Case Name:	Transportation Ins. Co. v. WCAB		09/25/1997
Summary:	Transportation Insurance Company, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Sharon Avery, Respondents. At that time, TRW was insured by the Transportation Insurance Co. (Transportation). Transportation Insurance Co. and Applicant C&R'd the first injury and Applicant requested vocational rehabilitation services. Transportation contended there was no statutory, regulatory, or case law establishing SCIF's right for reimbursement; therefore, the WCAB had no jurisdiction over the contribution petition. Additionally, Transportation claimed that the WCAB had no jurisdiction because the RU had not approached the issue of contribution.
Note:	WCAB has jurisdiction over contribution, reimbursement disputes between insurers.
Citation:	62 CCC 1469
WCC Citation:	WCC 26381997 CA

Case Name:	Travelers Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		09/27/2007
Summary:	Filed 9/27/07 Travelers Indemnity Co. v. WCAB CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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). As we will explain, we agree with petitioner Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois (Travelers) that the 2005 schedule governs. Accordingly, we will annul the WCAB's order granting Bryer's petition for reconsideration and direct the WCAB to reinstate the WCJ's decision. Subdivision (a) of section 4061 provides that "[t]ogether with the last payment of temporary disability indemnity, the employer shall . Thus, we are concerned only with whether Travelers was required to provide Bryer with the section 4061 notice before January 1, 2005. .
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the petitioner was not required to provide the section 4061 notice to injured employee as of January 1, 2005, the 2005 table must be used to determine the extent of the employee's permanent disability, and the WCAB erred in concluding otherwise.
Citation:	C055329
WCC Citation:	WCC 32622007 CA

Case Name:	Travelers Indemnity Co. v. WCAB (Morales)		07/19/2011
Summary:	The Arbitrator however denied Travelers' claim that CIGA's recovery was also barred under the doctrine of Equitable Estoppel. Travelers, which provided workers' compensation to Linear Technology, was joined as a party defendant on June 11, 2009. Mr. Ganio testified that Travelers has been "going paperless," but he was unable to locate the policy in the "electronic warehouse. "In finding CIGA was barred by laches from seeking recovery from Travelers, the Arbitrator found Travelers had established that CIGA had unreasonably delayed joining Travelers, which caused prejudice to Travelers. The Arbitrator concluded that the delay in joining Travelers precluded Travelers from engaging in discovery to resolve issues of liability.
Note:	The California Supreme Court denied review to a panel decision that rejected an insurer's defense to a California Insurance Guarantee Association reimbursement claim.
Citation:	ADJ2141542
WCC Citation:	WCC 37832011 CA

Case Name:	Travelers Ins. Co. v. IAC (Grace)		03/15/1966
Summary:	THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, ALBERT L. GRACE et al. , Respondents. However, pursuant to the requirements of the Alaska workmen's compensation law, Travelers paid the following: For temporary disability $9,271. 42; for permanent partial disability $4,698; and for medical expenses $8,198. 40, making a total of $22,167. 82. On November 2, 1964, after receipt of the above mentioned benefits, the applicant filed a claim with the Industrial Accident Commission of California against the employer and Travelers. Travelers contended that its policy covered only claims under the Alaska law and submitted a lien claim for the amounts paid out by it. [3] The Travelers policy was filed with the commission and is contained in the record.
Note:	Award annulled b/c policy did not provide coverage in CA.
Citation:	240 Cal.App.2d 804
WCC Citation:	WCC 26281966 CA

Case Name:	Travelers Ins. Co. v. WCAB		12/17/1982
Summary:	TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al. , Respondents. Petitioner, Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers), is the workers' compensation carrier for Lee's employer. Travelers was not a party to said stipulation, as under Tessler, it is mere stakeholder. Travelers' petition for reconsideration was denied by the WCAB. Thus, Travelers requests that we disagree with the decision of another division of this court.
Note:	Since a person entitled to a dependency death benefit survived, award is annulled.
Citation:	138 Cal.App.3d 244
WCC Citation:	WCC 24621982 CA

