Case Name:	Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., Inc.		08/23/2007
Summary:	On the authority of Ralphs Grocery, the instant Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment for Ralphs, entered after Ralphs's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint was sustained without leave to amend. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2001, plaintiff, a produce manager in a Ralphs store, filed original and first amended complaints against Ralphs, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Ralphs employees. The Ralphs Grocery court observed at the outset that Ralphs had persuasively demonstrated the beneficial effects of profit-based incentive compensation plans for both employers and employees. Prachasaisoradej is a Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc. (Ralphs) employee. 322- 323 [sustaining regulation making it unlawful to subtract shortages from wages]; Ralphs Grocery, supra, 112 Cal. App. 4th at pp.
Note:	Ralphs' profit-based supplementary ICP, designed to reward employees beyond their normal pay for their collective contribution to store profits, did not violate the wage protection policies of Labor Code sections 221, 400 through 410, or 3751, or Regulation 11070, insofar as the Plan included store expenses such as workers' compensation costs, cash and merchandise shortages, breakage, and third party tort claims in the profit calculation.
Citation:	42 Cal. 4th 217
WCC Citation:	WCC 32442007 CA

Case Name:	Preferred Auto Dealers Self Insurance Program v. Anderson Enterprises Part 1/2		03/02/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             PREFERRED AUTO DEALERS SELF INSURANCE PROGRAM, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             ANDERSON ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. , Defendants and Appellants. .             A148518, A149294, A149446 .             (Contra Costa County Super. .           Section 3700 “establishes the duty of the private employer to provide compensation security by either (1) carrying insurance with an authorized company (subd. .           With this regulatory scheme in mind, we turn to the facts of the present case. .           PADSIP incorporated these factual allegations into one cause of action alleged against all defendants for breach of a written contract.
Note:
Citation:	A148518, A149294, A149446
WCC Citation:	Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC12-0090

Case Name:	Preferred Auto Dealers Self Insurance Program v. Anderson Enterprises Part 2/2		03/02/2018
Summary:	Putnam “was seeking an admission of law rather than fact,” and that legal issue went to the heart of this case. .         PADSIP identifies an independent ground for affirming the CCP section 2033. 420 ruling as to all defendants in the Anderson group except for Putnam. The other defendants in the Anderson group did not establish any basis for recovering their fees under this statute. .         Cross-appellants contend that there is no difference between the purchase orders in Linear and the 2012 resolution. The director’s decisions on such matters may be challenged in the appropriate superior court pursuant to a writ of mandate.
Note:
Citation:	A148518, A149294, A149446
WCC Citation:	Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC12-0090

Case Name:	Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. CIGA		05/30/2008
Summary:	(Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY We take portions of this summary from our opinion in Premier I, supra, 136 Cal. App. 4th at pages 468-472. California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), The Explorer Insurance Company (Explorer), Insurance Company of the West (ICW), and other entities sought a determination by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) that Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. was improperly representing treating physicians in WCAB proceedings. (Premier I, supra, 136 Cal. App. 4th at p. 477, citing Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 82, 88-89. )(Premier I, supra, 136 Cal. App. 4th at p. 478, quoting Ludwig v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 8, 21, fn.
Note:	General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice in challenging attorney fees as excessive. Failure to raise specific challenges in the trial court forfeits the claim on appeal.
Citation:	B195889
WCC Citation:	WCC 33762008 CA

Case Name:	Premier Medical Mgmt. v. CIGA		02/06/2006
Summary:	Under this scheme, an insurer ordinarily must pay all medical or medical-legal bills of an injured employee within 60 days of receipt. In this case, CIGA became responsible for some covered claims because of the insolvency and liquidation of the insurer on those claims. In July 2002, CIGA asked the WCAB to consolidate 13 pending cases involving claims filed by Premier plaintiffs in litigated cases covered by CIGA. They also alleged that Premier and its affiliates were illegally referring business and making improper and excessive charges. Plaintiffs are Premier Medical and five individual physicians affiliated with it (Francis G. D'Ambrosio, Robert Schatz, Frank J. Coufal, Afshin Mashoof, Manuel Anell).
Note:	Plaintiffs not entitled to summary judgment on complaint under Anti-SLAPP law where the action arises from defendants' litigation of claims in WCAB proceedings.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 4th 464
WCC Citation:	WCC 31402006 CA

