Case Name:	M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management		10/26/2017
Summary:	Filed 10/26/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             M. F. , Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             PACIFIC PEARL HOTEL MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant and Respondent. .             D070150 .             (Super. II BACKGROUND .           According to the allegations in the complaint, which we must accept as true for purposes of this appeal (Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal. 4th 919, 924), M. F. worked for Pacific Pearl Hotel Management, LLC (Pacific) as a housekeeper at its five-building hotel property. .           The trespasser approached housekeepers cleaning hotel rooms three times while he walked around the hotel property. .           On the third occasion, the trespasser went to the hotel room M. F. was cleaning.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a hotel worker could proceed with a claim against her employer under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for failing to protect her from sexual assault by a trespasser who was known to be on the property and harassing other members of the staff.
Citation:	D070150
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 37-2014-00039787- CU-PO-CTL

Case Name:	M/A Com-Phi v. WCAB		07/29/1998
Summary:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarded benefits based upon the reports of the employer's doctors, who were not provided with impeaching surveillance films. On February 20, 1992, Sevadjian received an electrical shock while repairing a high-voltage 'Ion Implanter,' which is not in dispute. In a subsequent letter to this court, the WCAB pointed out that the employer had more than two months before trial to submit the surveillance films to Drs. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Labor Code section 5906, in relevant part, authorizes the WCAB upon appeal, to 'grant reconsideration and direct the taking of additional evidence. '
Note:	WCAB had duty to develop record and show surveillance film to defense.
Citation:	65 Cal.App.4th 1020, 63 CCC 821
WCC Citation:	WCC 25561998 CA

Case Name:	Mackey vs. Dept. of Corrections		01/27/2003
Summary:	However, Brown told her the move was only temporary and promised Mackey she would continue to receive inmate pay. Later, Brown told Mackey she would not be returning to the reception area and was not entitled to inmate pay. The next day, Mackey reported the incident to Kuykendall, who said he would take care of it. Brown also tried to reach Mackey outside work, and Mackey became stressed and fearful. The interim warden told Mackey in front of another employee that Mackey was "disruptive" and "demanding. "
Note:	Exclusive remedy of employee not the direct victim of sexual harassment or discrimination is work comp.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 945, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 57
WCC Citation:	WCC 29102003 CA

Case Name:	Madden v. Summit View, Inc.		08/11/2008
Summary:	He sued the general contractor, Summit View, Inc. (Summit View), alleging that his injuries were caused by Summit View's negligence in failing to place a protective railing along the open side of the patio. It was undisputed that Summit View was the general contractor and Madden was an employee of the subcontractor at the Welsh construction site. )*fn2 In contrast, Madden produced virtually no evidence here that Summit View retained control over general safety conditions at the Welsh site. He sued the general contractor, Summit View, Inc. (Summit View), alleging that his injuries were caused by Summit View's negligence in failing to place a protective railing along the open side of the patio. It does, however, negate any claim by Madden that Summit View induced him to believe the hazard did not exist or that the hazard was otherwise concealed from him but known to Summit View.
Note:	Plaintiff did not know how high he was off the ground when he fell and no one else witnessed the accident. Plaintiff is therefore unable to establish that a safety railing would have been required by section 1621 at the location where he fell. Since he cannot prove a causal relationship between his injuries and Defendant's asserted omission to perform a nondelegable duty, Plaintiff cannot avoid summary judgment.
Citation:	A117128
WCC Citation:	WCC 34112008 CA

Case Name:	Madin v. Industrial Accident Commission		02/03/1956
Summary:	2d 90 February 3, 1956 MARCO J. MADIN ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, JAMES R. RICHARDSON ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for personal injuries. Carter [46 Cal2d Page 91] Petitioners Madin and his insurance carrier seek the annulment of an award of workmen's compensation to James Richardson and Lethia Richardson, his wife. [46 Cal2d Page 92] At the time hereinafter mentioned, Madin owned certain premises with 14 rental units and the Richardsons were living in one of these rental units. Madin employed the Richardsons to act as caretakers and managers of the property and collect the rent. Therefore, under a liberal interpretation of the compensation act, the accident arose out of and was incidental to the employee's duties.
Note:	Prescribed minimum payments do not violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
Citation:	46 Cal.2d 90
WCC Citation:	WCC 33581956 CA

