Case Name:	T and T Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Curtis Ray Hillman		06/01/2012
Summary:	T and T Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Curtis Ray Hillman, Deceased, No. C067171 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 06/01/2012) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT C067171 June 1, 2012 T AND T CONSTRUCTION, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND CURTIS RAY HILLMAN, DECEASED, ETC. , RESPONDENTS. Hillman's counsel filed a petition for serious and willful misconduct with the Board on August 20, 2009. We are not bound by the conclusions of the Board on questions of law, such as the interpretation of a statute. Petitioner's name appears throughout the record in many variations, including T&T Construction, TT Construction, and T and T Construction. We have elected to use the name as it appears on the order denying reconsideration, T and T Construction.
Note:	The act of filing a petition for workers' compensation benefits based on the alleged serious and willful misconduct of an employer is sufficient to 'commence' proceedings for purposes of the statute of limitations.
Citation:	C067171
WCC Citation:	WCC 39032012 CA

Case Name:	Tabaie v. Stockton Unified School Dist.		11/20/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- BIJAN TABAIE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. That Bijan Tabaie was an employee of the Stockton Unified School District. That the Stockton Unified School District knew or thought Bijan Tabaie had a physical condition that limited a major life activity; "4. That Bijan Tabaie's physical condition was a motivating reason for the discharge, or [¶] [t]hat the Stockton Unified School District's belief that Bijan Tabaie had a physical condition was a motivating reason for the discharge. That the Stockton Unified School District's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Bijan Tabaie's harm. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Special instruction wrongly required the jury to decide issues of law and to engage in a burden-shifting analysis that is not to be performed by a jury at trial.
Citation:	C056222
WCC Citation:	WCC 35802009 CA

Case Name:	Tanimura v. Antle		11/21/2007
Summary:	Tanimura & Antle and its insurer petitioned this court for writ of review, and we granted the petition. Nor does he show that before 2005, Tanimura & Antle was required to provide notice under Labor Code section 4061, subdivision (a). The agreed medical examiner found Lopez to be permanent and stationary on January 13, 2006, and Tanimura & Antle made its last temporary disability payment on March 8, 2006. Filed 12/18/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TANIMURA & ANTLE, et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and AVELINO LOPEZ, Respondents. Trial Court: Santa Clara County W. C. A. B. No. SAL 108539 Attorneys for Petitioners: Daniel H. Hunt Tanimura & Antle et al. Matovich & McLean Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Michael A.
Note:	It is the date of proof of permanent disability, not the date of injury that determines whether a disability rating falls under the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) or the prior 1997 schedule.
Citation:	157 Cal. App. 4th 1489; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 127
WCC Citation:	WCC 32802007 CA

Case Name:	Tapia et al., v. Dresden et al.		08/30/2010
Summary:	Filed 8/30/10 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District (Sacramento) C061925 (Superior Ct. No. 34200800024335CUPOGDS) Jorge Tapia et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Karl Dresden et al. , Defendants and Respondents. First, they asserted that because Jorges cause of action was precluded by the workers compensation exclusivity rule, Glorias cause of action was likewise precluded. The court concluded that the employee of an independent contractor may not sue the owner or hirer for injuries on the job. Also, while the Ungas did not have workers compensation coverage, workers compensation benefits were nonetheless available to Jorge. DISCUSSION I Standard Of Review The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint by raising questions of law.
Note:	Exclusive remedy did not bar an injured worker's suit against a property owner because the general contractor on the job did not have a valid license or workers' compensation coverage, California's 3rd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	C061925
WCC Citation:	WCC 36612010 CA

Case Name:	Tapia v. Skill Master Staffing		09/17/2008
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Case No. ADJ 4564224 (En Banc) (LBO 0322121) MARIA TAPIA, Applicant, vs. SKILL MASTER STAFFING; and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s), SB SURGERY CENTER, Lien Claimant. The new fee schedule for this procedure would be $1,770. 34. That would apply only to injuries on or after 1-1-04. Medicare ASC [Ambulatory Surgical Center], which was used in calculating the new fee schedule, would be $832. 49 for this procedure. A comparable procedure under the CHSWC study Level 5 (which was this procedure's level) would be an average of $2,196.
Note:	[En Banc] (1) An outpatient surgery center lien claimant has burden of proving that charges are reasonable; (2) the outpatient surgery center lien claimant's billing, by itself, does not establish that claimed fee is 'reasonable'; and (3) any evidence relevant to reasonableness may be offered to support or rebut the lien.
Citation:	4564224
WCC Citation:	WCC 34252008 CA

