Case Name:	The People v. Snow		05/31/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, .             v. .             SARA CHARIS SNOW, Defendant and Appellant. .             D070425 .             (Super. .             A jury convicted Sara Charis Snow of three counts of workers' compensation fraud (Ins. .           Later that month, Snow sought treatment from Glenn Nusbaum, D. C. , who became her primary treating doctor. .           During his AME assessment of Snow, Dr. Previte questioned her regarding her "domestic functioning. "
Note:
Citation:	D070425
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. SCD260150

Case Name:	The Traveler's Property Casualty Company of America v. Actavis, Inc. Part 1/2		06/11/2017
Summary:	Filed 11/06/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             THE TRAVELER’S PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, .             v. .             ACTAVIS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Appellants. .             G053749 .             (Super. .             Blank Rome, Elizabeth B. Kim and James R. Murray for Defendants and Appellants. [¶] . [¶] .
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal has ruled that two commercial general liability insurance carriers have no obligation to defend a group of pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits in California and Illinois over their alleged deceptive marketing practices for opioid medications.
Citation:	G053749
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00746842

Case Name:	The Traveler's Property Casualty Company of America v. Actavis, Inc. Part 2/2		06/11/2017
Summary:	.           Watson argues the Products Exclusions are ambiguous due to an exception in section 2. d(3) of the Travelers Policies. .           FYBEL, J.   .           WE CONCUR: .           BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. .           MOORE, J. Appellants are Actavis, Inc. , Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. , Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , Watson Laboratories, Inc. , and Watson Pharma, Inc. The parties refer to the appellants collectively as Watson, and, for the sake of consistency, we shall do the same. Significantly, both the St. Paul and Travelers Property Products Exclusion provisions encompass statements/representations that were made or that should have been [made] regarding Watson’s products.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal has ruled that two commercial general liability insurance carriers have no obligation to defend a group of pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits in California and Illinois over their alleged deceptive marketing practices for opioid medications.
Citation:	G053749
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00746842

Case Name:	Thomas v. City of Los Angeles		12/06/2012
Summary:	THOMAS v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES MALCOLM THOMAS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Gregory P. Orland, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant. Plaintiff Malcolm Thomas (Thomas), a police officer in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), brought suit against the City of Los Angeles (City) for disability discrimination and related claims. [The City] failed to engage in an interactive process with [Thomas] and acted in an unreasonable and hostile manner towards [Thomas] and his disabilities. Thomas further alleges that "[a]s a proximate result of [the City's] discrimination, [the City] also denied promotion and/or job benefits to [Thomas].
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeals overturned a $705,804 verdict in favor of a former Los Angeles police officer on his disability discrimination claims based on prejudicial errors in the instructions issued to the jury at trial.
Citation:	B229265
WCC Citation:	WCC 39562012 CA

Case Name:	Thomas v. Duggins Construction Company		05/25/2006
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA No. D044470 May 25, 2006 WILLIAM THOMAS ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. DUGGINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. , ET AL. William Thomas and Woodrow C. Taylor (the plaintiffs) sued Duggins Construction Company, Inc. (Duggins) and certain of its employees for injuries they sustained when the scissor lift it sold to their employer collapsed on a construction job site. Thereafter, the court rejected Duggins' arguments that its liability for the plaintiffs' non-economic damages was subject to apportionment in accordance with Proposition 51 and entered a judgment against Duggins for the entirety of the plaintiffs' damages. After Duggins answered, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to name as defendants Duggins employees or agents James Duggins, Russel Roben, Scott Dhalliwal and Doug Calhoun and to add claims for fraud, deceit, willful misconduct and punitive damages. Duggins did not accept either of the offers, which made no reference to the plaintiffs' claims against Duggins' employees or Fremont's claim for reimbursement of worker's compensation payments.
Note:	Intentional tortfeasor is not entitled to apporionment of non-economic damages under Prop 51.
Citation:	139 Cal.App.4th 1105
WCC Citation:	WCC 31592006 CA

