Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Sun Indem. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n | 01/07/1926 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | TYLER, P. J. Certiorari to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission in allowing compensation for injuries to one W. R. Doolittle, who, on the evening of February 18, 1925, was injured in an automobile accident. Round, proprietors of a general store at Costa Mesa, California, of whom petitioner is the insurance carrier, to manage their meat department. His hours of labor were from 7 A. M. to 6 or 6:15 in the evening. Part of his duties consisted in the buying of meats and in this connection he was vested with certain discretion. He was thrown through the windshield and suffered multiple lacerations of both hands, which injuries were of a serious nature. | ||
| Note: | Evidence supports finding that employee was injured in course and scope of employment. | ||
| Citation: | 76 Cal.App. 165 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 30432026 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Sunderland v. Lockheed Martin | 06/09/2005 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | KRISTI SUNDERLAND et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS SUPPORT COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add Mazloom's employer, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Support Company (LMASSC), as a defendant. On the date of the collision, LMASSC, a Lockheed Martin Corporation subsidiary, employed Mazloom as a field service representative. Headquartered in Marietta, Georgia, LMASSC provides after-market technical field support to government and military customers which own and operate aircraft manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendant Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Support Company. | ||
| Note: | The commercial traveler rule may not be incorporated into the respondeat superior doctrine. | ||
| Citation: | 130 Cal.App.4th 1 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 31032005 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Sunwest Masonry & Concrete Inc. v. Zamora - unpublished | 02/01/2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | * * * After suffering injuries on the job, followed by a stroke two months later, construction worker Jose Zamora filed a workers compensation claim against his former employer, Sunwest Masonry & Concrete, Inc. (Sunwest). Zamora then sued Sunwest for wrongful termination, and Sunwest and a third party for negligence. Zamora eventually settled his workers compensation claim and the wrongful termination action; he then voluntarily dismissed Sunwest from the negligence action with prejudice. About a week later, Zamora failed to show up for a job, and Sunwest stopped calling him in to work. According to Smaili, Zamora had no further need to maintain the negligence action against Sunwest after he successfully settled his workers compensation claim. | ||
| Note: | A California appellate court upheld a decision to strike an employer’s malicious prosecution claim against a former employee and his attorney for having pursued an allegedly meritless negligence action. | ||
| Citation: | No. G058685 | ||
| WCC Citation: | No. G058685 | ||
| Case Name: | Supervalu v. Wexford Underwriting Managers | 06/03/2009 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Filed 6/3/09 Supervalu v. Wexford Underwriting Managers CA2/2 (Editor's note: This decision was originally unpublished, but was granted published status on June 22, 2009. )IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SUPERVALU, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEXFORD UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The issue presented is the interpretation of the word "occurrence" in the excess workers' compensation policies provided to appellant Supervalu, Inc. doing business as Albertson's Inc. (Supervalu) by respondents TIG Insurance Company (TIG), Continental Casualty Company (Continental) and Wexford Underwriting Managers, Inc. (Wexford) (collectively respondents). As to Continental and Wexford, Supervalu also alleged causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith. In an evidentiary vacuum, Supervalu states that the policies impose "an important duty on Wexford to transmit notice from [Supervalu] to the excess carrier. | ||
| Note: | [Unpublished] Policy language is not inconsistent with the apportionment of benefits envisioned by the provisions of the Labor Code. | ||
| Citation: | B206501 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 35312009 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Sutter Memorial Hospital v. WCAB | 11/10/2008 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | [U] Sutter Memorial Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No. C058699 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 11/10/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C058699 November 10, 2008 SUTTER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND GREEN & AZEVEDO, RESPONDENTS. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Petitioner Sutter Memorial Hospital (Sutter) seeks reversal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denying reconsideration and restitution of attorney fees paid to respondent Green & Azevedo for its legal representation of the applicant Lucy Chaidez. The WCAB earlier reduced the applicant's permanent disability from 100 percent to 41 percent and ordered her to pay restitution to Sutter. In this proceeding, Sutter argues that the WCAB exceeded its powers in refusing to order Green & Azevedo to return $69,135 in attorney fees. In this case, the WCAB ordered the applicant to pay Sutter restitution in the sum of $60,092. 45 based on her misrepresentations to Dr. Kornblatt and the WCAB. | ||
| Note: | An employer is not entitled to restitution against attorneys who won $69,000 in attorney fees while unknowingly representing a fraudulent client. | ||
| Citation: | C058699 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 34602008 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Sutton v. WCAB | 09/21/2007 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION THE COURT*fn1 Petitioner William R. Sutton asks this court to annul a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) in which the WCAB remanded the matter for further development of the medical record to determine whether Sutton is entitled to medical treatment arising out of a 1985 stipulated award providing that future medical care "may be" required. At some point thereafter, the Employer contested its liability to provide medical treatment, and Sutton responded by petitioning the WCAB for penalties and attorney fees against the Employer for failing to provide medical treatment. The Employer petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending Sutton never received an award for future medical care because the 1985 stipulation provided that additional medical care " `may be' " provided and then only " `upon reasonable demand. 'The WCAB found the precautionary award limited to the body areas specifically listed and upon Sutton making "a demand in advance of his need for treatment. "Although the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's findings ordering the Employer to provide six months of medical treatment, the WCAB has not yet issued a final determination whether medical evidence demonstrates Sutton requires continued medical treatment due to the 1983 injury and stipulated award. | ||
| Note: | [Unpublished] The ACOEM Guidelines presumptively establish reasonable medical treatment, regardless of the date of injury. | ||
| Citation: | F053104 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 32582007 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Sweeney v. WCAB | 07/24/1968 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | ROBERT D. SWEENEY, SR. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, FREDRICKSON & WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. , Respondents. The record herein includes seven reports made by Dr. Feldman at various times to and including July 28, 1965. On February 13, 1964, petitioner was examined by Dr. Loopesko, at the request of the insurance carrier. On July 16, 1965, Dr. Feldman performed a lumbar laminectomy on petitioner, from 'L-4 to S-1,' removing a herniated disc. The other medical reports indicated that the disability was less severe and that the applicant was not so narrowly limited occupationally. | ||
| Note: | Matter remanded after WCAB relied on improper physician's report. | ||
| Citation: | 264 Cal.App.2d 296 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 25631968 CA | ||
