Case Name:	Ventura Coastal LLC v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Department of Industrial Relations)		12/01/2020
Summary:	It was upheld by the hearing officer and, on reconsideration, by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Board). Ventura appealed the citation to the Board, arguing that it did not violate the safety order or, if there was a violation, it was misclassified as serious. Ventura further argued the evidence showed the violation was unforeseeable under the Newbery defense. 2 On September 22, 2017, the Board issued its decision after reconsideration. The Board concluded the Division established a violation of the regulation by a The Newbery defense, which originated in Newbery Electric Corp. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. Instead, on October 20, 2017, 28 days after the Board filed its decision after reconsideration, Ventura filed a second petition for reconsideration with the Board.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an employer cited for a safety violation did not timely seek review of an administrative decision, but it is entitled to assert a claim of equitable tolling.
Citation:	No. F077267
WCC Citation:	No. F077267

Case Name:	Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc.		12/20/2012
Summary:	VENTURA v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED SYLVIA VENTURA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED et al. , Defendants and Appellants. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION ARMSTRONG, J. ABM Industries Incorporated, ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. , and American Building Maintenance Company appeal from the judgment entered against them and in favor of respondent Sylvia Ventura, on Ventura's complaint. When Ventura spoke of Manzano's relationship with Esther Mendoza, the human resources director suggested that Ventura was jealous. There was also evidence that after he knew the details of Manzano's attack on Ventura, Martinez told Ventura that Manzano had had similar problems before. American Building Maintenance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. , which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABM Industries Incorporated.
Note:	An employer must plead and prove that the Workers' Compensation Act applies to a lawsuit that indicates an employment relationship exists in order to invoke exclusive remedy.
Citation:	B231817
WCC Citation:	WCC 39652012 CA

Case Name:	Vera v. WCAB		08/30/2007
Summary:	Daniel Vera petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying his petition for reconsideration of a decision awarding him permanent disability benefits in the amount of $18,823. 75. It also noted that in a June 2004 report, the treating physician stated that Vera " 'remains TTD [i. e. , temporarily totally disabled],' " and that Vera underwent surgery for his shoulder in August 2004. Vera argued that his employer "[was] required subsequently to provide" the notice required by section 4061, and thus the old schedule applies. Vera filed a petition for writ of review in this court, arguing that the old schedule governs his claim for permanent disability benefits, and that the WCAB therefore erred in denying his petition for reconsideration. Our decision is consistent with the en banc decision of the WCAB in Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cas.
Note:	The WCAB properly denied the petition for reconsideration because the schedule for rating permanent disabilities that went into effect on January 1, 2005, applies to the instant case.
Citation:	72 CCC 1115
WCC Citation:	WCC 32482007 CA

Case Name:	Verga v. WCAB		01/23/2008
Summary:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the WCAB) concluded that Rosemary Verga was not entitled to compensation for psychiatric injury while employed by United Airlines. However, the WCAB found "the true fact remains that [Verga] was not actually subject to harassment or persecution, she instead brought upon herself the disdain of her co-workers" because Verga was "a difficult person to get along with"; she was impolite, unpleasant, and co-workers "never knew when [she] might get upset. "Various employees testified that they had never seen Verga mistreated by Allen, who did as much as he could to support her, even though Verga had mistreated them. Hence, Verga failed to establish an "actual event of employment" was the predominant cause of her injury within the meaning of section 3208. 3. After Verga filed a petition for reconsideration, the WCJ submitted to the WCAB a report and recommendation clarifying the basis for the WCJ's decision. Verga contends that it does matter whether the events of her employment occurred as she recalls or as found by the WCAB.
Note:	In light of the legislative intent in enacting section 3208.3, subdivision (b)(1), the disdainful reactions of co-workers to the claimant's abusive conduct were neither actual events of employment nor the predominant cause of her psychological injuries within the meaning of the statute.
Citation:	C055711
WCC Citation:	WCC 33042008 CA

Case Name:	Victor Valley Transit Authority v. WCAB		09/26/2000
Summary:	VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JAMES SOPHY, Respondents. [83 Cal. App. 4th 1070] COUNSEL Hallett & McCormick and Bruce S. Emerick for Petitioner Victor Valley Transit Authority. FACTS OF THE CASE Victor Valley Transit Authority ('VVTA') is a joint powers agency created pursuant to Government Code section 6500 et seq. The members of VVTA are the County of San Bernardino and the Cities of Victorville, Adelanto, Hesperia, and Apple Valley. The joint powers agreement names the authority the 'Victor Valley Transit Services Authority. '
Note:	No WCAB jurisdiction over 'contribution' issues in joint venture; not appropriate for arbitration.
Citation:	83 Cal.App.4th 1068
WCC Citation:	WCC 25402000 CA