Case Name:	Thomas v. Sports Chalet, Inc. (En Banc)		08/17/1977
Summary:	This section created a rehabilitation program which was purely voluntary and could only be initiated by the employer or the insurance carrier. An injured worker had no right to rehabilitation unless one was conferred upon him by his employer or insurance carrier. '(2) To adopt rules and regulations which would expedite and facilitate the identification, notification, and referral of industrially injured employees to rehabilitation services. '(b) The salaries of the personnel of the rehabilitation unit shall be fixed by the State Personnel Board. As a result of the amendment a qualified injured worker is now entitled to vocational rehabilitation as a matter of right.
Note:	Settlement of rehab. prohibited absent good faith dispute re. liability.
Citation:	42 CCC 625
WCC Citation:	WCC 26201977 CA

Case Name:	Thompson v. City of Los Angeles		06/22/2010
Summary:	JUDITH THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Richard M. Brown, General Counsel for Department of Water and Power, Wendy K. Genz, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. Appellant concedes the trial court's ruling "essentially foreclosed [her] opportunity to refute the facts submitted in [DWP's] summary judgment motion. "In January 2001, DWP attempted to dock her two hours' pay for reporting sick to the medical department. (See Risam v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 412, 416-417, 421 [findings of civil service hearing officer binding if not challenged by writ of mandamus]; Bowman v. Bd.
Note:	The appellate court noted that a timely FEHA complaint requires an employee to file an administrative charge with the Department of Fair Employment and housing within a year of the last alleged violation. The appeals court examined Thompson's allegations, determined that no acts of retaliation occurred within a year, and affirmed the trial court's decision to grant DWP's motion for summary judgment.
Citation:	B213601
WCC Citation:	WCC 36412010 CA

Case Name:	Thompson v. WCAB		06/21/1994
Summary:	Petitioner Janet Thompson is the widow of the decedent Jack Thompson. In 1987, when Thompson underwent a brief hospitalization for a broken arm, it was discovered that he suffered from hypertension. This resulted in a minor traffic accident and Thompson was taken to a hospital where he died three days later. Dr. John B. O'Brien, in reporting on the death of Thompson to the City's claims supervisor, agreed that the automobile accident played no part in the stroke that killed Thompson. There was no evidence that Mr. Thompson received any advice about his diet, smoking or stress except for salt reduction and, as to that, there is no evidence that Mr. Thompson did not reduce his salt intake.
Note:	Avoidable consequences doctrine does not apply to workers comp. claims.
Citation:	25 Cal.App.4th 1781
WCC Citation:	WCC 24041994 CA

Case Name:	Thrifty Drug Stores Inc. v. WCAB (Kaye)		08/10/1979
Summary:	THRIFTY DRUG STORES, INC. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RUFINA KAYE, Respondents. On the date of injury, Kaye's earnings were $131. 20 per week, which would result in a temporary disability rate of $81. 02. 1 These figures are computed on the basis of statutory formula derived by application of Labor Code sections 4453 and 4653. fn. Com. , 79 Cal. App. 2d 711, at page 722 [180 P. 2d 972], "By 'Average Earnings' nothing more is meant than earning capacity. Dole involved an injured who was a part-time worker at the time of injury and later obtained steady full-time employment.
Note:	TD rate to be adjusted up for post injury salary increase per collective bargain agreement.
Citation:	95 C.A.3d 937, 44 CCC 809
WCC Citation:	WCC 28881979 CA

Case Name:	Tidgewell v. Gentry, APC et al.		02/29/2012
Summary:	TIDGEWELL v. DAVID E. GENTRY, APC JANET A. TIDGEWELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVID E. GENTRY, APC et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Janet A. Tidgewell appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of her former attorneys, defendants Hollins Schechter, APC, and David E. Gentry, APC, in this legal malpractice action. When Tidgewell later filed her age discrimination lawsuit, however, Becton asserted the Compromise and Release as an affirmative defense, arguing Tidgewell waived her age discrimination claims by signing the form. In September 2005, Tidgewell, represented by Hollins Schechter, filed a workers' compensation claim against Becton based on her wrist injuries. Tidgewell moved for a new trial based on alleged errors in the trial court's decision granting the two summary judgment motions.
Note:	A grant of summary judgment was upheld in favor of two law firms being sued by a former client for malpractice for having allegedly undermined her age-discrimination action against her employer in settling her workers' compensation claims.
Citation:	G044710
WCC Citation:	WCC 38652012 CA