Case Name:	Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Department		03/29/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE GREGORY MALAIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant and Respondent. Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Kim Rodgers Westhoff, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Gregory Malais, a Captain II with defendant Los Angeles City Fire Department (Department), appeals from the summary judgment in favor of the Department on his second-amended complaint alleging causes of action for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. It is undisputed that the Department refused to assign Malais to platoon duty because of the loss of his leg. Ct. No. BC 321527) (Elizabeth A. Grimes, Judge) ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION GREGORY MALAIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant and Respondent.
Note:	The only reason Malais was dissatisfied with special as opposed to platoon duty was that he preferred the work, schedule, and camaraderie of platoon duty to that of special duty, not that he suffered any adverse employment consequences from being limited to special duty.
Citation:	150 Cal. App. 4th 350
WCC Citation:	WCC 32192007 CA

Case Name:	Maldonado v. Medivators		06/27/2017
Summary:	Maldonado returned to the clinic when his condition worsened and this time the physician referred Maldonado to a pulmonologist. On October 22, 2013, Maldonado filed a lawsuit against Medivators, alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranties. Medivators argued it should be inferred from this evidence Maldonado knew the cleaning chemicals were hazardous. Although not discussed by Medivators in the briefing, Maldonado also revealed during this deposition that Mandas referred him to the employee health nurse who did “nothing. ” Maldonado stated Cox “sent me back to work, told me that I was making things up, I was crazy. ” .           To support its motion, Medivators also relied on Maldonado’s response to an employee “Annual Health Assessment Questionnaire. ” On October 3, 2011, in response to a question about workplace safety issues, Maldonado wrote he was concerned about “‘exposure to fumes. ’” III. Medivators needed additional evidence to conclusively establish this affirmative defense, and the burden did not shift to Maldonado to refute the defense.
Note:
Citation:	G052489
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00682880

Case Name:	Manriquez v. Adams		04/30/2003
Summary:	JAVIER MANRIQUEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES STEPHEN ADAMS et al, Defendants and Appellants. OPINION PERLUSS, P. J. - Javier Manriquez was injured in an automobile accident with James and Reba Adams. After Manriquez sued the Adamses his employer intervened in the suit to recover sums paid to Manriquez in workers' compensation benefits. The trial court awarded Manriquez $17,667. 76 in attorney fees pursuant to Labor Code section 3860, subdivision (c), fn. After Manriquez filed a lawsuit against the Adamses, Ace Property & Casualty Company (Ace), the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Manriquez's employer, intervened in the action, seeking reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits in the amount of $64,754 paid to Manriquez.
Note:	Error to calculate subro attorney fees based on full value of settlement fund.
Citation:	108 Cal.App.4th 340
WCC Citation:	WCC 29332003 CA

Case Name:	Mantel v. WCAB		03/06/1974
Summary:	ALFRED E. MANTEL, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Respondents (Opinion by Sims, J. , with Molinari, P. J. , and Elkington, J. , concurring. )(1972) 24 Cal. App. 3d 282 [100 Cal. Rptr. 899], reconsideration was granted on the petition of the employer-carrier following an award to the employee. This [37 Cal. App. 3d 747] court on review found that each order granting reconsideration was inadequate under the provisions of section 5908. 5. The time to review said order as well as the order granting reconsideration expired on June 11, 1971. In this case the applicant seeks to attack an order which granted him the reconsideration which he sought.
Note:	Procedural deficiencies in Order of Recon. do not render it invalid; party benefiting from order may not complain of deficiencies on appeal.
Citation:	37 Cal.App.3d 739, 39 CCC 223
WCC Citation:	WCC 26981974 CA

Case Name:	Manzano vs. Flavurence Corp., etc., et. al.		07/10/2002
Summary:	The WCJ acknowledges that Republic's timely objection to her NIT did not come to her attention before the Order issued. On November 9, 2001, CIGA filed a petition to join Flavurence Corporation as the employer at the time of injury and its insurance carrier Fremont. Fremont alleges that at the time of the injury, Parker Personnel, Inc. , as a temporary employment agency, had placed applicant for a temporary assignment at Flavurence Corporation. It appears that Superior, now in liquidation, was the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Parker Personnel Inc. and that Fremont was the carrier for Flavurence Corporation. This approach will avoid the necessity for joining and/or rejoining parties depending on the facts that develop in the record.
Note:	CIGA should not be dismissed until a determination is made on issues which could result in CIGA liability.
Citation:	67 CCC 914 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28702002 CA

