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Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).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

Case Name:	Prock v. Tamura Corporation of America		01/25/2013
Summary:	PROCK v.TAMURA CORPORATION OF AMERICA JUSTIN G.PROCK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.TAMURA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Justin Prock appeals a judgment entered after the trial court granted Tamura Corporation of America's (hereafter Tamura) motion for summary judgment. FACTS In his complaint, Prock alleged that he was employed by Tamura and that Tamura is an employer subject to the Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). Tamura "was notified" and was provided with documentation from Prock's doctor that Prock would need leave from work through September 19, 2008. However, it is also undisputed that Tamura summarily dismissed Prock when Prock requested a further extension of his leave.
Note:	The existence of triable issues of fact about whether a worker was a "qualified individual with a disability" barred an employer from obtaining summary judgment against a disability discrimination suit.
Citation:	E054185
WCC Citation:	WCC 39752013 CA

Case Name:	Prudential Ins. Co. v. WCAB		12/15/1978
Summary:	OPINION MANUEL, J.Petitioner Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) seeks review of an order of the respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying its claim of lien filed against an award in favor of respondent Thomas Wright (Wright), an airline employee. Pursuant to the policy, Prudential made payments to him without offset for workers' compensation benefits to which he may have been entitled. In August 1976, Wright filed an application with the WCAB, alleging the October injury was industrial in nature. Prudential filed with the WCAB a notice and request for allowance of lien seeking to recover back these payments to the extent Wright received workers' compensation benefits. The original findings and award of WCAB failed to dispose of Prudential's claim, apparently because the WCAB had misplaced the claim of lien.
Note:	Overpaid disability benefits are outside reach of group disability insurer's liens.
Citation:	22 Cal.3d 776
WCC Citation:	WCC 24481978 CA

Case Name:	Public Service Mutual Ins. Co. v. Svetlik		01/13/2017
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 FIVE .             PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervener and Appellant, .             v..             STEVEN M.SVETLIK, Defendant and Respondent. .             A144803 .             (Alameda County Super. Ct.No.HG13676541) .             Steven M.Svetlik drove his car into a restaurant where Jennifer Carranza was working, injuring her. The restaurant’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), paid $18,388. 14 in workers’ compensation benefits and medical expenses on Carranza’s behalf. Rules of Court, rule 8. 278. ) .           _________________________ Jones, P. J..           We concur: .           _________________________ Needham, J.
Note:
Citation:	A144803
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13676541

Case Name:	Pugh v. WCAB		11/03/2008
Summary:	Delores Pugh petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding that her claim for benefits is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. In August 2003, Pugh filed a claim with the WCAB alleging that she suffered cumulative psychological and physical injuries while employed by the County during the period April 1972 through July 1999. The WCAB did not reject the judge's factual findings that the County had not posted the statutory notice and that Pugh was unaware of her rights. Rather, the WCAB concluded that Pugh knew in 1998, or at the latest 1999, that her stress was work related and such knowledge was sufficient to trigger the one-year period for filing a claim under sections 5405 and 5412. The WCAB did not address the County's arguments relating to the merits of Pugh's disability award, finding those issues moot.
Note:	[Unpublished] if an employer fails to post the notice of employees' workers' compensation rights required by Labor Code section 3550 and the employee is otherwise unaware of her rights, then the statute of limitations is tolled until the employee gains actual knowledge that she may be entitled to benefits.
Citation:	B201677
WCC Citation:	WCC 34572008 CA

Case Name:	Pullman Kellogg vs. WCAB (Normand)		02/04/1980
Summary:	PULLMAN KELLOGG et al. , Petitioners, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MARTIN G.NORMAND, Respondents (Opinion by Mosk, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Normand's employer, Pullman Kellogg, and its insurance carrier, Eldorado Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as Pullman Kellogg) seek review of the board's decision, asserting primarily that the medical evidence before the board compelled the conclusion that part of the disability was due to Normand's smoking habit, and therefore apportionment was required. We see no reason, nor does Pullman Kellogg offer any, to distinguish between a cumulative trauma and a specific injury in these circumstances. Another contention made by Pullman Kellogg is that Normand is bound by Dr.Sills' opinion because he introduced the doctor's report into evidence. (1966) 243 Cal. App. 2d 380 [52 Cal. Rptr.276], upon which Pullman Kellogg relies, is not persuasive authority.
Note:	Apportionment is question of fact and must be supported by substantial evidence.
Citation:	26 Cal3rd 450
WCC Citation:	WCC 30261980 CA