Case Name:	Vargas v. WCAB		10/15/1986
Summary:	William Vargas, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California; Tom and Bob's Auto; and Great American Insurance Company, Respondents. The parties filed stipulations with request for award, which was approved by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (board). The Tow Company also filed a petition to dismiss the petition to reopen based on the same facts. On April 12, WCJ Davidson filed an order setting aside the dismissals in all three of applicant's cases based upon the amended objection. Thus, unless Vargas timely objected to the dismissal order or filed a petition for reconsideration, the dismissal order was a final adjudication of his petition to reopen.
Note:	WCJ has no jurisdiction to permit rescission of order of dismissal absent timely objection.
Citation:	51 CCC 480
WCC Citation:	WCC 27211986 CA

Case Name:	Vargas vs. Atascadero State Hospital		04/11/2006
Summary:	Myrtle Vargas, Applicant v. Atascadero State Hospital, Legally Uninsured, State Compensation Insurance Fund (Adjusting Agent), Defendants W. C. A. B. No. GRO 0016640 WCJ Bruce M. Lang (GRO) WCAB En Banc: Chairman Miller, Commissioners O'Brien, Cuneo, Murray, Brass, Rabine (concurring), Caplane (concurring) Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (en banc) Opinion Filed April 11, 2006 Disposition: Applicant's Petition for Removal is denied. Thus, the recommended rating of 71% was based on the neck and left upper extremity disability. Applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR), and the petition to reopen proceeded to hearing on March 2, 2004. On April 15, the District Office served notice of hearing for cross-examination of the rater set for May 20, 2004. Defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), then filed a response.
Note:	SB 899 apportionment rules apply to reopened cases seeking increased permanent disability regardless of date of injury.
Citation:	71 CCC 500 (2006)
WCC Citation:	WCC 31552006 CA

Case Name:	Varisco v. Gateway Science and Engineering, Inc.		09/15/2008
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION Appellant Al Varisco sued respondent Gateway Science and Engineering for wrongful termination of employment and similar causes of action, all of which depended on the allegation that he had been Gateway's employee. Gateway moved for summary judgment on the ground that Varisco was not an employee, but an independent contractor. Gateway responded to Varisco's call, and on January 30, 2004, Varisco and Gateway signed a letter agreement in which Varisco agreed to provide "DSA Inspection Services to the Los Angeles Unified School District (Client)" and Gateway agreed to pay him an hourly rate. Gateway moved for summary judgment, contending that Varisco was an independent contractor, not an employee. On appeal, Varisco concedes that the causes of action are viable only if he was an employee, not an independent contractor.
Note:	All the undisputed facts add up to an independent contractor relationship.
Citation:	B200339
WCC Citation:	WCC 34242008 CA

Case Name:	Vasquez v. Del Rio Sanitarium, Inc.		03/05/2012
Summary:	Vasquez resigned her Target job when Del Rio began scheduling Vasquez for weekend work that conflicted with her schedule at Target. However, Maxwell testified at trial that the document was generated after Del Rio received notice that Vasquez filed for unemployment benefits. Gardiner told her to call Vasquez, so she called Vasquez from Del Rio on January 12, 2009. Del Rio did not distribute an employee handbook or other notice to employees stating that Del Rio required medical certification. When Del Rio learned of Vasquez's need for accommodation, Del Rio did not provide her with any paperwork requesting medical certification.
Note:	A nursing assistant was awarded $196,760 in a Fair Employment and Housing claim, based on her former employer's failure to accommodate her medical restrictions during the early stages of her pregnancy.
Citation:	B231327
WCC Citation:	WCC 38662012 CA

Case Name:	Vasquez v. Juan Jose Interiano		07/06/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE ARNULFO VASQUEZ, Plaintiffs and Appellant, v. JUAN JOSE INTERIANO, et al. , Defendant and Respondent. Law Offices of Sef Krell and Sef Krell for Defendant and Appellant Juan Jose Interiano. INTRODUCTION Mya Borgman requested Juan Jose Interiano, her landscaper, to trim some palm trees in her yard. The trial court granted Borgman's motion for summary judgment as to Vasquez's complaint and Interiano's cross-complaint and Vasquez and Interiano appeal. Vasquez further alleges that Interiano and the doe defendants "negligently and in violation of statute, carelessly failed to provide plaintiff VASQUEZ with a safe workplace. "
Note:	[Unpublished] There is a rebuttable presumption that an unlicensed worker performing work for which a license is required is an employee rather than an independent contractor.
Citation:	B202120
WCC Citation:	WCC 35392009 CA