Case Name:	Price v. Connolly-Pacific Co.		05/13/2008
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Daniel C. Price ("Price") is a "seaman" under the terms and conditions of the Jones Act which was enacted in 1920 to give protection to any seaman injured in the course of employment. Price was an operating engineer, a licensed merchant mariner, and a crew member of a special purpose derrick barge named the "Long Beach. "Price is referred to in this litigation as a "commuter seaman" or sometimes as a "brown water seaman. "Price sued Connolly in the Los Angeles County Superior Court contending that he was entitled to "maintenance and cure. "Appellant Price was a marine construction worker who resided in La Mesa, in San Diego County.
Note:	Shipowner's generosity in allowing plaintiff to use his RV-camper in an otherwise empty parking lot, without more, is an insufficient basis on which to award plaintiff maintenance and cure.
Citation:	B200083
WCC Citation:	WCC 33552008 CA

Case Name:	Price v. WCAB		12/17/1984
Summary:	Approximately 7:50 a. m. on June 20, 1980, petitioner, Andrew Leo Price, was injured outside his place of employment. As he put the oil into his car, Price straddled the left headlight and extended his right leg to the side. Although Price was not physically on the employer's premises when the accident occurred, he was waiting to be admitted to work. The board relied on the fact that Price was not on the employer's premises when he was injured. Price had finished his journey to work although, because the doors were locked, he had not yet entered his employer's premises.
Note:	Coming and going rule not applicable to employee waiting to be admitted to employer's premises.
Citation:	37 Cal. 3d 559
WCC Citation:	WCC 30361984 CA

Case Name:	Price v. WCAB		10/27/1992
Summary:	STEPHEN M. PRICE et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, G. L. NUNEZ PLASTERING et al. , Respondents. On May 9, 1990, Mr. Cadena, Mr. Price, and counsel for defendants, G. L. Nunez Plastering and Nationwide Insurance Company, signed stipulations with a request for an award. On the stipulation form, Mr. Price requested a $4,270 attorney fee for himself and indicated Mr. Kay requested a $2,135 attorney fee. 3 Mr. Price asserts defendants were informed of Mr. Cadena's death within a few days after he died. On March 28, 1991, Mr. Price filed a letter with the Board, asserting he was entitled to payment of his fee under the stipulated award.
Note:	PD award improper after worker's death where insurer overpaid and no accrued but unpaid indemnity.
Citation:	10 Cal.App.4th 959
WCC Citation:	WCC 25521992 CA

Case Name:	Priest v. WCAB		10/23/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DEANNA PRIEST, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MICHAEL HOUSEPIAN, Respondents. The accident led to a workers' compensation hearing on December 16, 1996, where Priest claimed average weekly earnings of $507. 70 per week. Housepian petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, to which Priest, at this point unrepresented by counsel, did not respond. The WCAB majority noted there was no record of Priest having filed a petition to reopen for good cause prior to August 7, 1999. Priest does not point to any evidence offered to the WCAB to justify its continuing jurisdiction beyond August 7, 1999.
Note:	[Unpublished] Priest's failure to produce evidence supporting the WCAB's continued jurisdiction, coupled with her affirmative conduct in leading to the WCJ's alleged miscalculations in 1997, constituted sufficient evidence and basis for the WCAB to rescind the WCJ's amended award.
Citation:	F055953
WCC Citation:	WCC 34402008 CA

Case Name:	Privette vs. Superior Court		06/19/1993
Summary:	FRANKLIN PRIVETTE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; JESUS CONTRERAS, Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 701139, Read Ambler, Judge. )[FN 1] In support of his motion, Privette presented these undisputed facts: Privette, a school teacher, owned some rental properties, including the duplex where roofing employee Contreras was injured. (Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 465, 468 [165 Cal. Rptr. 858, 612 P. 2d 948, 9 A. L. R. 4th 758], citing § 3602. )Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed with directions to grant the petition for writ of mandate ordering respondent court to enter judgment for defendant.
Note:	Peculiar risk doctrine does not create exception to exclusive remedy of the Work Comp Act.
Citation:	5 Cal.4th 689
WCC Citation:	WCC 30711993 CA