Case Name:	Mendoza v. United Air Lines		08/05/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR LOUISA MENDOZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. CGC-05-439627) Appellant Louisa Mendoza (Mendoza) brought suit against respondents United Air Lines, Inc. (United) and Tish DeVere (DeVere) after her employment was terminated. The trial court granted United and DeVere's motion for judgment pursuant to a settlement by proposed order. She continued to work in her position until January 2003, when United expressed concern that because of her injury, she might be unable to perform her work tasks. The trial court had evidence to support its implied finding that Mendoza knew of the content of the proposed order.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because Mendoza failed to give any notice of intent to contest the tentative ruling, she waived her right to challenge that ruling.
Citation:	A122632
WCC Citation:	WCC 35502009 CA

Case Name:	Mercer-Fraser Co. v. IAC		01/06/1953
Summary:	The prefabricated wooden structure here involved was one of three units, A, B, and C, being constructed by petitioner for the Hammond Lumber Company. Hammond supplied the materials and hardware and prefabricated the lumber, and petitioner supplied the construction 'know-how' and the men for the job. Each unit, when completed, was to be approximately 500 feet long in a north- south direction and 192 feet wide. Units A and B, standing side by side, were up and all of the bracing, except for the roof panels, was in. Brushing aside the sophistry with which the majority opinion is replete, what are the realities of the situation here presented?
Note:	Employer's duty for safe workplace not absolute as to liability under 4553.
Citation:	40 Cal.2d 102, 18 CCC 3
WCC Citation:	WCC 24101953 CA

Case Name:	Mercier vs. WCAB, City of Los Angeles		04/20/1976
Summary:	PATRICK F. MERCIER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents In Bank. [16 Cal. 3d 713] Frank H. Batlin, Philip M. Miyamoto, Thomas J. McBirnie, Charles L. Swezey, Burt Pines, City Attorney, John T. Neville and H. John Wittorff, Assistant City Attorneys, and William G. Lorenzetti, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondents. OPINION CLARK, J. Petitioner seeks annulment of a workers' compensation award apportioning part of his permanent disability to a prior industrial injury. In 1970 petitioner, a Los Angeles police officer, suffered an industrial injury to his back. In 1971 petitioner was found to have suffered an industrially related heart disability occurring over the entire period of employment with the city, 1949 to 1971.
Note:	Where factors of disability from different injuries overlap apportionment is applicable.
Citation:	16 Cal.3d 711
WCC Citation:	WCC 29761976 CA

Case Name:	Merritt v. Equinox Fitness Woodland Hills, Inc.		12/27/2018
Summary:	_________________________ INTRODUCTION David Merritt sued his former employer, Equinox Fitness Woodland Hills and Equinox Fitness, Inc. (collectively, Equinox), for disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900, et seq. 1 The trial court granted Equinox’s motion for summary adjudication on the FEHA-based claims, concluding the undisputed facts established that Merritt did not suffer from a “disability” as defined by FEHA, and that Equinox terminated his employment for a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. Merritt’s Employment as a Personal Trainer for Equinox On September 25, 2012, Equinox hired Merritt as a personal trainer at its Woodland Hills gym. Merritt reported to the personal trainer manager, Cameron McGarr; fitness managers, Don Powers and Jana King; and the gym’s general manager, Chris Wellbaum. In mid-January 2013, Equinox approved and paid for Merritt to participate in a new training program, “Animal Flow. ” After completing the training, Merritt conducted weekly presentations on Animal Flow for gym clients. On July 5, 2013, King notified Merritt that Equinox had decided to terminate his employment.
Note:	A California appellate court revived an injured personal trainer’s discrimination action against his former employer, finding that he was disabled for purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	B266534
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC532180

Case Name:	Messele v. Pitco Foods, Inc.		09/26/2011
Summary:	[Editor's Note: On Nov. 4, the Appeals Board issued an en banc decision saying its holding in Messele v. Pitco Foods Inc. should only apply to requests made after Sept. 26, the day it issued the first en banc Messele decision. ]Relying on Poster v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 266 (Poster), and distinguishing Camper v. Workers' Comp. In his Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ recommended that we grant removal and find both panel requests premature. DISCUSSION We note initially that applicants petition seeks reconsideration of a Finding of Fact determining which QME panel was properly assigned. Applicants petition should have requested removal instead of reconsideration, and we erred in granting reconsideration instead of removal.
Note:	A Sept. 27 decision by the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has opened a can of worms for the Division of Workers' Compensation, which is now giving attorneys an opportunity to request new qualified medical evaluator panels if the previous panels weren't selected according to the timing endorsed by the WCAB.
Citation:	ADJ7232076
WCC Citation:	WCC 38172011 CA

