Case Name:	O'Donnell v. Allen		06/21/2010
Summary:	When plaintiff called Allen, Allen was able to induce Stolpman to return plaintiff's telephone calls. Plaintiff also discussed with Allen the legal theory of gross negligence, and Allen explained that the theory is difficult to prove and requires intentional conduct. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the terms of Allen's representation were set forth in the retainer agreement Allen signed, that Allen never limited the scope of the representation, and that plaintiff consulted with Allen from time to time on matters related to the lawsuit. Plaintiff's declaration also stated that he would call Allen from time to time to discuss the status of the case and that Allen would respond that he did not have the case in front of him but that Allen would get back to him. Plaintiff presented evidence that he relied on Allen as his attorney; called Allen to inquire about the status of the case; and discussed with Allen potential legal theories such as gross negligence.
Note:	[Unpublished] Language of the retainer agreement is not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation urged by defendant and adopted by the trial court.
Citation:	B213420
WCC Citation:	WCC 36402010 CA

Case Name:	Obayashi v. PMN Design Electric		01/16/2008
Summary:	INTRODUCTION James E. Roberts-Obayashi Corporation (Obayashi) appeals from a summary judgment in favor of PMN Design Electric, Inc. (Design). The underlying action against Obayashi arose from an injury suffered by a Design employee while performing under the terms of a subcontract between Design and Obayashi. Obayashi and Design entered into a subcontract under which Design would perform specified electrical work on the Anza Project for $1,962,984. There is still an outstanding Cross-Complaint by [Obayashi] against the injured employee's employer, Design Electric. Alternatively, if Design were found not to be at all negligent, then [Obayashi] will pay $500,000. 00 through Steadfast,[*fn3] as liability/excess carrier for [Obayashi]. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Appellant cannot establish that it has incurred or will incur damages, and based on the exclusivity of California's Worker Compensation Scheme, is prohibited from seeking equitable indemnity.
Citation:	A114597
WCC Citation:	WCC 33012008 CA

Case Name:	Ogdon v. WCAB		04/15/1974
Summary:	DONALD R. OGDON, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT et al. , Respondents In Bank. The County discontinued payment to Ogdon when the compromise and release agreement settling his workmen's compensation claim was executed. Ogdon was eligible for the benefits actually received by him and it is not contended that such payment was unauthorized. This lump-sum award did include allocations for temporary disability for the period in which Ogdon had received AFDC benefits. The fact remains that Ogdon did not receive both AFDC and workmen's compensation at the same time, and the latter was not then currently available to him.
Note:	No lien against comp. benefits allowed for welfare aid.
Citation:	11 Cal.3d 192
WCC Citation:	WCC 24971974 CA

Case Name:	Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco (II)		09/03/2009
Summary:	This case has been overruled in City and County of San Francisco v. WCAB (Ogilvie), A126427, and is not to be relied upon for authority. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. ADJ1177048 (SFO 0487779) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) WANDA OGILVIE, Applicant, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s). On March 2, 2009, defendant, the City and County of San Francisco, also filed a petition seeking reconsideration of our February 3, 2009 en banc decision. (Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 248, 266 (Appeals Board en banc) (Ogilvie I). 1205, San Francisco, CA 94104 Office of the City Attorney, Fox Plaza, 1390 Market Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA -5408 NPS/jr ===========Footnotes=========== .
Note:	[En Banc] The language of Labor Code section 4660(c) unambiguously means that a permanent disability rating established by the Schedule is rebuttable.
Citation:	ADJ1177048
WCC Citation:	WCC 35612009 CA

Case Name:	Ogilvie vs. City and County of San Francisco		02/03/2009
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. ADJ1177048 (SFO 0487779) WANDA OGILVIE, Applicant, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s). OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) We granted the petition for reconsideration of defendant, the City and County of San Francisco, to allow time to further study the record and applicable law. AWARD AWARD IS MADE in favor of WANDA OGILVIE and against the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, of: (a) All further medical treatment reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury. Moreover, "Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity" for San Francisco County is one of the very few regional occupational groups for which wage data is not listed for certain years. Also, analogies conceivably could be made to "Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity" for another county or counties in the Bay Area.
Note:	(1) the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule is rebuttable; (2) the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule ordinarily is not rebutted by establishing the percentage to which an injured employee's future earning capacity has been diminished; (3) the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule is not rebutted by taking two-thirds of the injured employee's estimated diminished future earnings, and then comparing the resulting sum to the permanent disability money chart to approximate a corresponding permanent disability rating; and (4) the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule may be rebutted in a manner consistent with Labor Code section 4660.
Citation:	ADJ1177048 (SFO 0487779)
WCC Citation:	WCC 34882009 CA

