Case Name:	Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. WCAB		12/02/1996
Summary:	Subsequently, the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarded Lopez scheduled permanent partial disability indemnity of $9,020. The WCAB denied reconsideration of the judge's determination, and the Court of Appeal summarily denied Sea-Land's petition for writ of review. As this very case illustrates, application of category-by-category credit would effectively require Sea-Land to pay more in compensation than if the WCAB award had come first. Second, in the absence of an agreement, the WCAB has discretion to allow credit where the employer voluntarily made payments described in the statute. Accordingly, in the WCAB proceedings, Sea-Land took the position that '[w]hen the LHWCA permanent disability payment of $7,040. 88 is credited against the WCAB liability for permanent disability of $9,020. 00, the remainder owed is $1,979. 12. ' -FN 4.
Note:	Overpaid federal disability benefits can be credited 'dollar for dollar' against state liabilities..
Citation:	14 Cal.4th 76
WCC Citation:	WCC 24541996 CA

Case Name:	Seabright Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Fitzpatrick)		01/29/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. SAC0323184) In this workers' compensation proceeding, Dianne Fitzpatrick (applicant) and Seabright Insurance Company (Seabright) separately seek writ review of the actions taken by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (2) The WCAB wrongly disregarded her expert witness's testimony as to the rating of her permanent disability. Applicant requested an expedited WCAB hearing to obtain an order that defendant authorize treatment in accordance with Dr. Prasad's recommendations. The WCJ's Report and Recommendation On February 8, 2007, the WCJ filed his report and recommendation to the WCAB on applicant's petition. As explained further in the Discussion, Escobedo is the leading WCAB decision on apportionment under Labor Code section 4663.
Note:	[Unpublished] On remand, if the WCAB determines that apportionment is warranted, it is directed to calculate apportionment consistently with Brodie v. WCAB, 40 Cal.4th 1313.
Citation:	C055227
WCC Citation:	WCC 33082008 CA

Case Name:	Seabright Insurance Co. v. US Airways Inc.		08/22/2011
Summary:	SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY v. US AIRWAYS, INC. SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. US AIRWAYS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent; ANTHONY VERDON LUJAN, Intervener and Appellant. The airport is the actual owner of the conveyor, but US Airways uses it under a permit and has responsibility for its maintenance. Plaintiff SeaBright Insurance Company, Aubry's workers' compensation insurer, paid Verdon benefits based on the injury and then sued defendant US Airways, claiming the airline caused Verdon's injury and seeking to recover what it paid in benefits. Defendant US Airways sought summary judgment based on Privette, supra, 5 Cal. 4th 689, and Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198 (Hooker). *fn3 It found no evidence that US Airways "affirmatively contribute[d]" to the accident (Hooker, supra, 27 Cal. 4th at p. 213) and granted summary judgment for defendant US Airways.
Note:	The hirer of a contractor is immune to suits filed by the contractor's employee, even in cases where the hirer's safety violations are alleged to have caused the employee's injury.
Citation:	S182508
WCC Citation:	WCC 37942011 CA

Case Name:	Seabright Insurance v. U.S. Airways Inc.		03/29/2010
Summary:	NOTE: This case has been overruled by Seabright Insurance v. US Airways Inc. , S182508, on August 22, 2011, by the Supreme Court of California. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U. S. AIRWAYS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent; ANTHONY VERDON LUJAN, Intervener and Appellant. Ct. No. CGC-06-458707) Plaintiff Seabright Insurance (Seabright) and intervener Anthony Verdon Lujan (Verdon) (collectively appellants) appeal after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant U. S. Airways, Inc. , in this personal injury action. If U. S. Airways became aware of a problem with the conveyor system, it would contact Aubry to make the necessary repairs. It appears that on the date of the incident at issue here, U. S. Airways and America West Airlines were subsidiaries of U. S. Airways Group, Inc.
Note:	A hirer can be liable to the employee of a contractor if the hirer breaches a nondelegable duty imposed by statute or regulation, and the breach affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury.
Citation:	A123726
WCC Citation:	WCC 36122010 CA

Case Name:	Searles Valley Minerals Operations Inc., v. Ralph M. Parson Service Company et al.		01/21/2011
Summary:	Searles argues that, as an assignee of KM's indemnity rights, it was entitled to reimbursement for paying KM's defense costs. Searles, formerly known as North American Chemical Company, purchased the Argus plant from KM. In connection with the purchase, Searles agreed to indemnify KM for any accidents or injuries resulting in KM being sued. Searles incurred over $800,000 in attorney fees, costs, and expenses from providing KM with a defense in the underlying Moore lawsuit. Searles filed an opposition, arguing that, as KM's assignee under the construction contract, Searles was entitled to recover KM's defense expenses.
Note:	A company that acquired a processing plant also assumed indemnification rights from the previous owner and must be reimbursed after the contractor indemnifying the original owner refused to provide a defense in a wrongful death suit, California's 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Citation:	E049927
WCC Citation:	WCC 37032011 CA