Case Name:	Target Stores v. WCAB		01/18/2008
Summary:	Filed 1/18/08 Target Stores v. WCAB (Sollars) CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS. -ooOoo- Target Stores (Target) petitions for a writ of review disputing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concluding that a 1994 stipulated award for further medical care contained a clerical error and that, regardless of the error, Target was estopped from terminating medical benefits it had been providing a former employee for over 11 years. Sollars stopped working for Target in June 1991 and began working as a receptionist with Sierra Medical Group. Target also argues the WCAB improperly considered Target's past payment for neck treatment an admission of liability and that it should not have relied upon Dr. Chittenden's medical reporting lacking substantial evidence. (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 784 (Robinson), Target contends there were no legal grounds for the WCAB to withdraw or set aside the 1994 stipulated award.
Note:	[Unpublished] The WCAB may interpret and enforce a prior award.
Citation:	F053581
WCC Citation:	WCC 33032008 CA

Case Name:	Tate v. IAC		10/19/1953
Summary:	On rehearing it developed that the district manager of the employer not only knew that Tate was drinking, but participated with Tate in the drinking and purchased at least one round of drinks. The facts, in more detail, are as follows: Ernest Tate was employed as a janitor and supervising employee by the American Building Maintenance Company, a self-insured employer. The employer raised the affirmative defense that death was caused by the intoxication of Tate. Tate then made a telephone call and he and Deardorff left Allison's home for San Francisco at 2:30 a. m. Allison stated he did not believe that Tate was then drunk, or he would not have allowed him to leave. Allison also stated that Tate had worked for this same employer for seven or eight years; that about three or four months before the accident Tate had been warned about four to six times about drinking on the job.
Note:	On rehearing, petitioner for rehearing may raise any point he could have raised in original hearing.
Citation:	120 Cal.App.2d 657
WCC Citation:	WCC 26961953 CA

Case Name:	Telles Transport v. WCAB (Zuniga)		10/16/2001
Summary:	TELLES TRANSPORT, INC. et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LUIS ZUNIGA, Respondents. OPINION CORNELL, J. Telles Transport, Inc. (Telles) petitions this court by a writ of review challenging the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or Board). Although the documents were not offered into evidence, Telles apparently had its own copy of the relevant UMC records. The WCAB disagreed with the WCJ and found the WCJ had a duty to develop fully the record by admitting the relevant UMC records. 1 Zuniga maintains the WCAB acted within its authority in ordering the WCJ to admit the previously undisclosed UMC records.
Note:	Where a party's own conduct caused or induced the error he is estopped from appealing the issue of that error.
Citation:	92 Cal.App.4th 1159
WCC Citation:	WCC 28182001 CA

Case Name:	Tenet/Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Rushing		05/18/2000
Summary:	Dr. Glousman treated Rushing continuously beginning in August 1995, performing surgery twice on her right knee and conducting follow-up care. In the category of 'Treatment Recommendations,' Dr. Glousman wrote that Rushing 'will continue on a home exercise program. 'As Rushing was not represented at the time, the hospital followed the requirements of Labor Code section 4061, subdivision (d), and provided her with a three-physician panel. The WCJ effectively ruled that Dr. Stokes was the primary treating physician, rationalizing that Rushing was entitled to change treating physicians when future medical care is warranted. Rushing seeks an award of supplementary attorney fees predicated on the assertion there was no reasonable basis for this petition for review.
Note:	When applicant P&S, must comply with 4061/4062 before obtaining new treating physician.
Citation:	80 C.A.4th 1041, 65 CCC 477
WCC Citation:	WCC 24052000 CA

Case Name:	Tenet/Doctors Medical Center v. WCAB		03/24/2008
Summary:	Filed 3/24/08 Tenet/Doctors Medical Center v. WCAB (Reddick) CA1/5 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 FIVE TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER, etc. , et al. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BONNIE REDDRICK, Respondent. BACKGROUND While employed as an admitting clerk by petitioner Tenet/Doctors Medical Center (Tenet), respondent Bonnie Reddrick injured her hand and wrist. Among other things, this legislation amended section 4660 to require the implementation of a new permanent disability rating schedule incorporating the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th ed. 'Permanent and stationary status' is the point when the employee has reached maximal medical improvement, meaning his or her condition is well stabilized, and unlikely to change substantially in the next year with or without medical treatment. "
Note:	[Unpublished] A medical-legal report issued before January 1, 2005 need not state that that the claimant is permanent and stationary in order to trigger the old rating schedule. It is only necessary that a pre-2005 report indicate that the claimant has suffered a permanent impairment of earning capacity, a permanent impairment of the normal use of a body part, or a permanent competitive handicap in the open market. See Genlyte Group, Inc. v. WCAB, (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 705.
Citation:	A118238
WCC Citation:	WCC 33292008 CA