Case Name:	Ramirez vs. WCAB, Safeway		08/04/1970
Summary:	MARIO S. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAFEWAY STORES, INC. , et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Selber, J. , with Stephens, Acting P. J. , and Reppy, J. , concurring. )Rupert A. Pedrin, Nathan Mudge, Sheldon M. Ziff, Waite, Drapeau & Peters and David R. Drapeau for Respondents. Awarding additional compensation under the rule of the Berry Case would constitute a denial of due process as condemned in the National Auto Case. "They argue that in no event is the employee [10 Cal. App. 3d 232] entitled to benefits from both sources (Garcia v. Industrial Acc. The penalty issue was stated by the referee as follows: "Ten per cent penalty for unreasonable failure to pay benefits. "
Note:	Advancement of EDD disability does not excuse penalty against employer/carrier for late payments of, or failure to pay, benefits.
Citation:	10 CA 3d 227; 35 CCC 383
WCC Citation:	WCC 29091970 CA

Case Name:	Ramsey v. WCAB		06/16/1971
Summary:	PHIL RAMSEY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HUMKO PRODUCTS et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Tamura, J. , with Gardner, P. J. , and Kerrigan, J. , concurring. )On the prior occasion (Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Following the remittitur in Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. That award was undisturbed by Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. In any event the time commenced no later than March 25, 1970, when the Board reissued its award and decision after remittitur in Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	If a party prevails then other party wins on rehearing, first party may petition for rehearing of order as first time aggrieved party.
Citation:	18 Cal.App.3d 155
WCC Citation:	WCC 26501971 CA

Case Name:	Raphael vs. Bloomfield		11/21/2003
Summary:	GILMORE E. RAPHAEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUNE S. BLOOMFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Peter I. Bersin, Peter I. Bersin; Drucker & Steinschriber and Stephen Marc Drucker for Plaintiff and Respondent. At trial, the only contested issue was whether the workers' compensation awards each spouse received were community property. The court ordered wife to pay husband $155,929. 52, i. e. , one-half of wife's lump sum award. Ordinarily, "[t]he theory upon which a case was tried in the court below must be followed on appeal. "
Note:	Only that portion of an Award attributable to disability or medical expenses during the marriage is community property.
Citation:	113 Cal.App.4th 617
WCC Citation:	WCC 29672003 CA

Case Name:	Rausch v. WCAB		06/26/1969
Summary:	MELANIE RAUSCH, a Minor, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, TERESITA PINES, INC. , et al. , Respondents. In the summer of 1967 the petitioner, Melanie Rausch, who was at that time 19 years of age, was employed as a camp counselor by Teresita Pines, Inc. , whose compensation insurance carrier was respondent, Phoenix Insurance Company. The camp had accommodations for 160 girls and was operated from the last week of June to the last week of August. A brochure relating to the 1967 camp program contained a picture of about 15 younger girls and two older girls on horseback. The caddy was permitted to play, without charge on his day off, on the golf course where he was employed.
Note:	When no dispute of facts, whether injured on job is question of law and finding on issue is not conclusive.
Citation:	274 Cal.App.2d 357
WCC Citation:	WCC 27401969 CA

Case Name:	Raymond Garcia, Sr., v. Department of Water and Power et al.		01/06/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B222442 January 6, 2011 RAYMOND GARCIA, SR. , PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Lisa S. Berger, Deputy City Attorney; Richard M. Brown, General Counsel for Defendants and Respondents. Raymond Garcia appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Department of Water and Power (hereinafter, "DWP"), and City employee Gregory Troschak, after defendants' demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Vargas answered that he was not the culprit, and that he knew who had done it but could not tell. Pleadings in the workers' compensation proceeding are in accord, as is plaintiff's filing with the Department of Fair Housing and Employment.
Note:	Workers' compensation exclusivity prevents an employee who was injured after a coworker shortened his cane from bringing tort actions against the coworker and employer, the California's Second District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B222442
WCC Citation:	WCC 36982011 CA