Case Name:	Tri-Spur Investments v. SCIF		09/16/1996
Summary:	Dissatisfied with the manner in which SCIF was handling the claim, Tri-Spur retained counsel who demanded that SCIF substitute him as attorney of record for Tri-Spur in the compensation proceeding. The attorney also unsuccessfully sought payment from SCIF of his fees as purported Cumis counsel for Tri-Spur. Thereafter, counsel for Tri-Spur served SCIF with a subpoena for all of SCIF's records and reports pertaining to Mason. In exchange for these promises by SCIF to defend against and pay legitimate claims, Tri-Spur has contractually given SCIF the right to investigate and settle such claims, and has promised to cooperate with and assist SCIF as requested in the investigation, settlement or defense of any claim. Thus, because SCIF has accepted the obligation to pay any benefits awarded [*10] to Mason in the compensation proceeding, Tri-Spur is not in a position of inherent conflict with SCIF.
Note:	Substituting insurer for employer permitted where no conflict of interest.
Citation:	61 CCC 940
WCC Citation:	WCC 24961996 CA

Case Name:	Trimas Corp., et al., v. WCAB (Rendon)		07/30/2010
Summary:	TRIMAS CORPORATION et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and FRANK RENDON, Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION THE COURT Trimas Corporation (Trimas[ FN*1 ]) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). BACKGROUND Frank Rendon was assaulted and strangled by a coworker while working as a shipping and receiving clerk for Trimas in Fresno on May 30, 2008. Trimas timely petitioned for reconsideration, which the WCAB denied by opinion on March 22, 2010. The WCJs report and recommendation to the WCAB is also lacking as an exhibit to the petition.
Note:	An employer failed to preserve its utilization review argument for appeal, according to an unpublished decision from California's 5th District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	F060040
WCC Citation:	WCC 36532010 CA

Case Name:	Tristan v. California Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation		10/29/2012
Summary:	TRISTAN v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION DAVID P. TRISTAN, JR. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION David P. Tristan, Jr. , a parole agent for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department), sued the Department and several of his supervisorsMichael Ayala, A. J. Garcia, and Maritza Rodriguez. According to Tristan, the parolee attempted to evade arrest and assaulted Tristan while attempting to flee. Tristan supported his opposition with a lengthy declaration in which he set forth in detail his numerous grievances against respondents. Tristan also requested that the trial court take judicial notice of various documents, including numerous provisions from the Department's operation manual.
Note:	The California Department of Corrections was entitled to the summary dismissal of a parole agent's claims that his supervisors had discriminated against him after he suffered two work-related knee injuries.
Citation:	D060285
WCC Citation:	WCC 39462012 CA

Case Name:	Tucker v. WCAB		01/07/1975
Summary:	MANTYE TUCKER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, JOHN MUIR HOSPITAL et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Christian, J. , with Caldecott, P. J. , and Rattigan, J. , concurring. )OPINION CHRISTIAN, J. Petitioner received compensation of $7,250 for an industrial injury pursuant to an award which had been issued on September 14, 1973. On October 19, 1973, petitioner demanded payment of the $14. 02; on November 28, 1973, Argonaut paid the interest. Respondent board has refused to assess a 10 percent penalty for late payment of the $14. 02 interest. Interest should always be computed and paid with the payment of the principal award absent special circumstances.
Note:	Failure of carrier to take administrative measures to compute and pay interest on every award was not to be disregarded as de minimis.
Citation:	44 Cal.App.3d 330
WCC Citation:	WCC 26181975 CA

Case Name:	Tung Tran v. Zhi Qiang Luo		11/15/2011
Summary:	TUNG TRAN v. ZHI QIANG LUO TUNG TRAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ZHI QIANG LUO, Defendant and Appellant. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS SIMONS, J. Appellant Zhi Qiang Luo appeals from the trial court's injunctive relief order (Code Civ. Proc. , § 527. 8)*fn1 protecting respondent Tung Tran and Tran's employees from violence and threats of violence by appellant. The petition alleged that, on December 24, 2010, after respondent terminated appellant's employment, appellant threatened to kill respondent and his employees. The trial court issued the TRO and an order to show cause why the requested injunction should not issue.
Note:	A California appellate court affirmed an injunction barring a former employee from making violent threats against his employer, and forcing him to stay away from his former co-workers.
Citation:	A131589
WCC Citation:	WCC 38272011 CA