Case Name:	Vacanti, Inc. v. SCIF		01/04/2001
Summary:	After plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, defendants filed another demurrer, again alleging that workers' compensation exclusivity bars plaintiffs' claims. After plaintiffs amended their complaint a third time, the second judge sustained the demurrer solely on exclusivity grounds. The employee may also obtain compensation for medical-legal evaluations necessary to establish his or her entitlement to benefits. Ordinarily, the insurer must pay all medical or medical-legal bills of an injured employee within 60 days of receiving the bill. Indeed, the unabated flow of published decisions clarifying the scope of workers' compensation exclusivity suggests considerable confusion as well as innovative lawyering.
Note:	Exclusive Remedy Doctrine extends to claims for acts/motives typified in the compensation bargain (i.e. late payment).
Citation:	24 Cal 4th 800
WCC Citation:	WCC 26302001 CA

Case Name:	Vaira v. WCAB (California Travel and Tourism Commission)		12/03/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOIS VAIRA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA TRAVEL AND TOURISM COMMISSION et al. , Respondents. Petitioner contends the WCAB erred in apportioning a share of her disability to her age and a pre-existing condition of osteoporosis. Five months earlier, on August 14, 2002, petitioner had suffered another work-related injury and filed a separate workers' compensation claim (WCAB No. SAC0323237). We agree with the WCAB that the parties' stipulation did not preclude a reduction in the overall disability for the award in WCAB No. SAC0323237. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Note:	[Unpublished] Any apportionment to age, per se, runs afoul of state antidiscrimination law.
Citation:	C054948
WCC Citation:	WCC 32852007 CA

Case Name:	Valadez v. WCAB		10/15/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HORACIO MONTOYA VALADEZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BONANZA FARMS, Respondents. -ooOoo- *Before A. P. J. , Levy, J. , Cornell, J. , and Gomes, J. Horacio Montoya Valadez (Montoya) petitions for a writ of review claiming the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) acted without or in excess of its powers by issuing an unreasonable decision based upon unsettled, wrongly decided law and unsupported findings of fact. *fn3 Montoya petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration contending the WCAB wrongly decided Pendergrass and Baglione and that the WCJ here should have adopted a permanent disability rating under the 1997 PDRS. On June 21, 2007, the WCAB denied reconsideration by adopting and incorporating the WCJ's report and recommendation. The WCAB issued earlier opinions in both Pendergrass and Baglione, but before they became final, a new majority resulting from a change in WCAB membership reconsidered the matters and reversed the prior decisions.
Note:	[Unpublished] The Legislature expressly established that the 2005 PDRS applies prospectively at the time of the WCAB's determination unless one of three specific exceptions applies.
Citation:	F053290, VNO0500624
WCC Citation:	WCC 32672007 CA

Case Name:	Valdez v. Clarendon National Insurance Co.		12/31/1969
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             ALEJANDRO VALDEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B278542 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Tressler, Mary E. McPherson and Ryan B. Luther for Defendants and Respondents Clarendon National Insurance Company, QBE Americas, Inc. , and QBE First Insurance Agency, Inc, .             The Morrison Law Group, Edward F. Morrison, Jr. and Larry A. Schwartz for Defendants and Respondents T&T Improvements, Inc. and Tim Tilton. .           Plaintiff and appellant Alejandro Valdez (plaintiff) appeals from the judgment dismissing his action against defendants and respondents Clarendon National Insurance Company (Clarendon), QBE Americas, Inc. , QBE First Insurance Agency, Inc. , 1 T&T Improvements, Inc. (T&T), and Tim Tilton (Tilton) (collectively, defendants)2 after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, defendants’ demurrers to all of the causes action asserted against them. .           J. CHAVEZ .           We concur: .           Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an injured worker could not proceed with his civil action against his employer and its insurance carrier for alleged misconduct during the negotiations to settle his comp claim because the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.
Citation:	B278542
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC606254

Case Name:	Valdez v. Himmelfarb		11/20/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN No. B184281 November 20, 2006 ELIAS VALDEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. DOUGLAS HIMMELFARB ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Valdez filed a timely appeal from the judgment for defendants but no appeal was filed on behalf of Valdez or his attorneys from the sanction order. In May 2003 Valdez filed the present action for personal injury, unfair competition and declaratory relief alleging the Mission Club was a business operated by defendant Himmelfarb and others who "intentionally and without good cause . *fn6 The court reasoned defendants "conclusively established" Valdez knew no later than December 2001 defendants did not have workers' compensation insurance. But even if this was the date on which Valdez first discovered Himmelfarb was his uninsured employer the complaint was filed more than a year after this discovery.
Note:	Actions under Labor Code section 3706 are covered by the three-year statute of limitations in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Citation:	144 Cal. App. 4th 1261
WCC Citation:	WCC 31912006 CA

