleged disabilities from a prior head injury.
Citation:	B235771
WCC Citation:	WCC 39252012 CA

Case Name:	Munoz v. WCAB		08/06/1971
Summary:	HERELINDA LOZA MUNOZ et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CONSOLIDATED FOODS CORPORATION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Pierce, P. J. , with Regan, J. , and Bray, J. , concurring. )The spouse of Jose Munoz petitioned for total dependency death benefits due as a widow with seven surviving minor children. The sole question is whether petitioners were 'totally' dependent as that term has been construed in workmen's compensation cases. When Munoz, Senior, died, two sons had already reached adulthood. Brijido Munoz gave a statement to a Mr. Butler, a claims investigator of Hanna and Brophy, attorneys for the compensation carrier of Munoz' employer.
Note:	Nonresident alien widow receives 7/8's income from deceased, 1/8 from minor sons, is 'totally' dependent.
Citation:	19 Cal.App.3d 144
WCC Citation:	WCC 25801971 CA

Case Name:	Munyon v. Ole's Inc.		10/19/1982
Summary:	No. 63837 October 19, 1982 LEE MUNYON ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. OLE'S, INC. , DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. NCC18633B, Thomas C. Murphy, Judge. She returned to her automobile and had proceeded one block from the Ole's store when she struck plaintiff Lee Munyon. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the negligent act was committed within the scope of employment. As a general rule, whether an act is within the scope of employment is a question of fact. However, where the facts are undisputed and no conflicting inferences are possible, the question is one of law.
Note:	Injury not compensable where employee injured while picking up paycheck at place/ time of employee's convenience.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 3d 697
WCC Citation:	WCC 30531982 CA

Case Name:	Muraoka vs. WCAB		04/28/2009
Summary:	The WCJ relied upon the July 24, 2006 report of Dr. Nagelberg to find Muraoka was permanent and stationary on July 13, 2006. Muraoka filed a Petition for Reconsideration, contending that the 1997 PDRS applied. Applying that standard, the dissent concluded that substantial evidence, including a December 2003 report of Dr. Nagelberg, substantiated his conclusion that Muraoka had sustained permanent disability. The entire medical record provides substantial evidence supporting Dr. Nagelberg's conclusion that Muraoka sustained permanent disability prior to 2005. Those records provided the history of treatment that Muraoka received in 2003 at Kaiser and at Western Hand Center.
Note:	[Unpublished] Board did not consider the entire medical record prior to 2005 to determine whether substantial medical evidence supported application of the 1997 PDRS, and that had it done so, it would have found the 1997 PDRS applicable.
Citation:	B210073
WCC Citation:	WCC 35182009 CA

Case Name:	Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.		08/23/2010
Summary:	MURRAY v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. KEVIN MURRAY, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Factual and Procedural Background Kevin Murray (Murray), a quality assurance auditor at Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska), brought safety concerns to the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which then conducted an investigation that revealed "significant discrepancies relating to air carrier safety. "The Secretary found that Murray had applied electronically for positions at other Alaska facilities and then "inexplicably removed his resume . DISSENTING OPINION BY WERDEGAR, J. Kevin Murray alleges he was wrongfully discharged by Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska). The investigation's treatment of Murray was in marked contrast: "Murray was never contacted by the Secretary [of Labor]'s investigator.
Note:
Citation:	S162570
WCC Citation:	WCC 36592010 CA

Case Name:	Myers v. WCAB (City of LA)		12/15/1969
Summary:	EMMA J. MYERS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents (Opinion by Coughlin, J. , with Brown (Gerald), P. J. , and Whelan, J. , concurring. )At issue was the contention, rejected by the referee, the city chould receive credit for pension payments by it to Myers. Primarily the question is one of interpretation of pertinent provisions of the statute and the action of the appeals board on reconsideration. award. 'Com. , 189 Cal. App. 2d 23, 27 [10 Cal. Rptr. 745], a referee made and filed findings of fact and an award.
Note:	Comp. award includes right to interest from date of filing, judgment on award entered in superior court, lien, and enforcement by execution.
Citation:	2 Cal.App.3d 621
WCC Citation:	WCC 26091969 CA

Case Name:	Myers v. WCAB (Marine Terminals)		09/20/1971
Summary:	FREDERICK N. MYERS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Taylor, J. , with Shoemaker, P. J. , and Kane, J. , concurring. )OPINION TAYLOR, J. Petitioner seeks review and annulment of a decision after remittitur issued by the WCAB. The facts disclose that petitioner was injured in the course and scope of his employment on April 14, 1964. On March 14, 1968, petitioner filed an application with the board for a determination of his permanent disability. Co. (1964) 60 Cal. 2d 816, 818 [36 Cal. Rptr. 612, 388 P. 2d 884]; Myers, supra, p. 629).
Note:	Interest runs from the date of award, not from date of reconsideration.
Citation:	20 Cal.App.3d 120
WCC Citation:	WCC 26221971 CA

Case Name:	Mykles v. Williams		03/01/2017
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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             EARL MYKLES, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             MELINDA WILLIAMS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. 34201300153684CUPNGDS) .             Plaintiff and appellant Earl Mykles sued defendants and respondents Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (Local 1000) and union representative Melinda Williams (together, defendants). .             Williams eventually negotiated a settlement for Mykles. The complaint alleges that Mykles would not have entered into the settlement agreement had Williams informed him that he could file an unfair practices charge (UPC) against SCIF with PERB. .             On December 31, 2013, Mykles filed a first amended complaint alleging, again, that Williams negligently failed to inform him of his right to file a UPC with PERB.
Note:
Citation:	C079338
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 34201300153684CUPNGDS

Case Name:	Myrick Enterp. and Employee Benefits Ins. Co. v. WCAB		03/05/1984
Summary:	Myrick Enterprises and Employee Benefits Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and Richard D. Brown et al. , Respondents. OPINION: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that Richard D. Brown sustained a permanent partial disability in the course of his employment with petitioner, Myrick Enterprises, and awarded him benefits. Myrick did not file the declaration and the judge issued his findings on December 14, 1982. The Administrative Code permits the WCAB to request the Disability Evaluation Bureau to prepare a recommended rating, based upon described disability factors and medical reports. n7 We do not reach Myrick's last contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the WCAB award.
Note:	Party need not file Declaration of Readiness to obtain hearing to cross examine disability evaluator.
Citation:	49 CCC 194
WCC Citation:	WCC 27621984 CA