Case Name:	Maples v. WCAB		11/06/1980
Summary:	On November 14, 1977, Dr. Earle E. Crandall, M. D. , a neurological surgeon, medically evaluated Maples on behalf of Eldorado and issued a report to Eldorado in which he found Maples to be permanent and stationary. Reporting on behalf of Maples was J. H. Abramson, M. D. , who examined Maples on October 23, 1978. Apparently Eldorado did not immediately advise Maples of the reason for the termination of temporary disability benefits in August 1978. When cross-examined on August 14, 1979, Dr. Smith testified that if Maples had testified that he had little improvement, if any, since Dr. Crandall's examination, then he would agree with Dr. Crandall that Maples was permanent and stationary on November 14, 1977. It was not until April 10, 1979, that Eldorado finally filed a formal petition to terminate liability for temporary disability as required by WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (hereinafter WCAB Rules) sections 10462 fn.
Note:	Employer/insurer cannot claim credit for overpayment of TD because of unreasonable delay in filing med. report and not filing petition to terminate TD after terminating benefits.
Citation:	111 Cal.App.3d 827, 45 CCC 1106
WCC Citation:	WCC 24881980 CA

Case Name:	Maraj v. Ralphs Grocery Company		05/25/2011
Summary:	MARAJ v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY SHANTIE MARAJ, et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. As plaintiff Shantie Maraj, an on-duty employee of defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (Ralphs), tried to raise the flag on the flag pole at the market where she worked, she suffered a severe neck fracture and other injuries when a shopping cart, which had been hoisted up the pole as a prank by third parties, fell on her head. Lizarraga told another employee (Susan) to call Med-core, the company Ralphs calls when an employee is injured, and Med-core told Susan to call 911, which she did. The court did not reach the other two issues raised by Ralphs: whether Ralphs fraudulently concealed the existence of plaintiff's injuries or their connection with plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff sued Ralphs erroneously as The Kroger Company.
Note:	An exception to the exclusive remedy rule did not apply to an injured grocery store employee's civil suit because she could not prove that Ralphs Grocery Co. concealed her injury, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B223410
WCC Citation:	WCC 37672011 CA

Case Name:	Maranian v. WCAB		06/26/2000
Summary:	The WCJ therefore applied the statutory presumption, concluded Maranian had sustained a work-related injury, and awarded benefits. On June 6, 1997, Simplot filed a petition with respondent WCAB seeking reconsideration of the WCJ's award in favor of Maranian. The WCAB decision challenged by Maranian did not decide the merits of Maranian's claim for compensation, and it is possible Maranian may succeed, at the ordered plenary trial, in proving liability and a right to the benefits he wants. A legally incorrect decision by the WCAB barring application of the presumption would prevent Maranian from exercising a substantial right to which he is lawfully entitled--the benefit of the statutory presumption. The WCAB obviously agreed the WCJ's order was final for purposes of section 5900, because it granted Industrial's petition for reconsideration; had the order not been final, the WCAB should not have agreed to reconsider.
Note:	90-day limitation runs from date of receipt of Claim Form; Order on Recon final re appellate review.
Citation:	81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 65 CCC 650
WCC Citation:	WCC 24912000 CA

Case Name:	Margaret A. Seltzer v. William Gwire		04/20/2012
Summary:	Margaret A. Seltzer v. William Gwire No. A128902 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 04/20/2012) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A128902 April 20, 2012 MARGARET A. SELTZER, CROSS-COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM GWIRE, CROSS-DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. (hereafter Seltzer I); Seltzer v. Gwire (Nov. 5, 2009, A119521) [nonpub. Gwire filed a motion for attorney fees incurred in proceeding Seltzer I, again under Code of Civil Procedure section 425. 16, subdivision (c). *fn2 In opposition, Seltzer argued Gwire had failed to carry his burden of demonstrating the requested fees were reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount. The court's award included an amount for taxable costs in two appeals to which Gwire and Seltzer were parties, Seltzer I, supra, A119049 and Seltzer v. Gwire, supra, A119521.
Note:	An attorney, represented in a civil action by a former employee of his firm, was entitled to recover his legal fees as the prevailing party in the underlying action.
Citation:	A128902
WCC Citation:	WCC 38872012 CA

Case Name:	Marin Schools Insurance Authority v. Schools Excess Liability Fund		07/11/2017
Summary:	Filed 7/11/17 Marin Schools Insurance Authority v. Schools Excess Liability Fund CA1/5 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(a). 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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE .             MARIN SCHOOLS INSURANCE AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SCHOOLS EXCESS LIABILITY FUND, Defendant and Respondent. .             A145365 .             (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 26-62558) .             In this indemnity action, plaintiff Marin Schools Insurance Authority (MSIA) appeals the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment to defendant Schools Excess Liability Fund (SELF) and awarding fees. Current Lawsuit .           The Claim ultimately reached the excess coverage limit and when MSIA requested reimbursement from SELF, SELF refused.
Note:
Citation:	A145365
WCC Citation:	Napa County Super. Ct. No. 26-62558

