Case Name:	Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Sup. Crt.		06/29/1989
Summary:	The Agency utilizes a self-insured workers' compensation program and retains Marsh & McLennan, Inc. , as its independent claims administrator. Truck, a workers' compensation carrier, hired Baker, a private investigator, to evaluate the extent of the plaintiff's work-related back injury. [7a] Mrs. Silvestri bases her claim against Marsh & McLennan on Unruh, relying extensively on Dill v. Claims Admin. The trial court in the instant case similarly sustained Marsh & McLennan's demurrer to Mrs. Silvestri's cause of action under section 790. 03. Three) that denied Marsh & McLennan's petition for writ relief reversed its position 10 months later in Schlick, supra, 196 Cal. App. 3d 974.
Note:	No private cause of action against a TPA; other legislative remedies apply.
Citation:	49 Cal.3d 1, 54 CCC 265
WCC Citation:	WCC 23791989 CA

Case Name:	Marsh v. WCAB (Bostitch)		06/28/2005
Summary:	Stanley Marsh (Marsh) petitions this court to review the lawfulness of an opinion of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In November 2001, Marsh timely petitioned the WCAB to reopen his disability claim by alleging the industrial injury caused new and further disability. Marsh contends the WCAB exceeded its powers by remanding the matter to the WCJ to determine whether SB 899 applied under the express terms of the legislation. Marsh's claim that a WCJ's decision is final before the WCAB has issued its decision on reconsideration clearly contravenes the statutory scheme permitting WCAB reconsideration. Meanwhile, we conclude that a WCAB determination is "final" for purposes of considering apportionment under SB 899 once the WCAB has issued a final judgment and the appellate process has been exhausted.
Note:	Apportionment under SB 899 applies to cases pending reconsideration.
Citation:	130 Cal.App.4th 906
WCC Citation:	WCC 31052005 CA

Case Name:	Martin v. General Dynamics		03/10/2009
Summary:	Filed 3/10/09 Martin v. General Dynamics CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO BERENICHE MARTIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND*fn1 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Dynamics company, is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling and servicing high-end aircraft. In October 2004, Gulfstream settled appellant"s workers" compensation claim by payment of $100,000 in exchange for a compromise and release. The Arbitrator"s decision is the exclusive remedy for Covered Claims and is final and binding on the Company and Employee. "
Note:	Arbitrator did not exceed his authority in finding no wrongful termination after workers' compensation settlement.
Citation:	B205706
WCC Citation:	WCC 35042009 CA

Case Name:	Martinez v. Combs		05/20/2010
Summary:	MIGUEL MARTINEZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CORKY N. COMBS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Anastassiou & Associates, Jane E. Bednar and Effie F. Anastassiou for Defendant and Respondent Apio, Inc. Western Growers Law Group, Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss and Terrence R. O'Connor for Defendants and Respondents Corky N. Combs and Larry D. Combs dba Combs Distribution Co. , and Juan Ruiz. Plaintiffs are seasonal agricultural workers whom Munoz employed during the 2000 strawberry season: Antonio Perez Cortes, Catarino Cortez, Otilio Cortez, Asuncion Cruz, Hilda Martinez and Miguel Martinez. The remaining defendants are two of the produce merchants through whom Munoz sold strawberries: Apio, Inc. (Apio), and Combs Distribution Co. , together with its principals, Corky and Larry Combs, and its field representative Juan Ruiz (collectively Combs). Combs sent defendant Juan Ruiz, who performed similar services for many entities and whom Combs eventually hired as an employee in June 2000.
Note:	Two produce merchants did not have an employer-employee relationship with seasonal agricultural workers, according to a California Supreme Court decision requiring a detailed interpretation of Labor Code 1194.
Citation:	S121552
WCC Citation:	WCC 36272010 CA

Case Name:	Martinez v. Taco Bell Corp.		04/05/2018
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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             REYNA MARTINEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             TACO BELL CORP. , Defendant and Respondent. .             G052170 .             (Super. INTRODUCTION .           Reyna Martinez sued her former employer Taco Bell Corp. (Taco Bell) for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. FACTS3  .           In 2002, Taco Bell hired Martinez as a lab technician. .           At oral argument, Martinez argued that Taco Bell regarded her as disabled as evidenced by their granting her leaves from work and benefits.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a worker could not proceed with her disability discrimination claims against her former employer, since she failed to prove she had a mental disability or that she was fired because of it.
Citation:	G052170
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00640924