Case Name:	Sedlak v. Ojai Valley Sanitary District		08/03/2011
Summary:	MICHAEL G. SEDLAK, JR. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OJAI VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. Lower Arbolada Sewer Association (Association) was formed by property owners in a portion of Ojai to convert from septic tanks to a sewer system owned and operated by respondent Ojai Valley Sanitary District (District). The Association and the District entered into a contract, which provided, among other things, that the project was subject to inspection by the District. The operative third amended complaint filed by Sedlak contained two causes of action against the District. The facts are undisputed that Sedlak was not a District employee nor was he hired by the District to work on the project.
Note:	A sewer district had no duty to ensure that a general contractor enforced safety rules on a worksite.
Citation:	B222509
WCC Citation:	WCC 37852011 CA

Case Name:	Selden v. WCAB		01/21/1986
Summary:	MICHAEL SELDEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al. , Respondents. OPINION EAGLESON, J. Petitioner Michael Selden seeks review of an order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration of its decision ordering denial of a petition to reopen the case on the issue of permanent disability. On August 28, 1980, after applicant avoided properly requested examinations, Employer filed a 'Petition to Reopen to Reduce Award and Finding of Extended Permanent Disability. 'This filing was just a few days prior to the expiration of the five-year jurisdictional period. Subsequently, on January 25, 1982, Employer sent a letter to the WCJ requesting that its petition to reopen be withdrawn.
Note:	Board had no jurisdiction to increase award when no counterpetition was filed.
Citation:	176 Cal.App.3d 877
WCC Citation:	WCC 26681986 CA

Case Name:	Self-Insurers' Security Fund v. Esis, Inc.		09/29/1988
Summary:	SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ESIS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents (Opinion by Anderson, P. J. , with Channell, J. , concurring. [3] Pursuant to that legislation, the Fund was empowered 'to bring an action against any person to recover compensation paid and liability assumed by the fund . . . . ' (§ 3744, subd. Statutes and regulations designed to require adequate security are necessary to ensure the financial soundness of the Self-Insurers' Security Fund (Fund) so that its monies will be available to injured workers. The Fund has pled no damages to CCG for which the Fund could recover. On the contrary, the Fund has filed a claim for reimbursement against CCG in the bankruptcy proceedings and CCG still is responsible to the fund for obligations paid and assumed by the Fund.
Note:	Employer's duty to secure pmt. of compensation does not extend to all knowledgeable participants.
Citation:	204 Cal.App.3d 1148
WCC Citation:	WCC 24251988 CA

Case Name:	Seretti v. Superior Nat. Ins. Co.		04/28/1999
Summary:	PHILLIP SERETTI et al. , Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-defendant and Respondent. Seretti and his wife, appellant Vujovich, owned real property on Floye Street in Hollywood on which the decedent was working at the time of the accident. 4 As such, defendants contend that payment to lien claimants on a workers' compensation basis is neither appropriate nor reasonable. ''Phillip Seretti' and 'Janja Vujovich' were expressly excluded from coverage. Furthermore, in the present case, the policy expressly excludes Seretti and Vujovich from the status of insureds. '
Note:	Homeowners who were also officers and shareholders in corporation employing applicants injured at homeowners' real property cannot bring civil action against corporation's work comp carrier for bad faith.
Citation:	71 Cal.App.4th 920
WCC Citation:	WCC 3901999 CA

Case Name:	Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 v. Schwarzenegger		06/10/2010
Summary:	Filed 6/11/10 Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 v. Schwarzenegger CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al. , Defendants and Appellants, And related Cross-Complaint. While the Sacramento court's clarifying minute order does not refer explicitly to SCIF employees, these employees are not 'employees of executive branch agencies' to whom the Sacramento court considered its ruling to exclusively apply. Because the claims of SCIF employees were not adjudicated in CASE I, there is no conflicting adjudication as to those employees. The reduction in total hours worked by SCIF employees is the same whether achieved by a furlough imposed on all employees or the layoff of only some employees.
Note:	[Unpublished] Section 11873, subdivision (c) limits the Governor's authority to impose furloughs on SCIF employees.
Citation:	CPF-09-509-580
WCC Citation:	WCC 36372010 CA