Case Name:	Porter v. Board of Retirement Orange County		06/18/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MARY PORTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. 03CC10643) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge. * * * This case deals with payment of disability retirement to plaintiff Mary Porter by defendant Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees' Retirement System. (Porter v. Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees' Retirement System (Dec. 23, 2005, G034319) [nonpub. Suffice it to say plaintiff was injured while driving a bus for the Orange County Transportation Authority.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because she filed this appeal before defendant held a hearing to determine the amount of workers' compensation paid to her and whether she could afford to repay it, plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative remedies and appeal is premature.
Citation:	G038450
WCC Citation:	WCC 33852008 CA

Case Name:	Portillo v. Commission on Professional Competence		06/17/2011
Summary:	PORTILLO v. COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE SABELA PORTILLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, Defendant and Respondent, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. , Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. Proc. , § 1094. 5. )*fn1 Portillo's superior court petition sought to overturn a decision by the Commission on Professional Competence (the Commission) upholding the determination of the governing board of defendant and respondent Los Angeles Unified School District (the District) to dismiss Portillo as a certificated employee of the District. Pittsburg Unified School District v. Commission on Professional Competence (1983) 146 Cal. App. 3d 964, 971. "The "decision of a Commission on Professional Competence may be challenged in superior court by means of a petition for a writ of mandate. 313-314, italics added; accord Wilmot v. Commission on Professional Competence (1998) 64 Cal. App. 4th 1130, 1138-1139. )
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld the termination of a Los Angeles Unified School District employee who pled nolo contendre to workers' compensation fraud.
Citation:	B220735
WCC Citation:	WCC 37742011 CA

Case Name:	Portnov v. Farmers Insurance Exchange		12/09/2011
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Appellant Mikhail Portnov was an independent contractor insurance agent for respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers). As part of Portnov's training, Farmers trained Portnov "to call, use and rely on Farmers' Workers' Compensation `1-800' Support telephone number/Customer Service for questions about writing his customers' Farmers' insurance policies. "Under the agreement, Portnov agreed to sell Farmers insurance policies and Farmers agreed to pay Portnov commissions for selling insurance. In January 2005, Concord General Insurance Services, Inc. (Concord), a retail insurance broker, contacted Portnov to seek workers' compensation insurance for Execair Maintenance, Inc. (Execair), a client of Concord's. Portnov alleges that "Farmers did in fact provide training, support, guidance, backing and consult from Rick Rasnick, Peter Young, Dawn Fields, Farmers Business Support Center Personnel employees, Farmers Home Office Management employees, Farmers websites/computer system, Farmers instructors, Farmers employees and agents and nameless employees that held themselves out as Farmers corporate employees or agents, either in person, writing or by telephone. "
Note:	Farmers Insurance Exchange did not breach its contract with an insurance agent who was forced to resign after failing to provide an employer with sufficient workers' compensation coverage.
Citation:	E050688
WCC Citation:	WCC 38312011 CA

Case Name:	Postural Therapeutics v. WCAB		03/31/1986
Summary:	POSTURAL THERAPEUTICS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HOME INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Respondents. [1a] Postural Therapeutics (PT) provided physiotherapy to Humberto A. who was injured while employed as a painter by Romero & Sons Painting Contractors. I have no reason to change my statements in any of my preceding reports based upon the findings in this report. '2 At trial, Humberto A. refused to produce Buehler's report, claiming it would be a 'violation of federal law. 'This is to include adjustment of the lien claim of Postural Therapeutics which claim is $5,190. '
Note:	Insurer's failure to serve physiotherapy provider with Petition for Recon. was grounds for dimissal; Failure to serve is not prejudicial error when party has notice/opportunity to argue once Petition is granted.
Citation:	179 Cal.App.3d 551
WCC Citation:	WCC 26771986 CA

Case Name:	Potter v. Ariz. So. Coach Lines, Inc.		06/15/1988
Summary:	JOSEPH L. POTTER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ARIZONA SOUTHERN COACH LINES, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents (Opinion by Stone (S. [202 Cal. App. 3d 130] Joseph Potter and wife Rita appeal from an order dismissing Arizona Southern Coach Lines, Inc. (Arizona) and Michael Parzych as defendants after their demurrer to appellants' third amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. At that time, Rita Potter was suffering from a life-threatening illness which required extensive and costly medical treatment; Joseph Potter had previously sustained a serious and permanent injury which would also require extensive medical expense. Neither Arizona nor the group insurers notified appellants of their statutory right to convert group to individual coverage without further proof of insurability. Proc. , § 452; Foster v. xerox Corp. (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 306, 312 [219 Cal. Rptr. 485, 707 P. 2d 858]. )
Note:	Civil action prohibited against employer for damages due to failure to notify of health insurance on termination.
Citation:	202 Cal.App.3d 126
WCC Citation:	WCC 3881988 CA