Case Name:	Marine v. College of Sequoias		02/01/2012
Summary:	MARINE v. COLLEGE OF SEQUOIAS ROSALINDA MARINE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COLLEGE OF THE SEQUOIAS, Defendant and Respondent. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 415, 431; Burden v. Snowden (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 556, 562. )Collateral Estoppel Collateral estoppel, which is also known as issue preclusion, "prevents `relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings. 'The administrative decision included findings that the evidence established Castillo's continued unsatisfactory attendance and failure to improve, and Castillo's discharge was appropriate. Initially we note that we need not determine whether a community college district is a "school district" exempted from the provisions of section 1094. 6.
Note:	A college employee fired after getting into a fight with a co-worker's sister and being tried for assault with a deadly weapon could not challenge her termination, but she could pursue her claims of retaliation and discrimination based on her request for accommodation of her disabilities.
Citation:	F061765
WCC Citation:	WCC 38532012 CA

Case Name:	Marinwood Community Services v. WCAB (Ramos)		03/29/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/29/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             MARINWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, RAMOS et al. , Respondents. .             A147582 .             (WCAB No. ADJ8778127) .             Petitioner Marinwood Fire Protection District, also known as Marinwood Community Services, Inc. (Marinwood), seeks to set aside the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) holding that firefighter Pete Romo was entitled to the benefit of the rebuttable presumption under Labor Code section 3212. 11 that his cancer arose out of his employment. .           Volunteer positions with Marinwood were sought after by those who wanted to become firefighters, and the hiring process was competitive. .           The WCJ and WCAB rejected Marinwood’s interpretation and embraced Romo’s. .           We concur .           KLINE, P. J. .           RICHMAN, J.
Note:
Citation:	A147582
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ8778127

Case Name:	Market Basket v. WCAB		10/31/1978
Summary:	MARKET BASKET, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JUANITA ALLEN, Respondents. OPINION HANSON, J. Petitioner Market Basket contends that the appeals board erred in finding respondent Juanita Allen sustained psychiatric disability as the result of her admitted industrial injury while employed by Market Basket and that if substantial evidence does support such finding then the appeals board erred in not apportioning the psychiatric disability. Facts On March 21, 1975, Allen sustained an admitted injury arising out of and occurring in the course of her employment for Market Basket as a grocery checker. Market Basket obtained a psychiatric evaluation from Carl E. Graner, M. D. Market Basket then petitioned for reconsideration by the board.
Note:	Physician's report defective where no reference to preexisting psychiatric condition.
Citation:	86 Cal.App.3d 137, 43 CCC 1186
WCC Citation:	WCC 28081978 CA

Case Name:	Marquez v. Novellus Systems		02/23/2009
Summary:	Filed 2/23/09 Marquez v. Novellus Systems CA6 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). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MIGUEL ANGEL MARQUEZ, et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. CV074284) In this wrongful death action based on premises liability, defendant Novellus Systems, Inc. (Novellus) obtained summary judgment on the ground that the decedent was the employee of a contractor Novellus had hired to work on its property. In October 2004 Novellus retained ArborScience, Inc. to trim and cut trees on property owned by Novellus. Novellus provided a declaration by John Blanchette, the facilities manager at Novellus, who had hired ArborScience to do the tree-trimming work on the Novellus property.
Note:	A property owner is not liable to a dead tree trimmer's estate because it did not owe him a duty to protect him from a wood chipper.
Citation:	H033103
WCC Citation:	WCC 34982009 CA

Case Name:	Marquez v. WCAB		07/28/1995
Summary:	Richard Marquez Painting et al. , Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Robert Moore, Respondents. Injury 1 (FRE 125670) On February 22, 1990, the 28-year-old Moore was working for Richard Marquez Painting (Marquez) when he picked up a one hundred pound sand pot. 'Marquez was insured by Transamerica Insurance Company (Transamerica). Procedural Facts On or about August 19, 1993, Moore filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim for his February 22, 1990, Marquez injury (FRE 125670). Marquez was not Moore's employer at the time of the August 28, 1991, Kious injury, and was not a co-defendant' in FRE 112615.
Note:	Lien not allowed for overpaid disability benefits against subsequent employer comp. payments.
Citation:	60 CCC 711
WCC Citation:	WCC 25061995 CA

