Case Name:	Rabin v. Lotta		12/07/2009
Summary:	Rabin met Lotta at the Workers Compensation Appeals Board in the first half of the 1990s. Lotta represented Rabin in collecting his liens from workers compensation cases. Lotta cross-complained against Rabin, Rabins son Mathew, and Mathews wife, Jennifer Rabin. According to Lotta, Rabin was supposed to trade services to Lotta on a quid pro quo basis in exchange for the time Lotta spent on the Pourzia matter. According to Lotta, this list represented way less than 10 percent of the cases Lotta had with Rabin over the years. Rabin testified that Lotta was behind in payments to him, that Rabin was in his 80s, and felt the need to memorialize what Lotta owed him for his services.
Note:	[Unpublished] Probable cause for quantum meruit exists if any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.
Citation:	B211590
WCC Citation:	WCC 35852009 CA

Case Name:	Rail Services of America vs. SCIF		07/09/2003
Summary:	RAIL SERVICES OF AMERICA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION CROSKEY, J. - Rail Services of America and Pacific Rail Services (collectively, plaintiffs) sued State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for alleged misconduct related to premiums SCIF charged them for workers' compensation insurance. SCIF stated that it would provide coverage, but only in exchange for a non-refundable agreed minimum premium of $1,365,000. Although plaintiffs' risk manager tried to persuade SCIF to agree to different and more favorable terms, SCIF would not do so. c. SCIF Had the Right to Make the Minimum Premium Nonrefundable Plaintiffs contend that SCIF could not make the minimum premium nonrefundable, citing section 11841.
Note:	Retention of non-refundable agreed minimum premium for only 15 days coverage upheld; willful failure to comply with discovery order compels dismissal.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 323
WCC Citation:	WCC 29432003 CA

Case Name:	Raine v. City of Burbank		01/25/2006
Summary:	Dennis Barlow, City Attorney, and Carol A. Humiston, Senior Assistant City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. Following the injury to his knee, Raine had difficulty running, jumping, kneeling and lifting, activities Raine concedes are essential to perform the duties of a patrol officer and school resource officer. Raine does not challenge the trial court's findings with respect to his claims for age discrimination, retaliation and harassment. Raine argues the City failed to meet this burden because it presented no evidence relating to the economic hardship the requested accommodation would impose. The City was not required to reclassify (and thus substantially alter) the front-desk job to accommodate Raine.
Note:	Temporary light duty position as accommodation does not create obligation to make the temporary assignment available indefinitely once temporary disability becomes permanent.
Citation:	135 Cal. App. 4th 1215
WCC Citation:	WCC 31362006 CA

Case Name:	Ralph's Grocery Co. v. WCAB		09/25/1995
Summary:	RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DAWN R. LARA, Respondents. Ralphs denied the request and temporarily cut off Lara's temporary disability benefits based on its belief that section 4601, fn. On July 13, 1994, Lara returned to Kaiser and Ralphs immediately reinstated disability payments and paid for Lara's interim period of disability. Under the circumstances, the WCJ concluded that to find Ralphs had unreasonably delayed would be 'patently unfair. 'Under the circumstances, the Board concluded Lara was entitled to penalties for unreasonable delay in providing medical treatment and temporary disability benefits.
Note:	When employee controlling treatment, limitation of doctor 'one time change' is not applicable.
Citation:	38 Cal.App.4th 820
WCC Citation:	WCC 24311995 CA