Case Name:	Messenger Courier Association of the Americas, et al. v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board		07/15/2009
Summary:	Filed 7/15/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MESSENGER COURIER ASSOCIATION OF THE AMERICAS, et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. We review a trial court judgment denying declaratory relief to plaintiffs and appellants Messenger Courier Association of the Americas and California Delivery Association (plaintiff). Plaintiff sought declaratory relief that would have invalidated a precedential decision by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board). The Unemployment Insurance Code also provides disability benefits to compensate eligible persons for unemployment caused by injury or sickness. =========FOOTNOTES========= All further statutory references or references to the code are to the Unemployment Insurance Code unless otherwise indicated.
Note:	An appellate court issued a published decision upholding the application of S.G. Borello & Sons to cases outside the workers' comp arena.
Citation:	D053391
WCC Citation:	WCC 35422009 CA

Case Name:	Messinese vs. Automatic Heating; SCIF		05/21/2004
Summary:	[FN 2] Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury on April 14, 2003, while employed by Automatic Heating, which was then insured by SCIF. On August 18, 2003, County Child Support Services sent SCIF the earnings assignment order at issue here. Applicant sought penalties against SCIF under Labor Code sections 4650(d) and 5814, plus sanctions and attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5813. Code, ?Code, ?
Note:	Child support orders against past and future indemnity enforceable without WCJ signature.
Citation:	68 CCC 480; Panel
WCC Citation:	WCC 29872004 CA

Case Name:	Meza v. Aerol		10/06/2011
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Defendant, Aerol Corporation, Inc. , appeals from a judgment which was entered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Rodolfo Meza, on an age and disability discrimination complaint. Mr. Meza lives with plaintiff. Mr. Meza described plaintiff as sad and withdrawn from activities. According to Mr. Meza, plaintiff became "teary eyed" when discussing losing the opportunity to work. Plaintiff, Rodolfo Meza, is awarded his costs and reasonable attorney fees from defendant, Aerol Corporation, Inc. ARMSTRONG, J. and KRIEGLER, J. , concurs.
Note:	The defendant forfeited its challenges to the damages award by failing to object or file a motion for a new trial at the trial court. Regardless, substantial evidence supported the jury's $467,000 award.
Citation:	B228865
WCC Citation:	WCC 38102011 CA

Case Name:	Miceli vs. Jacuzzi, Inc.; Remedy Temp, Inc.		03/28/2003
Summary:	OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) INTRODUCTION Jacuzzi, Inc. (Jacuzzi) contracted with Remedy Temp, Inc. (Remedy Temp), a temporary staffing agency, to supply temporary employees to Jacuzzi. Temporary employee Mark Miceli was on Remedy Temp's payroll and working at a Jacuzzi jobsite when he sustained an industrial injury. Pursuant to Remedy Temp's contract with Jacuzzi to provide employees to help meet Jacuzzi's temporary staffing needs, Miceli was on Remedy Temp's payroll, not on Jacuzzi's payroll. Jacuzzi was included as an "alternate employer" in the "alternate employer endorsement" contained within the policy between Remedy Temp and Reliance. Jacuzzi, Inc. and Remedy Temp have joint and several liability for the compensation benefits to the injured employee.
Note:	Policy of special employer is 'other insurance' absolving CIGA of liability.
Citation:	68 CCC 434 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29252003 CA

Case Name:	Miceli vs. Jacuzzi; RemedyTemp, Inc.		05/12/2006
Summary:	The petition filed by Assurance for reimbursement of costs it claims to have incurred in the Court of Appeal proceeding is dismissed. Reliance, for RemedyTemp, admitted the industrial injury to applicant and began to provide workers' compensation benefits. On October 31, 2002, the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued the Findings and Order in this case. In December 2002, defendants Jacuzzi, RemedyTemp and Assurance all petitioned for reconsideration of the October 31, 2002 Findings and Order. However, Assurance, RemedyTemp and Jacuzzi timely petitioned for rehearing and those petitions were granted by the Court of Appeal.
Note:	Consolidation of cases on issue of CIGA liability for exclusions from the workers' compensation policy of the special employer must be tried on individual basis.
Citation:	71 CCC 599 (2006)
WCC Citation:	WCC 31562006 CA