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

Case Name:	Mason v. Case		09/13/1963
Summary:	TED MASON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JACK CASE et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Kattenhorn discussed the job with Mason and showed him the location of a sectional ladder which Mason could use in the course of his work. Mason was present when Moore received his instructions and knew that Moore was simply told to 'give him a hand. 'Mason testified that he assumed Moore was holding the ladder, Moore had not held the ladder when Mason had climbed it previously, and Mason had not instructed him to do so. He points out that if the ladder was placed on spilled oil and filings, it was Mason who directed its placement at that point, Mason who selected the ladder without overhangs from the two sections available to him, Mason who could have directed Moore to hold the base of the ladder.
Note:	2801 may apply where employer failed to secure compensation or employment is outside of work comp.
Citation:	220 Cal.App.2d 170, 28 CCC 293
WCC Citation:	WCC 3891963 CA

Case Name:	Mason vs. Lake Dolores Group		04/09/2004
Summary:	JAMES MASON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LAKE DOLORES GROUP, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION KING, J. - INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant, James Mason (Mason), was rendered a paraplegic after he rode down a water slide and crashed into the dam at the end of the slide. The accident occurred at a water park owned and operated by Mason's employer, defendant and respondent, Lake Dolores Group, LLC (LDG). Mason said he went down the Doo Wop Super Drop because "[i]t was the fastest and it was my favorite. "The park's employee manual stated, "'Neither Lake Dolores nor the insurance carrier will be liable for the payment of Worker's Compensation benefits for injuries that occur during an employee's voluntary participation in any off-duty recreation, social or athletic activity sponsored by the Lake Dolores Resort. "
Note:	Injury that occurs after reporting to work but before 'clocking in' is not AOE/COE.
Citation:	117 Cal.App.4th 822
WCC Citation:	WCC 29832004 CA

Case Name:	Massey v. WCAB		07/12/1993
Summary:	1 On April 21, 1988, the decedent's widow, Paulette Thompson, applied for death benefits on behalf of herself, her son, Martin Massey (Massey), who was born on December 15, 1967, and her two older daughters, born in January 1963 and July 1964, respectively. Massey and his two sisters were all alleged to be the dependent stepchildren of the decedent. The WCJ agreed with that argument and awarded death benefits to Massey only. On petition for reconsideration, filed by the employer's insurer, State Compensation Insurance Fund, the WCJ's award was vacated by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 57, 62 [216 Cal. Rptr. 115, 702 P. 2d 197]; Antonucci v. W. C. A. B. (U. S. Steel) (1990) 133 Pa. Commw.
Note:	Death benefits apply regardless of whether child is a minor or an adult.
Citation:	5 Cal.4th 674, 58 CCC 367
WCC Citation:	WCC 25241993 CA

Case Name:	Matea v. WCAB, The Home Depot (modified 12/12/2006)		11/21/2006
Summary:	H029661 (WCAB No. SJO 228156) INTRODUCTION Petitioner Aaron Matea sustained an admitted industrial injury when a rack of lumber fell on his left leg. Matea has filed a timely petition for writ of review, contending that the Board erred when it reversed the WCJ's findings. BACKGROUND Facts Eighteen-year-old Matea began working for The Home Depot in July 2001. The Home Depot further claimed that the issue as to the applicability of section 3208. 3 was raised in its pre-trial statement. [] In asserting that his injury was 'sudden and extraordinary' in this case, [Matea] misinterprets the [Wal-Mart] Court's language in footnote 9.
Note:	Lumber falling from a rack in a store crushing the injured worker's leg was a 'sudden and extraordinary' event that caused compensable emotional injury under LC 3208.3 even though employment was less than 6 months.
Citation:	144 Cal. App. 4th 1435
WCC Citation:	WCC 31942006 CA

Case Name:	Mathews v. WCAB		02/29/1972
Summary:	Cedillo struck Mathews in the forehead with the second rock; Mathews fell and lay unconscious. In this case, the record contains ample evidence to support the Board's finding that Mathews' injuries arose out of an altercation. Since Mathews was several inches taller and 30 pounds heavier than Cedillo, a reasonable man in Cedillo's position might have considered Mathews' acts to be a real, present and apparent threat of bodily harm. Applicant argues that Mathews could not have been the "initial physical aggressor" because he did not "throw the first punch. "Consequently, even if Cedillo used excessive force in repelling Mathews' attack, Mathews was, and remained, the initial physical aggressor.
Note:	Initial physical aggressor cannot recover workers' compensation benefits.
Citation:	6 Cal. 3d 719
WCC Citation:	WCC 31131972 CA

