Case Name:	S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Indus. Rel.		03/23/1989
Summary:	Borello will retain title to the crop until it is sold, but the 'Share Farmer' and Borello will split the gross proceeds equally. Borello undertakes to keep all necessary weight, grade, and price records, which shall be open to the 'Share Farmer's' inspection. Richard and Johnny Borello, principals of the company, testified as follows: Borello grows a number of crops, including cucumbers. The workers 'could' transport their own harvest to Vlasic, but Borello handles the transportation because that is what Vlasic prefers. The workers leave once the cucumber harvest is over and do not harvest any other crops for Borello.
Note:	Employers not required to secure compensation for non-employees, e.g. indep. contractors.
Citation:	48 Cal.3d 341
WCC Citation:	WCC 24331989 CA

Case Name:	S.C.I.F. v. Superior Court of San Francisco		02/23/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, Respondent; ONVOI BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC. , Real Party in Interest. The superior court granted Onvoi's motion, ruling that there was undisputed evidence that the Fund was on notice of the alleged fraud more than three years prior to the filing of this action. The Fund contends the superior court erred by granting a motion for summary adjudication directed to a superseded pleading, and it seeks a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the superior court to set aside its order. Respondent superior court heard Onvoi's motion for summary adjudication on June 23, 2009. Two days after the superior court announced its ruling, Onvoi filed its answer to the Fund's amended complaint.
Note:	A first amended complaint which raises new factual issues with respect to the statute of limitations defense, is subject to summary adjudication only if the facts are susceptible to only one legitimate inference.
Citation:	A125834
WCC Citation:	WCC 36012010 CA

Case Name:	Sabath v. WCAB		10/16/1998
Summary:	We will conclude the WCAB decision is not correct and shall reverse the order. This did not shorten the period Sabath received his full salary since the maximum entitlement of one year ended before the cap on vocational benefits had been expended. It did reduce the dollar amount of vocational benefits that Sabath could subsequently receive. Finding this unacceptable, Sabath filed a request for dispute resolution with the rehabilitation unit of the division of workers' compensation. Sabath makes no claim that he is entitled to both a full salary and a maintenance allowance.
Note:	Salary received in lieu of disability benefits is not credited toward cap on voc. rehab. benefits
Citation:	67 Cal.App.4th 286
WCC Citation:	WCC 26781998 CA

Case Name:	Sacramento v. WCAB (Saylors)		01/03/2002
Summary:	Filed 1/3/02 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Petitioner, v. WORKERs' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ERIC SAYLORS, Respondents. C037880 (WCAB No. SAC0270057) APPEAL from a judgment of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Twohy, Darneille & Frye, Erik E. Frye for Petitioner, City of Sacramento. In the training exercises however, the recruits only remove the debris from the hay and pallets used to fuel the fire. There is no dispute that at the time of his injury, Saylors was employed by the City of Sacramento Fire Department as a firefighter recruit and was a member of PERS.
Note:	A firefighter trainee is not a 'firefighter' within the meaning of LC 4850.
Citation:	94 Cal.App.4th 1304, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 63
WCC Citation:	WCC 28322002 CA

Case Name:	Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB		12/19/1978
Summary:	SAFEWAY STORES, INC. , permissibly self-insured, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and JOYCE M. SHAW, Respondents. An example of good cause for commutation is found in the case of Jenkins v. W. C. A. B. (1975) 48 Cal. The court held that the applicant showed good cause for commutation and that the W. C. A. B. abused its discertion in denying it. Cases 691) The court further held that the W. C. A. B. did not abuse its discretion. Safeway has filed with this court a petition for restitution of the sums paid to Shaw pursuant to the Board's commutation order.
Note:	No commutation of award to save interest pmts. on debt simply due to applicant's 'best interests'.
Citation:	43 CCC 1366
WCC Citation:	WCC 25121978 CA

Case Name:	Sakotas v. WCAB		04/26/2000
Summary:	In addition, Sakotas contends the Labor Code section applied by the WCAB to bar benefits violates the California Constitution and equal protection under the law. [80 Cal. App. 4th 266] Although Sakotas was paid more to manage, she told Polhill it was too much for one person. Dr. Bell described Sakotas' work stress beginning with Polhill's mismanagement and Sakotas' increased workload. Dr. Mosk further stated he was unable to obtain enough information from Sakotas and assumed that, as a parent, stress resulted from Sakotas' family situation, although admitting that some individuals '. He also noted that Sakotas, declared by him to be credible, testified that she liked her supervisors, which he found 'hardly consistent' with Polhill's reported incompetence and malfeasance, leading to Sakotas' increased responsibilities.
Note:	Constitutionality of 3208.3
Citation:	80 Cal.App.4th 262
WCC Citation:	WCC 26212000 CA