Case Name:	Vierra v. WCAB		08/31/2007
Summary:	Petitioner Fred Vierra seeks relief from an order denying reconsideration of a decision by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), upholding an administrative law judge's finding that a written attorney fee agreement Vierra entered into with his attorney was not binding. On October 24, 2005, Vierra entered into a written "Agreement for Attorneys Fees" (the agreement) retaining Attorney Tom Johnson of Anderson & Johnson, LLP, to represent him in the WCAB proceedings. On July 20, 2006, the WCJ issued an order stating that the attorney fee agreement between Johnson and Vierra was not binding on Vierra. On August 3, 2006, Vierra petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration of the WCJ's order, contending the fee arrangement was appropriate and should have been allowed. The WCAB denied reconsideration reasoning that, since there was an available source of funds from which to petition for fees, Vierra was not yet aggrieved by the WCJ's order.
Note:	Because the WCAB unquestionably has the ultimate authority over attorney compensation (see Reich, supra, 99 Cal.App.3d at p. 234), the WCJ's order that a fee agreement is not binding is free from error.
Citation:	154 Cal. App. 4th 1142; 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423
WCC Citation:	WCC 32502007 CA

Case Name:	Vilkitis v. WCAB		06/18/2009
Summary:	Filed 6/18/09 Vilkitis v. WCAB CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE 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). Dr. Vilkitis would receive $68,057. 50 if the awards are rated separately, but $100,165 plus a life pension if they are rated together. After we denied his petition, Dr. Vilkitis petitioned our Supreme Court for review. Dr. Vilkitis filed separate applications for workers' compensation benefits for each of these injuries. As in Benson, Dr. Vilkitis sustained both a specific industrial injury and an industrial CT. (See Benson, supra, at p.
Note:	[Unpublished] Current sections 4663 and 4664 require physicians to consider each industrial injury sustained, and apportion the injured worker's disability for cause.
Citation:	B209235
WCC Citation:	WCC 35342009 CA

Case Name:	Villa v. WCAB		05/24/1984
Summary:	ERNESTO VILLA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MISSION LINEN SUPPLY, Respondents. Zonni, Ginocchio & Taylor, Clair S. Huffman, Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe and Alvin R. Barrett for Respondents. OPINION STONE, P. J. Petitioner Ernesto Villa seeks review of the July 1, 1983, order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration of the workers' compensation judge's finding that applicant sustained no industrial injury to his eyes. [1] Villa's petition for writ of review was filed in this court on August 16, 1983, 46 days after the Board's order denying reconsideration. 1 provides that a petition for writ of review 'must be made within 45 days after a petition for reconsideration is denied. '
Note:	45 day time limit for filing petition for writ of review is extended when order served by mail.
Citation:	156 Cal.App.3d 1076
WCC Citation:	WCC 27791984 CA

Case Name:	Vine vs. Bear Valley Ski Co.		05/11/2004
Summary:	CHARLENE VINE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BEAR VALLEY SKI COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. BACKGROUND Charlene Vine suffered a broken back, resulting in paraplegia, when she fell while attempting a snowboard jump at an employee party hosted by her employer, Bear Valley Ski Company (Bear Valley) after the end of the public ski season. Bear Valley contends that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court failed to give an instruction that Bear Valley never proposed. Bear Valley also challenges the court's failure to give a proposed instruction on what Bear Valley terms the "obvious hazard doctrine. "The dissent accuses Bear Valley of faulting the court for not giving an instruction Bear Valley never proposed.
Note:	Employee cannot escape assumption of risk doctrine for injury not covered by work comp.
Citation:	118 Cal.App.4th 577
WCC Citation:	WCC 29852004 CA

Case Name:	Virginia Surety Co. v. WCAB (Echelard)		08/22/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JASON ECHELARD, Respondents. -ooOoo- Before Ardaiz, P. J. , Cornell, J. , and Kane, J. Virginia Surety Company (Virginia Surety) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) contending the WCAB applied the incorrect Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities (PDRS -- *fn1). California Quality Interiors's insurer for workers' compensation purposes, Virginia Surety, admitted the accident arose out of and in the course of Echelard's employment causing injury to his thoracic spine, right wrist, and right elbow. Virginia Surety petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration contending Echelard's disability should have been rated under the 2005 PDRS because there was no medical determination before 2005 finding Echelard permanent and stationary. Virginia Surety, however, offers no legal support for its proposition that a pre-2005 medical report may only be considered within its four corners.
Note:	Under the WCAB's reasoning and Dr. Thomas's medical reporting, we agree the record supports an indication of permanent disability permitting the use of the 1997 PDRS. Accordingly, we will not disturb the WCAB's decision.
Citation:	F055253
WCC Citation:	WCC 34142008 CA