Case Name:	Michael v. Denbeste Transp., Inc.		03/23/2006
Summary:	At the time of the Subhaul Agreement, Michael had no employees, and he was required to notify Denbeste if he needed to hire any employees. Michael could work for other haulers if Denbeste had no work for him, but the Subhaul Agreement prohibited him from using Denbeste's trailer on other jobs. Sometime before January 18, 2002, Michael discussed with Denbeste the possibility of using a newer trailer on which Michael could install an automatic tarping system. The court determined that Denbeste could not be held liable to Michael for its own negligence because Michael contractually assumed the risk of any such negligence. The provisions of the Subhaul Agreement required that Michael wear protective clothing, and a Denbeste employee made certain that Michael complied.
Note:	Privette doctrine applies where an injured plaintiff is an independent contractor of an independent contractor.
Citation:	137 Cal. App. 4th 1082
WCC Citation:	WCC 31502006 CA

Case Name:	Midas Recovery Services, Inc. v. WCAB		06/20/1997
Summary:	MIDAS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BANK et al. , Respondents. 1 Petitioner also seeks review of the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denying its petition for reconsideration. We find that the order of the workers' compensation judge and the board's order denying reconsideration were in error. It was later stipulated by the parties that he was temporarily totally disabled from March 24, 1991, to August 10, 1992. The matter is remanded to allow entry of an award in favor of petitioner consistent with the views expressed herein.
Note:	Reimbursement is paid at rate in effect when payments are made, not during actual disability period.
Citation:	55 Cal.App.4th 1321, 62 CCC 763
WCC Citation:	WCC 25231997 CA

Case Name:	Mihesuah v. WCAB		02/25/1976
Summary:	HENRY E. MIHESUAH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and UNION OIL COMPANY, Respondents (Opinion by Rattigan, Acting P. J. , with Christian, J. , and Emerson, J. , concurring. )OPINION RATTIGAN, Acting P. J. Petitioner Henry E. Mihesuah received multiple injuries in an industrial accident. (Mihesuah v. Workmen's Comp. (See Mihesuah v. Workmen's Comp. Both requests were made and returned on a form designated "DIA WCAB Form 75 (rev.
Note:	The MDT is only a guide and the disability evaluator may rely on his expertise only.
Citation:	55 Cal.App.3d 720; 41 CCC 181
WCC Citation:	WCC 28631976 CA

Case Name:	Miklosy v. The Regents		07/31/2008
Summary:	Filed 7/31/08 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA LES G. MIKLOSY et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Alameda County Defendants and Respondents. We have observed that 'Article IX, section 9, grants the [R]egents broad powers to organize and govern the university and limits the Legislature's power to regulate either the university or the [R]egents. (Ishimatsu v. Regents of University of California (1968) 266 Cal. App. 2d 854, 864; see also Apte v. Regents of University of California (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 1084, 1091. )(Regents of University of California v. City of Santa Monica (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 130, 135, citing Hamilton v. Regents (1934) 293 U. S. Name of Opinion Miklosy v. Regents of University of California Unpublished Opinion NP opn.
Note:	The alleged wrongful conduct occurred at the worksite, in the normal course of the employer-employee relationship, and therefore workers' compensation is plaintiffs' exclusive remedy for any injury that may have resulted.
Citation:	RG04140484
WCC Citation:	WCC 34062008 CA

Case Name:	Miklosy v. The Regents of the University of California Part 1/2		07/31/2018
Summary:	Filed 7/31/08 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA .             LES G. MIKLOSY et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             S139133 .             Ct. App. 1/4 A107711 .             Alameda County Super. .             Plaintiffs Leo Miklosy and Luciana Messina are computer scientists who, in February 2003, were employed by the Regents of the University of California (hereafter the University of California or the University), filling positions at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (the Laboratory). As we explained in Campbell: “The California Constitution establishes the Regents [i. e. , the University of California] as a ‘public trust . (Ishimatsu v. Regents of University of California (1968) 266 Cal. App. 2d 854, 864; see also Apte v. Regents of University of California (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 1084, 1091. )
Note:
Citation:	S139133
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG04140484