Case Name:	Raymond Plastering v. WCAB		07/24/1967
Summary:	RAYMOND PLASTERING et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CLEO KING, Respondents. The injury caused total temporary disability through November 30, 1965, for which he was paid temporary disability benefits at the maximum rate. Award issued for permanent disability benefits of $4,305 payable at the rate of $52. 50 per week for 82 weeks. The award is based on a finding that applicant's earnings were maximum for purposes of computing permanent disability benefits. They seek annulment of the award and an order directing the appeals board to take additional evidence on the issue.
Note:	Board must develop record if parties fail to provide sufficient evidence for rendering fair decision.
Citation:	252 Cal.App.2d 748
WCC Citation:	WCC 27241967 CA

Case Name:	Rea vs. WCAB; Boostan, et al.		03/15/2005
Summary:	JOHN REA, as Acting Director, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, EREZ BOOSTAN et al. , Respondents. Milbauer and the Fund again proceeded to trial, and the Fund raised various issues including the illegally uninsured employer's identity. Moreover, the Fund failed to provide benefits contrary to section 3716, subdivision (b), Yant, DuBois, and Aubry v. Workers' Comp. Without proper jurisdiction, the Fund argues it is inhibited or precluded from fulfilling its statutory obligations under section 3710 et seq. The proof of service should specify the time, place and manner of service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 417. 10 et seq.
Note:	WCAB can not implement regulatory procedures without notice and opportunity to be heard.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 625
WCC Citation:	WCC 30842005 CA

Case Name:	ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. Jones		11/06/2012
Summary:	Nurses register with ReadyLink, which verifies the nurses' credentials, notifies them when shifts are available and pays their wages. The SCIF conducted its final audit of ReadyLink in 2007 for the policy period of September 2005 through September 2006. She questioned ReadyLink about its per diem payments and requested documentation to substantiate these payments. ReadyLink appealed the SCIF's decision to the Administrative Hearing Bureau of the California Department of Insurance. Instead, the Commissioner provided a useful interpretation of an existing regulation and applied it to the set of facts presented by ReadyLink.
Note:	A staffing company must pay State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) an additional $555,327.53 in premium, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday, agreeing with the carrier that the firm had disguised wages it paid to traveling nurses by labeling the bulk of its payments as reimbursement for living expenses.
Citation:	B234509
WCC Citation:	WCC 39492012 CA

Case Name:	Redner v. WCAB		06/10/1971
Summary:	CLAUDE REDNER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA WHOLESALE ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. , Respondents. Upon applicant's attorney's strenuous objection to the admission of the medical reports, the referee refused to admit them into evidence. 4 [5 Cal. 3d 89] Thereafter the insurance carrier petitioned for reconsideration on every statutory basis except the discovery of new evidence. It is noted that in its petition, defendant refers to motion picture film which was never offered in evidence. (W. C. A. B. rule 10856(e); see Standard Rectifier Corp. v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	WCAB doesn't have arbitrary powers to grant reconsideration, must be based on 5903.
Citation:	5 Cal.3d 83
WCC Citation:	WCC 26691971 CA

Case Name:	Regents of Univ. of CA v. WCAB (Oberhoffer)		08/25/1994
Summary:	THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CATHLEEN OBERHOFFER, Respondents. The University of California Board of Regents petitions for review of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision awarding the applicant, a university police officer trainee, full salary in lieu of workers' compensation disability payments pursuant to Labor Code section 4806. fn. 1 We granted review because the WCAB misinterpreted the applicable statutes. In March 1992, she returned to the university police department and was given light work in the investigations unit and evidence room. [¶] This section shall apply only to those members of the University of California Police Department specified in [Labor Code] Section 3213. '
Note:	Applicant must complete training and graduate from academy to qualify for 3213 & 4806 consideration.
Citation:	27 Cal.App.4th 1101
WCC Citation:	WCC 4171994 CA