Case Name:	Vaught v. State		12/18/2007
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA No. D050358 December 18, 2007 MARCK O. VAUGHT ET AL, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION We hold the workers' compensation exclusivity rule of Labor Code*fn1 section 3602 bars the civil action of plaintiffs Marck Vaught (Marck) and Maria Vaught (Maria) (together the Vaughts) against Marck's employer, the State of California (State), for injuries he sustained while residing on state premises. The Vaughts sued the State for negligence and failure to make the ranch house habitable for human occupation. The fact Marck was not a new employee with the State, but rather was merely changing positions in that employment, does not affect our conclusion Marck sustained injuries in the course of his employment with the State. The evidence showed the State offered Marck residence in the ranch house because of Marck's employment with the State as a park ranger, as a benefit and out of work necessity, and not because the State sought to enter into a landlord-tenant relationship with the Vaughts.
Note:	The workers' compensation exclusivity rule of Labor Code section 3602 bars the civil action of plaintiff for injuries plaintiff sustained while residing on state premises.
Citation:	157 Cal. App. 4th 1538; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605
WCC Citation:	WCC 32912007 CA

Case Name:	Vaynberg v. Chevron Products Company		03/14/2013
Summary:	VAYNBERG v. CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY MOYSEY VAYNBERG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Appellant Moysey Vaynberg worked for respondent Chevron Products Company (Chevron) through an employment agency for nine years, from August 1999 through April 2008. At Chevron's request, the trial court instructed the jury: "Chevron contends that Mr. Vaynberg was not entitled to overtime pay from Chevron because he was an employee of Value Added working at Chevron as an independent contractor, not an employee of Chevron. Chevron argued these points to the jury: "Not one witness testified in this case that Mr. Vaynberg was an employee of Chevron at any time. Mr. Vaynberg admitted to you that at all times while working on assignment at the Chevron facility he was a contractor of Chevron. "
Note:	Chevron Products Co. was not a dual employer of a computer analyst employed by a staffing agency.
Citation:	A131126
WCC Citation:	WCC 39912013 CA

Case Name:	Vega vs. Taco Bell; Cal Indemnity		06/09/2003
Summary:	On January 2, 2003, defendant, Taco Bell, by and through its insurer, California Indemnity Insurance Company, filed a petition for removal, or alternatively, for reconsideration, for review of the Appeals Board's December 13, 2002, order denying a prior petition for removal. Defendant now seeks the consolidated review of two additional cases to demonstrate the disparate treatment of this issue at different district offices. Under Section 5502(b), expedited hearings may be set to determine the rights of the parties on specified issues, including entitlement to medical treatment and temporary disability indemnity. (2) The employee's entitlement to, or the amount of, temporary disability indemnity payments. This also implicates an applicant's right to temporary disability indemnity, as such benefits are tied to a treating physician's medical reporting.
Note:	Board shall set expedited hearing when right to medical control under HCO in issue.
Citation:	68 CCC 921
WCC Citation:	WCC 29372003 CA

Case Name:	Veguez v. Long Beach Unified School District		03/07/2005
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B172414 March 7, 2005 BONITA VEGUEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. GOVERNING BOARD OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. OVERVIEW Bonita Veguez, a certificated employee of the Long Beach Unified School District (District), began a medical leave of absence on March 12, 2002. The District denied her request on the ground the five months statutory paid leave Veguez had received following her 1998 accident exhausted her rights under section 44977. Instead, pursuant to section 44978. 1, the District placed Veguez on a 39-month reemployment list effective March 19, 2002. Veguez acknowledges the District had the right to condition her return to work on an examination by a District- appointed physician.
Note:	'Per injury or accident' as used in Education Code section 44977 applies to second leave where subsequent injury was known and treateable in original leave.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 406
WCC Citation:	WCC 30892005 CA

Case Name:	Velez v. Kohl Building Maintenance Inc. unpublished		02/02/2021
Summary:	______________________ Defendant Kohl Building Maintenance, Inc. (Kohl) appeals from the trial court’s June 27, 2019, order awarding $141,165 in attorney fees in a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) matter to plaintiff and prevailing party Gilberto Velez. Velez filed a workers’ compensation claim, and on August 26, 2016, Kohl terminated Velez. On at least one occasion, Velez’s counsel represented to the trial court that Velez was not seeking any lost income for the time period for which Velez received workers’ compensation. Notwithstanding his conclusory claim that Velez “knew” he would not recover more than $25,000, Kohl does not actually demonstrate this was so. Thus, Kohl has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $141,165 in attorney fees to Velez.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld an award of attorney fees to an injured worker on his successful Fair Employment and Housing Act claim against his former employer.
Citation:	No. B300253
WCC Citation:	No. B300253