Case Name:	Mathies v. Buhrer		02/28/2013
Summary:	MATHIES v. BUHRER EUGENE MATHIES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROBERT BUHRER, Defendant and Respondent. On appeal, Mathies makes a new argumentthat the moment Caldwell's license was suspended he (Mathies) no longer was the employee of an independent contractor, but rather under section 2750. 5, was a "statutory" employee of Buhrer and therefore Privette does not apply. Another time, Mathies told Buhrer the gutter contractor needed to get the gutters up for the work to proceed. According to Mathies, Buhrer said the workers could use any of his tools, although Mathies specifically recalled use of only several ladders and perhaps a vise. Further dispositive motions may be appropriate upon a more developed record, including with respect to the workers' compensation claim Mathies has filed against Buhrer.
Note:	A trial court must decide whether an uninsured contractor's decision to hire several employees could result in a homeowner's liability for a work-related injury.
Citation:	A133832
WCC Citation:	WCC 39892013 CA

Case Name:	Maureen DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula		06/29/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MAUREEN DESAULLES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Consistently with that ruling, at trial, the court granted Hospital's in limine motion excluding evidence and argument that Hospital had failed to accommodate deSaulles. Hospital Facility, The Registrar Position, and Patient Contact In early 2005, deSaulles interviewed with Hospital for a per diem*fn3 position as a night inpatient registrar within Hospital's Patient Business Services department. Present at the meeting were deSaulles, her husband, Zehm, and Mary Goodby, a Hospital human resource representative. deSaulles believed that rather than "taking away [her] shifts," Hospital should be "trying to work with [her]. "
Note:	The Superior Court did not err in dismissing a FEHA lawsuit filed by a disabled worker whose employer placed her on unpaid leave while awaiting more information on her medical restrictions and offered her an alternative position that the worker found unsuitable.
Citation:	H033906
WCC Citation:	WCC 37782011 CA

Case Name:	Maxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation		01/27/2017
Summary:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             BRADLEY MAXHAM, Applicant, .             vs. .             CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. .             Case No. ADJ3540065 (SAC 0361552) .             OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL (En Banc) .             Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and State Compensation Insurance Fund seek removal in response to an Order (Order) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 2, 2016. .             We received an Answer from applicant. .           Defendants filed a Petition for Removal seeking review of the Order on June 27, 2016. .           WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD (EN BANC) .           /s/ Frank M. Brass______________________ FRANK M. BRASS, Commissioner .           /s/ Deidra E. Lowe______________________ DEIDRA E. LOWE, Commissioner .           /s/ Marguerite Sweeney__________________ MARGUERITE SWEENEY, Commissioner .           _/s/ Katherine A. Zalewski_________________ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, Commissioner .           _/s/ Jose H. Razo______________________ JOSÉ H. RAZO, Commissioner .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           1/23/2017 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ3540065 (SAC 0361552)
WCC Citation:	ADJ3540065 (SAC 0361552)

Case Name:	Maxim Crane Works v. Tilbury Constructors		08/08/2012
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION DUARTE, J. Appellant Maxim Crane Works (Maxim) was hoist by its own petard when the trial court enforced an unfavorable choice-of-law provision in a form contract written by Maxim. Maxim cross-complained against Tilbury Constructors (Tilbury), Gorski's employer, seeking indemnity. Maxim had provided Tilbury a crane and operator pursuant to a contract signed that day. Maxim cross-complained against Tilbury for breach of contract and indemnity, and in part alleged Tilbury had a duty to defend Maxim, and that Tilbury had been negligent. Tilbury also contends that once Gorski and Maxim settled, Maxim still had to show the amount of the settlement was fair, before recouping that amount from Tilbury.
Note:	Pennsylvania law applied to a California construction worker's injury at a job site in Stockton.
Citation:	C067054
WCC Citation:	WCC 39182012 CA

Case Name:	McCarthy v. WCAB (Best Sanitizer's, Inc.)		01/25/2006
Summary:	Law Offices of Jeffrey R. Toff and Richard V. DeGruccio for Petitioner, Ann McCarthy. McCarthy filed petitions seeking relief under section 5814 on May 6, 2002, and May 14, . On January 5, 2005, before the WCAB acted on the petition for reconsideration, the WCJ issued its new findings, award, and order based on Abney. McCarthy was still "litigating" her legal claims when she petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration of the WCJ's findings in January 2005, and petitioned this court for a writ of review. McCarthy complains that when construing SB 899 in Abney, the WCAB ignored the amendment to former section 5814.
Note:	New Labor Code section 5814 applies to penalty claims pending as of 06/01/04.
Citation:	135 Cal. App. 4th 1230
WCC Citation:	WCC 31352006 CA

