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Note:	[Unpublished] Employer met its burden of proof in rebutting the presumption of compensability.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