Case Name:	Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut		01/29/2003
Summary:	TADAO YAMAGUCHI et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CHAIYUT HARNSMUT et al. , Defendants and Appellants. OPINION STEVENS, Acting P. J. - Chaiyut Harnsmut (Harnsmut) and his wife, Urai Chaloeicheep (Chaloeicheep) appeal from a judgment holding them vicariously liable for injuries suffered by a police officer at the hands of their employee. In a slightly crouched position, Yamaguchi gestured to Noy and instructed him verbally to come towards him. Wisan immediately scooped up a second pot of hot oil and threw it in the direction of Noy, Yamaguchi, and Orkes. 4 The jury awarded Yamaguchi $59,760 in economic and $1,000,000 in noneconomic damages, the City $105,763. 55, and Tracy Yamaguchi $35,000.
Note:	Firefighter's rule does not vitiate respondeat superior of employer of assaultive employee.
Citation:	106 Cal.App.4th 472, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 706
WCC Citation:	WCC 29202003 CA

Case Name:	Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut		01/29/2003
Summary:	TADAO YAMAGUCHI et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CHAIYUT HARNSMUT et al. , Defendants and Appellants. OPINION STEVENS, Acting P. J. - Chaiyut Harnsmut (Harnsmut) and his wife, Urai Chaloeicheep (Chaloeicheep) appeal from a judgment holding them vicariously liable for injuries suffered by a police officer at the hands of their employee. In a slightly crouched position, Yamaguchi gestured to Noy and instructed him verbally to come towards him. Wisan immediately scooped up a second pot of hot oil and threw it in the direction of Noy, Yamaguchi, and Orkes. 4 The jury awarded Yamaguchi $59,760 in economic and $1,000,000 in noneconomic damages, the City $105,763. 55, and Tracy Yamaguchi $35,000.
Note:	Firefighter's rule does not vitiate respondeat superior of employer of assaultive employee.
Citation:	106 Cal.App.4th 472, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 706
WCC Citation:	WCC 29212003 CA

Case Name:	Yang v. Buch		01/18/2008
Summary:	E041427, E041764 January 18, 2008 KEVIN JEN-KANG YANG ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. ROBERT BUCH, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Kevin Jen-Kang Yang and Lee Yang, in propria persona, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Meanwhile, it denied three successive motions for sanctions against Buch; in connection with the third motion, it awarded Buch sanctions against the Yangs. We will further hold that the Yangs have not shown that the trial court erred by awarding Buch attorney fees, by denying their motions for sanctions, or by awarding Buch sanctions against them. Buch also asserts that the WCAB ordered Yang to appear at at least one deposition (on December 6, 2005).
Note:	The employee's right to recover against a third person is not affected by the fact that the 'person other than the employer' is not a stranger but has entered into a consensual legal relationship with the employer.
Citation:	E041427
WCC Citation:	WCC 33022008 CA

Case Name:	Yang v. Fields		05/08/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO JEN-KANG YANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LARRY H. FIELDS, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Jen-Kang Yang (Yang) appeals from an order awarding defendant and respondent Larry Fields (Fields) $25,789. 50 in attorney fees and costs after a judgment of dismissal was entered in Fields's favor pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425. 16. *fn1 Yang contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees after judgment had been entered, and that the court abused its discretion concerning the scope and amount of fees awarded. Yang also asks that we sanction Fields and his attorney for making allegedly false representations in Fields's motion for attorney fees. Yang subsequently sued Zurich and Fields in San Bernardino County Superior Court. After Yang refused to stipulate to transfer venue to Los Angeles County, Fields filed a motion to transfer venue, which Yang opposed.
Note:	[Unpublished] Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred only in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion, and the trial court erred by including in the award fees and costs unrelated to that motion.
Citation:	B196322
WCC Citation:	WCC 33512008 CA