Case Name:	Potter v. WCAB		03/28/1991
Summary:	n1 Bertram Potter is the senior partner in Potter & Cohen and has many years of experience practicing workers' compensation law in California. Although it was standard office procedure for Potter & Cohen to file a lien claim, apparently no lien claim by Potter & Cohen was filed in applicant's case. Paul Potter customarily practices criminal law, but agreed to represent applicant because applicant is deaf and Paul Potter speaks sign language. Chairman Little determined Paul and Bertram Potter were guilty of contempt of the Board and imposed a $ 250 fine against Paul Potter and a $500 fine against Bertram Potter. Moreover, Paul Potter testified it was standard office procedure at Potter & Cohen for a lien claim to be filed, and no evidence was introduced to support a finding that Paul Potter intentionally delayed submitting the agreement to the Board.
Note:	Portion of indemnity placed in trust for potential attorney fee valid with WCAB approval.
Citation:	56 CCC 225
WCC Citation:	WCC 25161991 CA

Case Name:	Power Fabricating v. SCIF		10/29/2008
Summary:	* * * State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) obtained summary judgment in an action filed by plaintiff Power Fabricating, Inc. , (Power), which sought declaratory relief and damages arising from State Fund's failure to defend it in a separate action against Power brought by the widow of a worker who died in an industrial accident. Power contends it presented a triable issue of fact on whether the decedent was employed by Power, a related entity, or a joint venture between the two entities. State Fund compensated Kryzak's widow under part 1, and Power does not contend part 1 created a duty to defend Power in the Kryzak action. In essence, Power seeks to aggregate the TPSI and Power entities to invoke ELI coverage, yet separate the two companies to avoid the ELI workers' compensation exclusion. On page 2, second sentence of the first full paragraph, beginning "Power contends it presented" is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place Power contends it presented a triable issue of fact on whether the decedent was employed by Power, an entity related to Power, or a joint venture between the two entities.
Note:	Employer liability insurance (ELI) coverage can accrue only if...(b) workers' compensation law either does not apply to the situation or the employer may be sued in a capacity other than as an employer. Because Power failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of the conditions required in (b), ELI coverage cannot be triggered.
Citation:	G039635
WCC Citation:	WCC 34482008 CA

Case Name:	Power Fabricating v. State Compensation Ins. Fund		09/30/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE POWER FABRICATING, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. * * * State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) obtained summary judgment in an action filed by plaintiff Power Fabricating, Inc. , (Power), which sought declaratory relief and damages arising from State Fund's failure to defend it in a separate action against Power brought by the widow of a worker who died in an industrial accident. Power tendered defense of the action to State Fund and Power's commercial general liability insurer, Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (Liberty). Power brought the present action for damages and declaratory relief against State Fund and Liberty, alleging they each had a duty to defend and indemnify Power in connection with the Kryzak action. State Fund compensated Kryzak's widow under part 1, and Power does not contend part 1 created a duty to defend Power in the Kryzak action.
Note:	[Unpublished] Employer liability insurance (ELI) coverage can accrue only if...(b) workers' compensation law either does not apply to the situation or the employer may be sued in a capacity other than as an employer. Because Power failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of the conditions required in (b), ELI coverage cannot be triggered.
Citation:	G039635
WCC Citation:	WCC 34322008 CA

Case Name:	Power Fabricating, Inc. v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp.		10/30/2007
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION Plaintiff Power Fabricating, Inc. , (Power) challenges the judgment entered after the trial court sustained the demurrers of defendant Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (Liberty) without leave to amend. Power tendered defense of the action to its workers' compensation insurer, State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) and its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer, Liberty. ), Power demurred to the complaint in the Kryzak action, arguing that Power employed Kryzak at the time of the accident. Attached to the complaint as exhibits were Kryzak's employment agreement with Power, a payroll check reflecting Power as his employer, and a W-2 form also reflecting Power as Kryzak's employer. Liberty demurred to the complaint, citing its CGL policy's exclusion for employees and claims covered by workers' compensation insurance.
Note:	[Unpublished] Whether the injured worker was the insured's employee acting within the course and scope of that employment is a mixed question of law and fact, and therefore does not constitute a binding judicial admission against the insured.
Citation:	G037648
WCC Citation:	WCC 32742007 CA

Case Name:	Powers v. WCAB (Vapor Cleaners)		09/14/1995
Summary:	Powers, applicant's Attorney O'Boyle sent a letter to defendant's Attorney Cohen asking for payment of Dr. Powers they were not going to pay the bill, because they questioned the medical necessity for the MRIs. Powers was billing for services which had actually been performed at a facility with which Powers had contracted to provide service, and declared they would only pay the direct, lesser charges of the facility. Powers because he had not provided defendant carrier with information about the charges of the facility with which Dr. Powers had contracted to perform the MRIs of applicant, defendant carrier would continue to contest the reasonableness of the billing.
Note:	Lien claimant denied due process if not afforded a hearing prior to approval of C&R which reduces lien.
Citation:	60 CCC 821
WCC Citation:	WCC 27501995 CA