Case Name:	Miklosy v. The Regents of the University of California Part 2/2		07/31/2018
Summary:	“It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered. ” (People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 1250, 1268, fn. the university has failed to reach a decision regarding that complaint within the time limits established for that purpose by the regents. ” (§ 8547. 10, subd. The Legislature recognized and met the need for independent review by expressly authorizing civil claims for retaliation by state agencies, the University of California, and the California State University. opn. , ante, at p. 14), whereas the new statute, former section 10550, did not require the University to hold hearings on whistleblower retaliation complaints. The difference is important, because adverse State Personnel Board findings after an evidentiary hearing were presumably reviewable for substantial evidence, while University findings were not.
Note:
Citation:	S139133
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG04140484

Case Name:	Milan v. City of Holtville		06/23/2010
Summary:	FACTUAL BACKGROUND In April 1998 Tanya Milan began work as a water treatment operator for the City of Holtville (the city). Nonetheless, Milan believed she was still employed by the city because she was in fact receiving a regular pay check from the city, even though she had not returned to work. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 30, 2005, Milan filed a complaint against the city alleging it had violated FEHA Milan argued the city violated FEHA by failing to determine whether it could provide effective accommodations for Milan's disability. Milan opposed the motion, arguing that in light of Dr. Korsh's opinion, the city had an obligation under FEHA to contact Milan and determine whether it could accommodate her disability. The city contends that notwithstanding the fact Milan was given notice the city did not believe she could return to her job, there is no evidence in the record Milan ever requested any accommodation or even expressed to the city any desire to return to her former job.
Note:	[Unpublished] The record will not support the trial court's finding of liability under FEHA. Rather, the trial court should have granted the city's motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8
Citation:	D054139
WCC Citation:	WCC 36422010 CA

Case Name:	Milbauer vs. Boostan; UEF		12/18/2003
Summary:	It appears that UEF has done little to alleviate that confusion, although UEF has been an active participant in these proceedings since at least 1996. On October 17, 1996, UEF appeared by counsel at a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC), at which UEF was formally joined as a party defendant. UEF offered no evidence that "American Runner Attorney Service, Inc. ," (or any other entity) was the correct legal identity of the employer. At that time, UEF again appeared and the issues were framed, including the correct legal identity of the employer. For convenience, we will refer to both UEF and the Office of the Director, Legal Unit, as "UEF. "
Note:	Active participation of UEF required in identifying correct employer; Sanctions available vs. UEF
Citation:	68 CCC 1834
WCC Citation:	WCC 29632003 CA

Case Name:	Millard v. Biosources, Inc.		11/15/2007
Summary:	No Biosources personnel were working or present at the project when Millard fell from the attic space. As first aid was being rendered to Millard immediately following the incident, Millard informed his coworker, Tyler Sterling, that the lights in the attic had "flickered" before he fell. Some time later, Millard told another Apex coworker, Paul Perry, the lights in the attic had flickered. At his deposition, Millard denied telling anyone that the lights flickered and testified that the lights had gone out. Finally, the court found that Millard failed to "submit admissible evidence to raise a material issue of fact that Privette does not apply or that [Biosources] owed [Millard] a duty due to retained control. "
Note:	Because the appellant failed to allege that he was entitled to rely on a presumption of negligence under a theory of negligence per se and did not ask permission to amend his complaint to do so in response to the appellee's motion for summary judgment, the court properly granted the motion.
Citation:	156 Cal. App. 4th 1338
WCC Citation:	WCC 32762007 CA

Case Name:	Millbauer vs. Boostan; UEF		03/10/2004
Summary:	UEF expressly states that it "does not contest" the affirmance of the WCJ's finding regarding the correct legal identity of applicant's employer. Indeed, UEF specifically acknowledges that these procedures were announced with the intent "to change how UEF cases are handled in the future. "Thus, as to this case, UEF is not "aggrieved" by any part of our decision. Here, although the Appeals Board's affirmance of the correct legal identity of applicant's employer constitutes a "final" order, UEF again expressly "does not contest" this determination. No substantive right or liability of UEF was determined by these procedures in this case.
Note:	Pronouncement of procedures to be used in future cases are not final orders from which reconsideration may be taken.
Citation:	69 CCC 246; En Banc
WCC Citation:	WCC 29752004 CA