Case Name:	Pearson Dental Supplies v. Superior Court of Los Angeles		04/26/2010
Summary:	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA PEARSON DENTAL SUPPLIES, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Los Angeles County Respondent; S167169 Ct. App. 2/4 B206740 Super. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Luis Turcios was hired as a janitor by defendant Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. , in February 1999. On October 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging age discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. Defendant petitioned the superior court to confirm the award on December 5, 2007. Second, if the arbitrator did make such an error, was that sufficient grounds for the trial court to vacate the arbitration award?
Note:	Where a clear error of law by an arbitrator means that an employee subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement will be deprived of a hearing on the merits of an unwaivable statutory employment claim, the award may be vacated.
Citation:	S167169
WCC Citation:	WCC 36172010 CA

Case Name:	Pearson Ford v. WCAB (Hernandez)		10/06/2017
Summary:	Filed 10/6/17; Certified for Publication 11/1/17 (order attached) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             PEARSON FORD et al. , Petitioners, .             v. .             WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; .             LEOPOLDO HERNANDEZ, Real Party in Interest. .             D070915 .             (WCAB No. ADJ4081602) .             Petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. .           The WCJ's determination Hernandez met the second requirement is also vigorously disputed by Pearson Ford. .           Filed 11/1/17 .           CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION .           COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .           DIVISION ONE .           STATE OF CALIFORNIA .           PEARSON FORD et al. , Petitioners, .           v. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; .           LEOPOLDO HERNANDEZ, Real Party in Interest. .           D070915 .           (WCAB No. ADJ4081602) .           ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION .           THE COURT: .           The opinion in this case filed October 6, 2017, was not certified for publication.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal has ordered publication of its decision from last month allowing a worker to collect benefits even though he had been convicted of workers’ compensation fraud.
Citation:	D070915
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ4081602

Case Name:	Pebworth vs. Allan Hancock College, PSI		08/08/2003
Summary:	Note: This case was OVERRULED by the Second Appellate District decision in Pebworth vs. WCAB (2004). WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. GRO 0023699 CLARENCE A. PEBWORTH, Applicant, vs. ALLAN HANCOCK COLLEGE, Permissibly Self-Insured; and WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATORS (Third Party Administrators), Defendant(s). The ability to settle such claims beginning January 1, 2003 applies to all injuries, regardless of date of injury. The Amendments To Section 4646 Were Substantive, Not Procedural; Therefore, They Do Not Apply Retrospectively In The Absence Of Clear Legislative Intent. (Charlesworth) (1947) 30 Cal. 2d 388, 393 [12 Cal. Comp. Cases 123, 125]; American Psychometric Consultants, Inc. v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Voc rehab from pre 1/1/03 injury cannot be settled for lump sum.
Citation:	68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1168
WCC Citation:	WCC 29532003 CA

Case Name:	Pebworth vs. WCAB		03/09/2004
Summary:	Petitioner Clarence Pebworth sustained a specific industrial injury in 1997 and a cumulative industrial injury from 1985 to August 20, 2003. In a Compromise and Release approved by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) in November 2002, the parties settled all issues except vocational rehabilitation benefits. In response to both parties' petitions for reconsideration, the WCAB issued a lengthy en banc opinion, agreeing with the RU and WCJ that the statute does not apply to Pebworth because his injuries occurred prior to January 1, 2003. The WCAB reasoned that applying the amendments in this case would be an impermissible retroactive application of the statute. The WCAB is instructed to honor the January 23, 2003 stipulation between Pebworth and his employer agreeing to settle vocational rehabilitation compensation for a lump sum of $10,000 pursuant to section 4646, subdivision (b).
Note:	4646 settlement of VR benefits available for injuries prior to 1/1/03.
Citation:	116 Cal.App.4th 913
WCC Citation:	WCC 29732004 CA

Case Name:	Peck v. WCAB		07/29/1988
Summary:	Sarah Arlene Peck, Petitioner, v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California et al. , Respondents. Sarah Peck was knocked down by her employer's dog on May 2, 1983. Peck had a preexisting back problem and underwent a lumbar laminectomy in 1975. Peck received a new rating of 21. 2 percent for permanent disability on the board's order. Peck petitioned this court for relief, and we reviewed a copy of the record before the board.
Note:	Board 'must give great weight' to judge's findings in report and can't ignore supporting evidence, e.g. applicant's testimony.
Citation:	53 C.C.C. 315
WCC Citation:	WCC 27631988 CA