Case Name:	McCarty v. State of California Department of Transportation.		07/10/2008
Summary:	Filed 7/10/08 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO STEPHEN McCARTY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Appellant. In Hooker, as here, the defendant was the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) -- a public entity. McCarty was left a near-quadriplegic, with complete paralysis from the chest down and weakness in his arms and hands. Finally, it apportioned fault 31 percent to Caltrans, 42 percent to FCI, zero percent to Edison, and 27 percent to McCarty. In opposition, counsel for McCarty testified that, upon receiving the motion, they "undertook to identify various witnesses that provided testimony to support the verdict.
Note:	A public entity can be held liable under the retained control doctrine, provided all the other prerequisites of public entity liability under Government Code section 815.4 are also present.
Citation:	E040627
WCC Citation:	WCC 33962008 CA

Case Name:	McCarty v. WCAB		10/30/1974
Summary:	McCarty was an employee of Apartment Plumbers, Inc. , a corporation owned and managed by Alan McGowan and Robert Schlossberg. Employees stored beer in the refrigerator at the office; McCarty, who preferred bourbon, kept a half pint of Jack Daniels on a shelf. Schlossberg, one of the owner-managers, testified that he, McCarty, and a few other employees remained on the premises talking, drinking, and playing poker. Later in the evening McCarty drank from the bottle, chased it with vodka (which he thought was water) and became ill. As we have noted, while driving home, McCarty lost his life when he collided with a railroad signal pole.
Note:	Intoxication not a defense where employer permits consumption of alcohol.
Citation:	12 Cal.3d 677, 33 CCC 712
WCC Citation:	WCC 3411974 CA

Case Name:	McClune v. WCAB		04/02/1998
Summary:	OPINION SONENSHINE, J. - Steve McClune contests the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (the WCAB) denial of his petition for reconsideration of his workers' compensation claim. McClune's expert witness testified the injury was caused by cumulative and repetitive trauma while McClune was employed by AMS. He explained McClune had no symptoms prior to his AMS employment and passed a pre-employment physical. He supported his testimony with McClune's medical records indicating McClune reported severe left hip degenerative arthritis pain in 1993. The WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration, holding McClune failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence his injury was industrial in nature.
Note:	WCJ and WCAB can order taking new evidence when record lacks substantial evidence to find industrial causation, such duty imposed by due process.
Citation:	62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 63 CCC 261
WCC Citation:	WCC 26811998 CA

Case Name:	McClure v. Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation		05/18/2011
Summary:	McCLURE v. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ELIZABETH McCLURE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant and Appellant. In this sexual harassment action, defendant California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) (formerly California Department of Corrections) has found itself on the wrong side of a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Elizabeth McClure. (Bradley v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1612, 1623 (Bradley). )On September 13, 2002, Snoddy informed McClure that she (Snoddy) would no longer be assigning McClure shifts at CCC. [¶] [McClure] was subsequently terminated by the prison [staff] notifying [Staffing]" that "they no longer wanted [McClure]. "
Note:	An employee of a temporary staffing firm assigned to work at the California Department of Corrections was a special employee of the department under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled in affirming a jury award in a sexual-harassment lawsuit.
Citation:	C062601, C063431
WCC Citation:	WCC 37662011 CA

Case Name:	McCormick v. San Pedro Bait Co.		12/15/2009
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Jack McCormick filed a complaint for damages against defendant and respondent San Pedro Bait Company (San Pedro) alleging negligence. He did not ask anyone from San Pedro to provide him with tools, equipment, or gear, and San Pedro did not do so. McCormick asserted that San Pedro's negligent failure to cover or barricade deck openings affirmatively contributed to his accident and that San Pedro supplied McCormick with an unsafe and defective bait barge. The court sustained objections to Stoller's statements that he had reviewed relevant safety standards, San Pedro rendered the barge unsafe for McCormick, the unsafe conditions caused the accident, and San Pedro violated safety regulations. Because San Pedro did not affirmatively contribute to McCormick's injuries, the safety regulations do not expand San Pedro's duty to McCormick.
Note:	The Privette doctrine barred an injured worker's negligence suit against the owner of a bait barge.
Citation:	B215111
WCC Citation:	WCC 35862009 CA

