Case Name:	Royse v. Lexington Insurance Co.		11/26/2008
Summary:	In this personal injury action, plaintiff Joseph Royse appeals from summary judgments entered in favor of defendants Lexington Insurance Company and DC3-E, LLLP. Lexington accepted the claim and provided workers' compensation insurance coverage to Royse as a "Residence Employee" under the policy. As of November 14, 2006, Lexington had paid Royse and his health care providers a total of $633,453. The evidence adduced below demonstrated that Royse was employed at the ranch, that the ranch was insured under a homeowners insurance policy issued by Lexington that contained workers' compensation coverage for residence employees, and that Lexington paid Royse and his health care providers over $600,000 of benefits under the policy. Royse argues Lexington "exhibited its knowledge that Mr. Royse did not work for Mrs. Phelps through its actions in the worker's compensation case .
Note:	A claimant failed to show that a carrier conspired with a homeowner to claim that he was a resident employee at the time of his injury.
Citation:	A117798
WCC Citation:	WCC 34652008 CA

Case Name:	Royse v. Phelps		04/15/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR No. A121487 JOSEPH ROYSE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JONATHAN PHELPS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. DR050078) Joseph Royse appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Jonathan Phelps (Phelps) in this action. Further, Royse has not pled any facts suggesting that Phelps was involved in exercising any control over Royse's activities at the ranch. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Royse had failed to adduce any evidence contradicting the court's prior conclusion that Royse was employed by Esther Phelps. The 2002 Uniform Business Report, however, deletes Jon D. Phelps as a managing member and lists solely Esther Phelps as the manager.
Note:	[Unpublished] A ranch hand's personal injury suit against his employer and a business that the employer allegedly acted on behalf of failed because of a lack of evidence.
Citation:	A121487
WCC Citation:	WCC 35142009 CA

Case Name:	Rubalcava v. WCAB		05/22/1990
Summary:	ROSALINA RUBALCAVA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, PIZZAMANIA et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Woods (A. M. ), P. J. , with George and Goertzen, JJ. , concurring. )Dr. Schusselin, a psychiatrist, diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder with anxiety, depression, poor recollection, and flashbacks of the accident. SCIF petitioned for reconsideration, challenging the WCJ's findings as to the extent of applicant's psychiatric permanent disability and the disability compensation rate. In a split decision, the Board majority concluded the disability compensation rate should be based on her actual earnings at the time of injury. (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 548 [86 Cal. Rptr. 288] [part-time worker at time of injury studying to obtain teaching credential]. )
Note:	Specific demonstrable evidence of higher earning capacity but for injury justifies higher indemnity rate.
Citation:	220 Cal.App.3d 901
WCC Citation:	WCC 29501990 CA

Case Name:	Rubio v. WCAB		03/04/1985
Summary:	GREGORY RUBIO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondents. Factual and Procedural Background On May 29, 1980, petitioner Gregory Rubio filed an application for adjudication of claim with the Board arising out of an employment-related injury which occurred on April 16, 1980. 1 (Ibid) However, petitioner did not set forth the specific factual basis of his claim with respect to this issue. After hearing on the ordinary compensation issues, the Board, on May 25, 1983, made an award in favor of petitioner. 3 The Board dismissed petitioner's amended application as untimely and, by a two-to-one majority, denied his petition for reconsideration.
Note:	Amended application for claim of serious/willful misconduct is filed as of date of original if it sets forth no new legal theory, set of facts, cause of action.
Citation:	165 Cal.App.3d 196
WCC Citation:	WCC 27571985 CA

Case Name:	Rucker v. WCAB		07/13/2000
Summary:	ALBERTA RUCKER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents. By notice dated August 22, 1996, trial was scheduled for December 20, 1996, before Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) Marilyn Ward. On November 21, 1996, petitioner's attorney, Edward Singer, wrote to the court, requesting that two new issues be addressed at trial. 4 A 'cc' notation at the bottom of the letter indicates that a copy was sent to respondent's attorney, Richard Brennan. PDA was once again brought up in a settlement conference held on May 25, 1999, before WCJ Ward.
Note:	While applicant cannot receive VRMA and PD simultaneously, 139.5 authorizes PDAs.
Citation:	82 Cal.App.4th 151
WCC Citation:	WCC 3802000 CA