Case Name:	Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co.		08/09/2011
Summary:	SALAS v. SIERRA CHEMICAL CO. VICENTE SALAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SIERRA CHEMICAL CO. , Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Vicente Salas appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Sierra Chemical Co. (Sierra Chemical). This declaration did not state that the Social Security number Salas used to secure employment with Sierra Chemical, and claimed by Tenney to belong to him, actually belonged to Salas. Salas also stated: "During the three years I worked for Sierra Chemical, I personally knew several immigrants working at Sierra Chemical, some of whom admitted to being undocumented workers. The fact that Salas knew of undocumented aliens working at Sierra Chemical does not establish that Sierra Chemical knew that these employees were undocumented.
Note:	An employee who is not legally authorized to work in the United States cannot prevail in a Fair Housing and Employment Act claim against his former employer.
Citation:	C064627
WCC Citation:	WCC 37882011 CA

Case Name:	Salazar v. Livermore Valley Joint Unified School Dist.		03/04/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO MICHELLE M. SALAZAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. VG05244211) Michelle M. Salazar (plaintiff) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (defendant) in this premises liability action. "Although an unsalaried parent volunteer, Defendant Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Labor [Code] § 3364. 5. " On May 10, 2006, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. The resolution provided: "WHEREAS, the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District may, from time to time, have occasion to utilize the services of volunteers in the operation of its programs; and "WHEREAS, the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District desires to have such volunteers become eligible for Workers' Compensation benefits; "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with section 3364. 5 of the Labor Code, volunteers shall be entitled to Workers' Compensation benefits for any injury sustained by him/her while in the performance of any service under direction and control of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District Superintendent; and "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District Superintendent shall cause a current list of such volunteers to be filed with the Alameda County Schools Insurance Group. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendant Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District.
Note:	[Unpublished] The trial court correctly ruled that workers' compensation benefits are plaintiff's exclusive remedy.
Citation:	A116635
WCC Citation:	WCC 33242008 CA

Case Name:	Salazar vs. Diversified Paratransit		03/30/2004
Summary:	RAQUEL SALAZAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. OPINION KLEIN, P. J. - Plaintiff and appellant Raquel Salazar (Salazar) appeals a judgment following a grant of nonsuit in favor of her former employer, defendant and respondent Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (Diversified), and her former supervisor, defendant and respondent Rudy Vokoun (Vokoun). On October 28, 2002, this court, in Salazar v. Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (Salazar), a 2-1 decision, upheld the trial court's grant of nonsuit, ruling that the FEHA does not protect an employee from harassment by an employer's clientele. Therefore in 1997, when Rocha sexually harassed Salazar, the law gave no notice to Diversified Paratransit that it could be liable for Rocha's actions. Thus the prior statute did not clearly give notice to Diversified Paratransit that it would be responsible for sexual harassment of Salazar by Diversified Paratransit's customers or clients.
Note:	FEHA gives injured worker cause of action against employer for non-employee sexual harassment.
Citation:	117 Cal. App. 4th 318
WCC Citation:	WCC 29802004 CA

Case Name:	Salazar vs. Diversified Paratransit, Inc.		10/28/2002
Summary:	RAQUEL SALAZAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In the operative complaint, plaintiff Raquel Salazar (Salazar) alleged four causes of action against defendants Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (DPI) and Rudy Vokoun (Vokoun): sexual harassment in violation of the FEHA (§ 12900 et seq. On September 2, 1997, Rocha stood up, and Salazar stopped the bus to put him back in his seat. For the next few days, although he did not expose himself, Rocha continued to misbehave, which made Salazar feel scared and apprehensive. On September 8, 1997, a second incident occurred while Salazar stopped the bus and was waiting to pick up another passenger.
Note:	Sexual harassment of an employee by a non-employee is work comp exclusively, not FEHA.
Citation:	103 Cal.App.4th 131
WCC Citation:	WCC 28902002 CA