Case Name:	Martinez v. WCAB		11/15/2000
Summary:	Although Martinez [84 Cal. App. 4th 1081] had timely requested VR, the WCAB concluded benefits were barred by the statute of limitations. Martinez maintains that jurisdiction for VR benefits continues once properly established, absent an intervening contrary order by the WCAB. After a petition for reconsideration by Hughes was denied by the WCAB and the decision became final, Martinez requested VR by letter to Hughes dated June 4, 1998. In a letter dated November 24, 1998, Career Works indicated authorization had been given to recontact Martinez regarding VR. Martinez petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration.
Note:	Resumption of VR valid where 'initial' request for VR was timely, services placed on hold but not terminated.
Citation:	84 Cal.App.4th 1079
WCC Citation:	WCC 27912000 CA

Case Name:	Martinez v. WCAB		11/15/2000
Summary:	Although Martinez [84 Cal. App. 4th 1081] had timely requested VR, the WCAB concluded benefits were barred by the statute of limitations. Martinez maintains that jurisdiction for VR benefits continues once properly established, absent an intervening contrary order by the WCAB. After a petition for reconsideration by Hughes was denied by the WCAB and the decision became final, Martinez requested VR by letter to Hughes dated June 4, 1998. In a letter dated November 24, 1998, Career Works indicated authorization had been given to recontact Martinez regarding VR. Martinez petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration.
Note:	Jurisdiction for VR benefits continues once properly established.
Citation:	84 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 65 CCC 1253
WCC Citation:	WCC 3622000 CA

Case Name:	Martinez vs. CA Building System		02/22/2005
Summary:	OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow time to study the record and applicable law. Because of the important legal issue presented concerning the meaning and application of Senate Bill (SB) 899 (Stats. We define "final" as a decision where appellate rights have been exhausted prior to April 19, 2004. Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury on October 19, 2000, when he fell approximately fifteen to twenty feet from a roof. Among other issues, the presumption of correctness of the primary treating physician under section 4062. 9 was raised.
Note:	Repeal of PTP presumption in 4062.9 applies regardless of date of injury.
Citation:	70 CCC XXX (2005)
WCC Citation:	WCC 30822005 CA

Case Name:	Martinez vs. Jack Neal & Son, Inc.		07/27/2004
Summary:	In the WCJ's decision, it was found that applicant, Jose L. Martinez ("applicant"), sustained industrial injury to his low back and psyche on August 13, 1999, while employed as a heavy equipment operator by Jack Neal & Son, Inc. On October 4, 2000, Dr. McCarthy's office faxed Fremont a request to authorize the surgery, together with supporting documentation. On October 31, 2000, applicant was evaluated by Donald L. Trauner, M. D. , as Fremont's qualified medical evaluator ("QME") in orthopedics. On November 14, 2000, Dr. Trauner issued a report agreeing with Dr. McCarthy that "decompression of [applicant's] offending disc would be in order. "On December 6, 2000, applicant's counsel wrote Fremont to again request authorization for the surgery recommended by Dr. McCarthy.
Note:	CIGA not liable for 5814 penalties of insolvent carrier.
Citation:	69 CCC 775; En Banc
WCC Citation:	WCC 30172004 CA

Case Name:	Marvel v. Superior Ready Mix Concrete		03/13/2008
Summary:	Filed 3/13/08 Marvel v. Superior Ready Mix Concrete CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DAVID K. MARVEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, Defendant and Respondent. David K. Marvel appeals a judgment in favor of his former employer, Superior Ready Mix Concrete, L. P. (Superior), in this action by him against it for invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress and defamation. Thereafter, Geyman filed written opposition to the sanctions motion, as did Marvel, and Marvel filed written opposition to the summary judgment motion. Thereafter, Superior apparently withdrew the sanctions motion and the court entered judgment in Superior's favor in November 2006.
Note:	[Unpublished] Rule 3-700(C)(1)(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically allows an attorney to seek to withdraw where the client insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by [a] good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
Citation:	D050114
WCC Citation:	WCC 33262008 CA