Case Name:	Oliva v. Heath		06/09/1995
Summary:	SUSAN OLIVA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PEGGY HEATH et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Defendants Heath, Hayward and Walter were her coemployees. 3 Defendant Heath admitted she lowered the chair an inch as a prank. They therefore argue that '[defendants] were acting within the scope of their employment when they played certain jokes or pranks on Oliva because a 'condoned' activity is considered a hazard associated with employment. 'All references to plaintiff are to Mrs. Oliva.
Note:	Co-workers not liable for injury caused by horseplay within scope of employment.
Citation:	35 Cal.App.4th 926
WCC Citation:	WCC 24161995 CA

Case Name:	One Hour Cleaners, etc. v. WCAB		05/04/1998
Summary:	PANEL: For petitioners -- Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen, by Jerry C. Dusthimer For respondent employee -- Boxer, Elkind & Gerson, by Michael G. Gerson. SUMMARY OF CASE: Applicant suffered injury in the course of her employment for Defendant, One Hour Cleaners, on January 30, 1995, and subsequently requested vocational rehabilitation benefits. expenditures prior to January 8, 1997 were not subject to the $16,000 statutory expenditure cap under Labor Code Sec. The WCJ responded by issuing a report recommending that the WCAB deny the petition. 4636(d)(1), 3) that the WCAB exceeded its authority by denying Defendants' rights under the Labor Code, and 4) that the WCAB order denying reconsideration did not meet the requirements of Labor Code Sec. 5908. 5.
Note:	Employer's rehab. expenditures not subject to 139.5 cap when employer did not send applicant required prior notice of rights to rehab.
Citation:	63 CCC 774
WCC Citation:	WCC 27941998 CA

Case Name:	Operating Engineers v. Johnson		07/03/2003
Summary:	OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 3 et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SYLVIA J. JOHNSON, Individually and as Chief Probation Officer, etc. , et al. , Defendants and Appellants. OPINION POLLAK, J. - Plaintiffs Bonita Vinson and her bargaining representative, Operating Engineers Local 3, affiliated with the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Local 3) brought this action against Sylvia J. Johnson, individually and in her capacity as the Chief Probation Officer of the County of Alameda, and the County of Alameda. In 1997, Johnson selected Vinson to supervise a new girls' juvenile program entitled "RYSE," an acronym for Reaffirming Young Sisters' Excellence. Starting in early 1998, Vinson had conversations with Johnson in which she stated she was working beyond the scope of the unit supervisor classification, and indicated her interest in a reclassification, which Johnson discouraged. That Johnson be directed to issue an apology, in writing, to Vinson for these wrongful acts; [P] 4.
Note:	Invasion of privacy not barred by exclusive remedy of work comp.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 180
WCC Citation:	WCC 29442003 CA

Case Name:	Ortega v. Rady Children's Hospital		04/18/2011
Summary:	ORTEGA v. RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MONICA ORTEGA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Monica Ortega appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Rady Children's Hospital of San Diego (Rady) on her complaint for employment discrimination and related claims. Ortega returned to Rady in May 2007 to deliver a progress report prepared by her physician. Ortega again returned to Rady in June 2007 with another progress report prepared by her physician. Trial Court Proceedings After obtaining a right-to-sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Ortega filed a complaint against Rady.
Note:	An employer was entitled to summary judgment against a housekeeper's Fair Employment and Housing Act claims because it showed that no reasonable accommodation existed that would have allowed her to continue performing her job.
Citation:	D056282
WCC Citation:	WCC 37462011 CA

Case Name:	Ortega v. WCAB		05/02/1989
Summary:	Abundio Ortega, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California; Los Angeles Stitching Service; and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Respondents. In comments to the job analysis, applicant claimed he frequently was required to bend at the knees and waist and to kneel. The Bureau ordered that further requests for rehabilitation benefits be made within five years after the date of injury. Applicant appealed to the WCJ from the Bureau's March 20, 1984, order, denying he had declined rehabilitation services. On September 5, 1985, the WCJ returned the matter to the Bureau without having decided the appeal.
Note:	Where applicant's assertions are not based in the record, Board has duty to develop the record.
Citation:	54 CCC 149
WCC Citation:	WCC 27231989 CA