Case Name:	McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Co. v. WCAB		06/09/1993
Summary:	McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Xerox Corporation, et al. , Respondents. On October 27, 1988, applicant, McDonnell Douglas, and Industrial Indemnity entered into a compromise and release in which they settled all issues in applicant's case against McDonnell Douglas, including the right to vocational rehabilitation, for the gross amount of $ 10,000. In their answer to Xerox's petition for reconsideration, McDonnell Douglas and its insurer asserted that the WCJ reasonably relied on Dr. Ravin's October 14, 1986 report in support of his order approving the McDonnell Douglas compromise and release and his finding that there was a serious, bona fide dispute as to whether any industrial injury occurred during the McDonnell Douglas employment, because in that report Dr. Ravin discussed applicant's employment by McDonnell Douglas and that report was closest in time to the McDonnell Douglas employment. He granted that petition, ordering McDonnell Douglas to pay Xerox $ 4,000 as McDonnell Douglas's share of Xerox's settlement of vocational rehabilitation temporary disability indemnity. )II McDonnell Douglas further contends that the order approving McDonnell Douglas's compromise and release precludes an order requiring contribution by McDonnell Douglas to Xerox.
Note:	Settling employer not liable for contribution to another employer absent evidence that settlement was in bad faith.
Citation:	58 CCC 305
WCC Citation:	WCC 26031993 CA

Case Name:	McDuffie v. LA Co. Metropolitan Transit Authority		02/25/2002
Summary:	Finally, if none of these options succeeds or is possible, the WCJ or the Board may then appoint a medical examiner. We agree, however, with defendant's first contention as to further development of the medical record. BACKGROUND Applicant was hired by defendant as a bus operator on March 4, 1976, and worked in that capacity until his retirement on June 30,1999. On September 22,1999, he filed a claim for cumulative injury to both knees and in the form of hypertension. Applicant submitted the reports of Dr. Sobol for the injury to his knees and that of Dr. Burstein for his hypertension.
Note:	Proper procedure for supplementing medical record at trial.
Citation:	67 CCC 138
WCC Citation:	WCC 28402002 CA

Case Name:	McGee Street Productions vs. WCAB		05/12/2003
Summary:	The special employer was the production company, McGee Street Productions (McGee Street). On April 19, 2001, more than one year after Peterson's death, an amended petition naming both McGee Street and Entertainment was served on McGee Street. An order joining McGee Street Productions issued on December 10, 2001. McGee Street also contended that Entertainment not McGee Street was the responsible party. Not until April 16, 2002, in its opposition to joinder did McGee Street, for the first time, admit Entertainment was the general employer and McGee Street was the special employer.
Note:	Statute of limitations for serious & willful claims strictly construed.
Citation:	108 Cal.App.4th 707
WCC Citation:	WCC 29342003 CA

Case Name:	McKinnon v. Otis Elevator Company		04/18/2007
Summary:	Ct. No. 04AS02043) DEBORAH MCKINNON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Landmark Healthcare's workers' compensation insurer, Everest National Insurance Company, and its claims administrator, American Commercial Claims Administrators (collectively, Employer), paid and became obligated to pay workers' compensation benefits to Employee, and, on May 23, 2003, filed a negligence-based subrogation complaint against Otis Elevator Company (Otis) to recoup these benefits. "At the current time ACCA is in the process of settling its case against Otis Elevator Company for the workers' compensation benefits paid on your behalf. Consequently, the settlement and dismissal of Employer's subrogation lawsuit against Otis does not bar Employee's lawsuit against Otis. As to Employee's lawsuit against Otis, Employee will not be allowed double recovery and Otis will not be subjected to double liability.
Note:	When an employer fails to adequately notify its employee of its subrogation lawsuit and proposed settlement involving the alleged third-party tortfeasor and fails to obtain the employee's consent to the settlement of that suit, and when the settling alleged third-party tortfeasor, prior to settlement, was or reasonably should have been aware of the possibility of the employee's claim for damages against the tortfeasor, the alleged tortfeasor cannot use the mere settlement and dismissal of the employer's subrogation action to bar the employee from maintaining her own action for damages against the alleged tortfeasor.
Citation:	149 Cal. App. 4th 1125
WCC Citation:	WCC 32162007 CA

Case Name:	McNally v. Holzman		04/18/2011
Summary:	McNALLY v. HOLZMAN PATRICIA A. McNALLY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVID T. HOLZMAN et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Respondents David T. Holzman and the law firm Hourigan, Holzman & Sprague negotiated a settlement which included a $395,000 special needs trust. Respondents signed the guardian ad litem petition on appellant's behalf, naming appellant's brother as guardian ad litem and trustee. We have attached a copy of the guardian ad litem petition which is a WCAB preprinted form. It states: "The minor(s)/incompetent(s) require a Guardian ad Litem and Trustee to prosecute the claim and to receive .
Note:	An applicant may not do an end run around the one-year statute of limitations by morphing her malpractice suit against her former attorneys into a defamation suit.
Citation:	B225645
WCC Citation:	WCC 37472011 CA