Case Name:	Pelayo v. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services		02/22/2012
Summary:	ROSA PELAYO, Plaintiff and Appellant,v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. On September 19, 2008, Rosa Pelayo, a "Mexican female," filed this action, alleging four causes of action under the FEHA against her employer, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and three of its employees. It did not allege that Pelayo had exhausted her administrative remedies under the FEHA and received a right-to-sue letter. She stated she was "in the process of obtaining her right to sue letters from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing [(DFEH)]. "Again, the DCFS attacked the FEHA claims on the ground Pelayo had not exhausted her administrative remedies.
Note:	An employee's Fair Employment and Housing Act claims failed because she filed her civil suit before obtaining her right-to-sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Citation:	B230780
WCC Citation:	WCC 38602012 CA

Case Name:	Pellegrino v. J. Metcalf Construction		09/12/2011
Summary:	JOSEPH PELLEGRINO et al. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. J. METCALF CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Joseph Pellegrino appeals a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant J. Metcalf Construction, Inc. (Metcalf). Metcalf knew that Eclipse would be performing work at the Ganzes' house at the same time Metcalf would be performing its work. Metcalf did not provide equipment, wire, or tools to Pellegrino or any other Eclipse employee, and did not direct Eclipse or Pellegrino to run audio/video wire through the attic space. Pellegrino also submitted portions of the deposition of another Metcalf employee, Gregory Wieder, who later acted as superintendent of the project.
Note:	The Privette/Toland doctrine barred an injured audio/video worker from suing the general contractor on a residential remodeling project.
Citation:	A128893
WCC Citation:	WCC 37992011 CA

Case Name:	Pence v. Industrial Accident Commission		06/28/1965
Summary:	2d 48 June 28, 1965 DEWEY PENCE, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, DEL E. WEBB CORPORATION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS. PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for personal injuries. On August 15, 1963, Pence, while working as a cement finisher in Pasadena for Del E. Webb Corporation, suffered an industrial injury that caused him to leave his work. The commission, on May 11, 1964, held a hearing pursuant to Pence's application for a temporary and permanent disability award. The award is annulled, and the matter remanded to the Industrial Accident Commission for further proceedings.
Note:	The rating expert did not rate, although so instructed, on the effect of Pence's inability to work in areas of high temperature or extreme sunshine. Rebuttal testimony should have been permitted to allow petitioner to establish what a proper rating would have been under all of the referee's instructions.
Citation:	63 Cal. 2d 48, 403 P.2d 140, 45 Cal. Rptr. 12
WCC Citation:	WCC 33691965 CA

Case Name:	Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing		04/06/2007
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SAL 0110868 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) JOSH PENDERGRASS, Applicant, vs. DUGGAN PLUMBING; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant. Defendant, being newly aggrieved, seeks reconsideration of the en banc decision issued by the Appeals Board on January 24, 2007. The three dissenting commissioners disagreed with the majority's interpretation of section 4660(d), and would have affirmed the WCJ's decision. The Labor Code expressly allows an aggrieved party to seek reconsideration of any final decision "made and filed by the appeals board" (Lab. Therefore, we would deny reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration of January 24, 2007.
Note:	If section 4660(d) is to be construed so as to effectuate the Legislature's intent to provide relief 'at the earliest possible time', it must be construed in the manner that ensures that the revised rating schedule applies 'at the earliest possible time.'
Citation:	72 CCC 456
WCC Citation:	WCC 32132007 CA

Case Name:	Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing and State Compensation Insurance Fund		01/24/2007
Summary:	See Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing (4/06/07) WCC 32132007 CA. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SAL 0110868 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) JOSH PENDERGRASS, Applicant, vs. DUGGAN PLUMBING; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his right lower extremity/ankle on June 29, 2004, while employed as a plumber by Duggan Plumbing, State Compensation Insurance Fund's insured on the date of injury, when he fell at work. Defendants accepted liability for applicant's industrial injury and paid temporary disability indemnity uninterrupted from June 30, 2004, through July 19, 2005. Thus, applicant argues that the 4061 notice exception to application of the 2005 Schedule to pre-2005 injuries applies.
Note:	Defendants' duty to provide the notice required by section 4061 arose when the first payment of temporary disability indemnity was made, therefore the 1997 Schedule applies to calculate applicant's permanent disability.
Citation:	72 CCC 95
WCC Citation:	WCC 32062007 CA