Case Name:	Ralph's Grocery vs. Superior Court (Swanson)		10/23/2003
Summary:	RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; DAVID SWANSON, Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC384875, Mary Ann Murphy, Judge. )The reviewing court accepts as true all facts properly pleaded in the complaint in order to determine whether the demurrer should be overruled. Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Note:	Bonus plan, to extent based on deduction of any cost of work comp, is unlawful.
Citation:	112 Cal.App.4th 1090
WCC Citation:	WCC 29662003 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Columbia Machine, Inc.		05/01/2012
Summary:	RAMIREZ v. COLUMBIA MACHINE, INC. ANDRES RAMIREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COLUMBIA MACHINE, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ramirez suffered serious injury, including burns on his face, neck and hands. That code section is one of the maxims of jurisprudence found in the Civil Code at sections 3509 et seq. That issue was not raised in the complaint, and thus the `easy' explanation for why the theory was not addressed. No such contractual agreement or promise was alleged by Ramirez, however, and he makes no contention that there was any such agreement with or promise by Desert Block.
Note:	A California worker could not assert a claim against his employer for the negligent spoilage of evidence necessary to prove liability for his injuries from an industrial explosion.
Citation:	F061169
WCC Citation:	WCC 38902012 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services		09/09/2008
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA (AHM 0089109) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Case No. ADJ4579659 DEE ANNE RAMIREZ, Applicant, vs. DRIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES; and ONE BEACON INSURANCE CO. , Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant was employed by Drive Financial Services as a collections specialist from August 9, 2000 through February 15, 2001. Therefore, there was no basis to consider what factors might be balanced in determining the amount of the penalty. The current version of section 5814 was enacted on April 19, 2004, and became operative on June 1, 2004. Moreover, section 5814. 5 fees should be allowed only for legal services rendered in "enforcing" the unreasonably delayed prior award, and not for any other purpose.
Note:	[En Banc] Although, under new section 5814(a), a successive penalty may still be awarded for an unreasonable delay in making a prior penalty payment, it should not be awarded where the defendant had genuine doubt as to its liability or where there is no legally significant intervening event.
Citation:	ADJ4579659
WCC Citation:	WCC 34202008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Nelson		04/08/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. CIV217462 MARIA DOLORES RAMIREZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THOMAS NELSON et al. , Ventura County Defendants and Respondents. Statement of Facts and Procedural Background Maria Dolores Ramirez and Martin Flores (plaintiffs) are the parents of the decedent, Luis Flores. Thomas and Vivian Nelson are homeowners. Vivian Nelson could see Flores working about halfway up in the eucalyptus tree from her kitchen window. After the accident, Vivian Nelson noticed that the polesaw Flores had been using was made of aluminum and wood.
Note:	As tragic as this accident was, we find the homeowners breached no special duty of care owed to unlicensed contractor Rodriguez or his workers under section 385(b).
Citation:	S143819
WCC Citation:	WCC 34072008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. WCAB		08/29/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PATRICIA RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, VLOT BROTHERS CUSTOM HEIFER RAISING et al. , Respondents. Petitioner's husband, Arturo Bucio Ramirez, worked as an employee for Mr. Medina for about a day in 2002. Unfortunately, the work led to a fatal accident for Mr. Ramirez, who died several days later. The WCAB denied reconsideration on April 15, 2008, adopting and incorporating the reasoning from the WCJ's report and recommendation. In her report and recommendation to the WCAB, the WCJ also expressed her uncertainty in discerning petitioner's position on reconsideration.
Note:	[Unpublished] The uncontroverted evidence here reveals decedent entered into a notarized partnership agreement with alleged employer to act as equal partners in the business of JM & AG Silage Covering. The WCAB's finding of such was supported by significant evidence.
Citation:	F055279
WCC Citation:	WCC 34162008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. WCAB (State Department of Health Care Services)		03/29/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/29/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             DANIEL RAMIREZ, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES et al. , Respondents. .             C078440 .             (WCAB No. ADJ6821103) .             ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of review. .           Lisa A. Liebson, Deputy Chief Counsel, Mary R. Huckabaa, Assistant Chief Counsel, and William L. Anderson, Appellate Counsel, for Respondents State Department of Health Care Services and State Compensation Insurance Fund. II  Denial of Ramirez’s Treatment  .           In this case, petitioner Daniel Ramirez sustained an injury to his lower leg and ankle in the course of his job as an office assistant for the State Department of Health Care Services (Department). .           Stevens relied on this court’s decision in California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. Department of Managed Health Care (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 684 (California Consumer).
Note:
Citation:	C078440
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ6821103