Case Name:	Ruiz v. Cabrera		05/30/2002
Summary:	HOMERO RUIZ, an Incompetent Person, etc. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JUAN CABRERA, Defendant and Respondent. On September 7, 1997, plaintiff Homero Ruiz was an agricultural laborer hired by defendant Juan Cabrera, doing business as J. C. 1 Cabrera directed another of his employees, Ofelia Lopez, to provide transportation for part of the work crew, including Ruiz, in her van. Ruiz, through his guardian ad litem, sued Cabrera, Lopez, and others in an action that eventually was consolidated with actions brought by other injured crew members and the survivors of those killed in the accident. In granting judgment for Cabrera, the trial court concluded that, because Ruiz was an employee of Cabrera and was injured in the course and scope of his employment, workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy available to Ruiz.
Note:	California Farm Labor Contractor Act does not create an exception to exclusive remedy.
Citation:	98 Cal.App.4th 1198
WCC Citation:	WCC 28582002 CA

Case Name:	Ruiz v. Herman Weissker, Inc.		06/09/2005
Summary:	TAWNYA D. RUIZ, as Personal Representative, etc. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HERMAN WEISSKER, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Fairbairn looked up and saw Ruiz hanging upside down with his legs caught in the ladder; he shouted at Ruiz, but got no response. Fairbairn climbed back onto the tower and began yelling to the crew to call 911 and help him get Ruiz down. Fairbairn gave Ruiz mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, periodically checking Ruiz's pulse, and continued to call for help for more than a half hour. At 4:45 p. m. , paramedics took Ruiz by ambulance to the emergency room at Sharp Memorial Hospital; Ruiz died shortly thereafter.
Note:	Privette and Hooker principles apply also to hirer's agent - no liability to subcontractor's employee injured as result of subcontractor's negligence.
Citation:	130 Cal.App.4th 52
WCC Citation:	WCC 31022005 CA

Case Name:	Ruiz v. Industrial Accident Commission		10/28/1955
Summary:	SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA L. A. No. 23751 October 28, 1955 JOSEFA P. RUIZ, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission denying a claim for death benefits. Spence [45 Cal2d Page 410] This is a proceeding to review the order of the Industrial Accident Commission denying death benefits to petitioner, who is the surviving wife of Joaquin Ruiz. Accordingly, the commission made an award of permanent disability payments for a period of 240 weeks, and a life pension thereafter. The commission found that petitioner's "application was filed more than 240 weeks from the date of injury and the claim is therefore barred. "The order of the Industrial Accident Commission is affirmed.
Note:	The commission properly denied relief based upon the 240-week limitation in Labor Code 5406.
Citation:	23751
WCC Citation:	WCC 35491955 CA

Case Name:	Runnion v. WCAB		11/18/1997
Summary:	The workers' compensation judge (WCJ) held Runnion in contempt and sanctioned him for failing to appear at a scheduled hearing. We question holding Runnion in contempt in this situation, where he was not directly ordered to appear for the neglected hearing. When Evans called Runnion by telephone from the hearing location, Runnion advised her he had no intention of appearing and that if she wanted the information, she could depose Gore. The WCJ concluded Runnion had no valid reason for failing to appear and fined him $250 for contempt. TIMEC directs our attention to no order requiring Runnion to attend the hearing and no agreement by Runnion to appear for the conference/hearing.
Note:	Attorney sanctioned for not showing at hearing, fees were to compensate for time wasted.
Citation:	59 Cal.App.4th 277
WCC Citation:	WCC 26261997 CA

Case Name:	Russ et al. v. Fremont Unified School District		12/30/2008
Summary:	U] Russ v. Fremont Unified School Dist. , No. A119260 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 12/30/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No. A119260 December 30, 2008 THELMA RUSS ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. FREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. This is an appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court granted respondent Fremont Unified School District's motion for summary judgment. The Complaint On October 31, 2005, appellants Thelma Russ, Steven Wheeler and Sandy Wheeler (collectively, appellants) filed a complaint against the Fremont Unified School District (the District) in Alameda County Superior Court. The Russ 1978 lease agreement remained in effect until 2002, when Russ signed a new lease agreement (the Russ 2002 lease agreement). Russ signed new lease agreements containing these same terms in 2003 and 2004 (the Russ 2003 and 2004 lease agreements).
Note:	Three tenants who leased space from the Fremont Unified School District in exchange for their services were most likely the district's employees as a matter of law.
Citation:	A119260
WCC Citation:	WCC 34722008 CA