Case Name:	Nabors v. Piedmont Lumber & Mill		06/09/2005
Summary:	NOTE: This case has been specifically OVERRULED in Nabors vs. WCAB (A110792, 06/08/2006) WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SRO 0122159, SRO 0113249 DANNY NABORS, Applicant, vs. PIEDMONT LUMBER & MILL COMPANY; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. In relevant part, the WCJ also found that applicant's back and lower extremities injury caused 31% permanent disability after apportionment. On May 2, 1996, applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his low back "and radiating pain to both lower extremities," while employed by Piedmont Lumber & Mill Company as a "working foreman, lumber stacker, [and] forklift driver. "During a period ending August 19, 2002, applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury to his back and lower extremities, while employed by Piedmont Lumber & Mill Company as a mill supervisor. The permanent disability directly caused by the new injury is that which took Mr. Nabors from 49% to 80%.
Note:	Apportion based on percentage, not money or weeks.
Citation:	70 CCC 856
WCC Citation:	WCC 31012005 CA

Case Name:	Nabors v. WCAB		06/08/2006
Summary:	Nabors challenges the Board's permanent disability apportionment formula. Not surprisingly, Nabors asks us to reject the Board's majority opinion, and adopt that of Commissioner Caplane. 1544-1547), and the en banc decision in Nabors (id. Dykes obtained his original award in November 2004 (Dykes, supra, 134 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1541); Nabors obtained his the following month. Nabors petitioned this court for writ of review in July 2005, which we granted in October.
Note:	'Formula C' which requires dollar value of previous award subtracted from dollar value of total current permanent disability, is correct method for calculating apportionment.
Citation:	140 Cal. App. 4th 217
WCC Citation:	WCC 31632006 CA

Case Name:	National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group Inc.		02/11/2009
Summary:	Ct. No. RG07315658)                 Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National) provided excess insurance to the workers' compensation program of the Bank of America (Bank), which was administered by defendant Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (Cambridge). Because Cambridge had authorized payment for the surgery, the Bank and National were obligated to pay the expenses associated with its consequences. The first cause of action alleged that Cambridge breached the Cambridge contract by mishandling the Metter claim and that National was subrogated to the Bank's right of recovery against Cambridge for that breach. In addition, it altered the basis of the negligent misrepresentation claim, alleging misrepresentation to the Bank rather than directly to National. The Merits           National may pursue a cause of action for negligence against Cambridge only if, under the circumstances alleged, Cambridge owed a duty of care to National.
Note:	A third-party administrator owed a duty of care to let a bank's excess insurer know the circumstances of a costly claim it allegedly mishandled.
Citation:	A120072
WCC Citation:	WCC 34912009 CA

Case Name:	Navarro v. A&A Farming; Western Growers		02/13/2002
Summary:	Alonso Navarrro, applicant, vs. A&A Farming, Western Growers Insurance Co. , defendants; Case Nos. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Const. . , N. A. , Inc. (Dillingham) (1997) 519 U. S. 316, 324 [117 S. Ct. 832, 136 L. Ed. 2d 791]. )(Travelers, supra, 514 U. S. at [quoting from Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (Alessi) (1981) 451 U. S. 503, 523 [ 101 S. Ct. 1895, 68 L. Ed. 2d 4021. )was to avoid a multiplicity of regulation in order to permit the nationally uniform administration of employee benefit plans. Here, the WCJ's Opinion on Decision stated [t]he facts show that [the Western Growers Assurance Trust] .
Note:	ERISA preempts LC 132a.
Citation:	67 CCC 145
WCC Citation:	WCC 28392002 CA

Case Name:	Navarro v. A&A Farming; Western Growers (II)		03/28/2002
Summary:	[1] For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss applicant's petition for reconsideration as an impermissible successive petition to the Board. At the MSC, A&A specifically raised the issue of: Is the application of Labor Code §132a pre-empted by ERISA from enforcement against A&A Farming. At trial, testimony and documentary evidence was presented on the issue of whether A&A's group health benefits plan was an ERISA plan. On July 18, 2001, A&A filed a post-hearing brief addressing the issue of whether applicant's section 132a claim was preempted by ERISA. On July 30, 2001, applicant filed an answer to A&A's post-trial brief, arguing that A&A's ERISA preemption defense was invalid.
Note:	Successive petitions for reconsideration on duplicate issues not permitted; ERISA preempts 132a
Citation:	67 CCC 296
WCC Citation:	WCC 28492002 CA