Case Name:	Valdez v. WCAB		05/29/2012
Summary:	VALDEZ v. WCAB ELAYNE VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WAREHOUSE DEMO SERVICES et al. Respondents. We therefore annul the decision of the WCAB and remand with directions for further proceedings that are consistent with this opinion. "*fn1 The WCAB found that the WCJ "relied on the non-MPN reports of Dr. Nario for this finding [temporary disability] and award of benefits. "'"*fn2 The WCAB concluded that reports from non-MPN physicians are inadmissible and may not be relied on to award compensation. In its second en banc opinion, the WCAB did not limit itself to holding that section 4616. 6 made Dr. Nario's report inadmissible.
Note:	California's Labor Code does not prohibit the admission of medical reports from doctors who are not a part of an employer's properly noticed and valid medical provider network.
Citation:	B237147
WCC Citation:	WCC 39002012 CA

Case Name:	Valdivia v. Del Monte Foods		12/09/2010
Summary:	ELIZABETH VALDIVIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION WISEMAN, Acting P. J. Elizabeth Valdivia, an employee of Del Monte Foods, Inc. , sued Del Monte and its plant manager, Jim Fullmer, for sexual harassment. Valdivia alleged five causes of action against Fullmer and Del Monte: sexual harassment; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; sexual battery; and negligent failure to supervise and train. If found that negligence by Del Monte in hiring or supervising Fullmer was not a factor in causing harm to Valdivia. Finally, it found that Valdivia did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Del Monte engaged in conduct against her with malice, oppression, or fraud.
Note:	A trial judge's warning that he might have to declare a mistrial in a worker's civil suit in order to hear other cases did not constitute a prejudicial error.
Citation:	F056866
WCC Citation:	WCC 36902010 CA

Case Name:	Valero v. Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees' Retirement Assoc.		05/01/2012
Summary:	VALERO v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF TULARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION JOE VALERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF TULARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OPINION FRANSON, J. Respondent Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees' Retirement Association (the Board) denied the application of appellant Joe Valero for a service-connected disability retirement. Valero was hired as an "Office Assistant II" by the County of Tulare Health and Human Services Agency (the County) in April of 1999. On July 9, 2008, the Board determined that Valero failed to meet his burden of establishing service connection, and instead granted Valero a non-service-connected disability retirement. (Dickey v. Retirement Board (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 745; County of Alameda v. Board of Retirement (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 902. )
Note:	A county office worker with a disabling psychiatric condition failed to prove his panic disorder was service-connected.
Citation:	F062601
WCC Citation:	WCC 38912012 CA

Case Name:	Van Voorhis vs. WCAB (Bethlehem Steel Corp.)		02/04/1974
Summary:	HERBERT D. VAN VOORHIS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Respondents (Opinion by Sims, Acting P. J. , with Elkington, J. , and Bray, J. , concurring. )3 and return having made, and the matter having been regularly submitted, it is concluded that the board erred. Its decision and award must therefore be vacated, and the matter returned for reinstatement of the award granted by the referee. No mention was made of his hearing loss, and he never lost any time or wages, or received medical treatment for that complaint. In September 1971, he was told that his hearing loss might have been due to his employment.
Note:	Compensation must be measured by the applicant's earning capacity as it existed at the time he incurred his compensable disability.
Citation:	37 CA3d 81
WCC Citation:	WCC 30291974 CA

Case Name:	Vanderheiden v. City of Alameda		06/02/2009
Summary:	The City claims Vanderheiden called a station meeting in which he put other employees "on notice" that they should leave him alone. The City insisted that Vanderheiden receive psychological counseling through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) before he could return to work. The City moved for summary judgment on grounds that (1) Vanderheiden could not prove the City "regarded him" as mentally disabled under the FEHA; (2) the City had engaged in good faith in any interactive process required of it; (3) the City had offered Vanderheiden a reasonable accommodation; and (4) Vanderheiden could not perform the essential duties of a firefighter. Although the court found it "likely" the City did regard Vanderheiden as mentally disabled, it granted summary judgment to the City because Vanderheiden had presented insufficient evidence that he could perform the essential functions of the job. Dr. Everstine originally produced no records underlying her opinion to either the City or Vanderheiden, as Vanderheiden had refused to sign a release.
Note:	[Unpublished] There are genuine issues of fact regarding plaintiff's psychological health and his ability to perform his job.
Citation:	A120169
WCC Citation:	WCC 35302009 CA