Case Name:	Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.		10/09/2009
Summary:	Plaintiff Iftikhar Nazir, a man of Pakistani ancestry, worked for United Airlines (United) for over 16 years, during which time he was called scurrilous names and was the victim of numerous other indignities. According to plaintiff, a United supervisor was present and heard the statement, and said jokingly, while laughing, "Yes, you should not say that. "Nazir was orally advised of the charges against him, and given an opportunity to provide a written response to those charges, which Nazir did. United also interviewed the only eyewitness to the incident, Colman (who is not claimed to have harbored any bias against Nazir), who corroborated Avellan's version of the incident. "We concur: Haerle, Acting P. J. Lambden, J. A121651, Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. Trial Court: Superior Court of San Mateo County Trial Judge: Hon.
Note:	A court's inherent power to exercise a reasonable control over all proceedings connected with the litigation before it extends to motions for summary judgment.
Citation:	A121651
WCC Citation:	WCC 35702009 CA

Case Name:	Nelsen v. WCAB		09/22/1970
Summary:	OSWALD N. NELSEN, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CAPITOL ROOF STRUCTURES et al. , Respondents. In one of those three cases (Marglon v. WCAB), the civil judgment was followed by a settlement with the third party pending appeal. The fourth case at bench (Smith v. WCAB) was preceded by a civil action in which the third party defendant settled during trial. In Marglon v. WCAB (one of the four cases here for review) the compensation carrier's complaint in intervention was voluntarily dismissed prior to verdict in the third party action. 229-234; see also, Gastelum v. City of Torrance (1969) 2 Cal. App. 3d 582 [82 Cal. Rptr. 732] (WCAB death benefit award). )
Note:	Employer credit against future benefits not applicable where concurrent negligence found.
Citation:	11 Cal.App.3d 472
WCC Citation:	WCC 23841970 CA

Case Name:	Nelson & Sloan v. WCAB		03/07/1978
Summary:	NELSON & SLOAN et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WILLIAM C. HAIRRELL, Respondents. We have reviewed respondent Hairrell's request for attorney fees and conclude it should be granted. 1 There was no reasonable basis for the petition because it prematurely raised issues which had not been presented to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) by petition for reconsideration. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the enforcement of any such final order, decision, or award, in the manner provided in this division. 'The Supreme Court has remanded the question of attorney fees to this court with the following order: 'Petition for hearing granted.
Note:	Remanded to Board to make supplemental award of reasonable attorney fees.
Citation:	79 Cal.App.3d 51
WCC Citation:	WCC 26331978 CA

Case Name:	Nestle v. WCAB and Ken Ryerson		01/17/2007
Summary:	A Workers' Compensation judge (WCJ) awarded disability and vocational rehabilitation benefits to respondent Ken Ryerson (Ryerson). FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Ryerson worked as a financial analyst for Nestle, which is self-insured for purposes of the workers' compensation law. Ryerson was placed on leave and was diagnosed with chronic cervical and thoracic strain, bilateral cervicobrachial syndrome and repetitive strain injury. On November 8, 2004, Dr. Morley wrote a report clarifying that he had fully released Ryerson in April because Nestle would not allow him to return with any restrictions and Ryerson wanted to resume his duties. Nestle filed a petition for reconsideration on May 4, 2006, 20 days after the amended award was filed and served.
Note:	An order dismissing appellant's petition for reconsideration as untimely was unreasonable when reconsideration was sought within 20 days of service of an amended order that effected a substantial and material change in the award and involved a judicial act.
Citation:	146 Cal. App. 4th 1104
WCC Citation:	WCC 32042007 CA

Case Name:	New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		08/15/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No. A112640 August 15, 2006 NEW UNITED MOTORS MANUFACTURING, INC. , PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND JOHN GALLEGOS, RESPONDENTS. Counsel for Petitioner James E. New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. : Bruscino D'Andre, Peterson, Bobus & Bruscino. Counsel for Respondent Neil P. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board: Sullivan Vincent Bausano. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) challenges the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) refusal to reconsider an order to pay a penalty and attorney fees for delaying payment of workers' compensation benefits to respondent John Gallegos (applicant). In any proceeding under this section, the appeals board shall use its discretion to accomplish a fair balance and substantial justice between the parties.
Note:	The court found that the WCAB ordered a penalty based on a misinterpretation of the relevant statute, and found that no proper basis exists for the WCAB's award of -attorney fees under section 5814.5.
Citation:	141 Cal. App. 4th 1533
WCC Citation:	WCC 31732006 CA