Case Name:	Yap v. LA Dept. of Water & Power		05/10/2012
Summary:	YAP v. LA DEPT. OF WATER & POWER DANILO YAP, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Danilo Yap appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP) in this action for discrimination and retaliation. A position that Yap applied for was abruptly cancelled when it appeared that Yap was entitled to the position. The documents showed Yap was fired from TMC, contrary to information that Yap provided on his employment application. In March 2009, Tan questioned Yap about sick leave that Yap had taken and Yap felt singled out.
Note:	A claim by a former accountant for the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power for disability discrimination failed as a matter of law because there was no evidence that his employer did not seek to accommodate his mental disability.
Citation:	B230969
WCC Citation:	WCC 38932012 CA

Case Name:	Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc.		08/26/2014
Summary:	.           Eddie Yau filed a complaint against his former employer, Santa Margarita Ford, alleging a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. .           In 1992, Yau was hired as a mechanic by Santa Margarita Ford. Yau alleged he was terminated in February 2009 after complaining to Santa Margarita Ford’s general manager, Mike Mamic, and later to Santa Margarita Ford’s owner, James Graham, that fraudulent warranty repair claims were being submitted to Ford. Yau alleged Santa Margarita Ford’s service director, Robert Selff, to whom Yau reported, was the instigator/mastermind of the warranty fraud. .           In January 2009, Yau met with Mamic and Graham (owner of Santa Margarita Ford) and explained what was happening with fictitious warranty repair orders.
Note:
Citation:	G048013 consol. w/ G04834
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00448900

Case Name:	Yavitch v. WCAB		04/20/1983
Summary:	OPINION FEINERMAN, P. J. Petitioners Morris Yavitch and Continental Insurance Company seek an order compelling the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board or WCAB) to annul its stay of WCAB proceedings pending the outcome of Los Angeles Superior Court number C-344346, to annul the rescission of the trial judge's findings and order of June 29, 1982, and thereafter to determine the petition for reconsideration on its merits. The petitioners, Morris Yavitch and his workers' compensation insurer, Continental Insurance Company, denied any industrial injury and the matter was tried. The applicant testified as follows: She worked for Morris Yavitch as a nurse, cook, driver and housekeeper during the summer of 1980. In reaching his decision, the judge stated: 'It is found that applicant was employed by Morris Yavitch on October 9, 1980. The applicant never alleged that WCAB should defer to the superior court in determining whether the WCAB had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether there was a work-related injury.
Note:	Decision after remittitur for review of findings is original decision, not one following reconsideration.
Citation:	142 Cal.App.3d 64
WCC Citation:	WCC 26541983 CA

Case Name:	Ybarra v. WCAB, SIF		10/21/2002
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This petition brought by former Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Raymond Ybarra involves two claims for workers' compensation benefits. After he was granted a disability pension, petitioner filed an application with the Subsequent Injuries Fund (SIF) for additional benefits. Although SIF determined petitioner was entitled to receive the additional benefits, SIF asserted his award was subject to reduction by operation of Labor Code section 4753. That section provides for reduction of SIF benefits to the extent the employee receives payments from another source due to a pre-existing disability. In a report submitted to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, the judge recommended a finding that petitioner was eligible for SIF benefits, but that SIF was entitled to assert a credit against petitioner's disability retirement benefits.
Note:	Subsequent Injuries Fund can not take credit for disability retirement where basis is different though stems from same case.
Citation:	Unpublished
WCC Citation:	WCC 28932002 CA

Case Name:	Yeager Construction v. WCAB and Dennis Gatten		11/28/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO E. L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DENNIS GATTEN, Respondents. Rucka, O'Boyle, Lombardo & McKenna and Cosimo Aiello; Hinden, Rondeau & Brevlavsky and Charles R. Rondeau for Respondent Dennis Gatten. At the time of the injury, he was diagnosed with a lumbar strain/sprain with a compression facture at L2. The WCJ found applicant's industrial back injury caused a 74 percent permanent disability with no basis for apportionment. Filed 12/15/06 COURT OF APPEAL -- STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ORDER E. L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DENNIS GATTEN, Respondents.
Note:	Labor Code Section 4663 allows for the apportionment of pre-existing degenerative conditions.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 922
WCC Citation:	WCC 31992006 CA

Case Name:	Yee-Sanchez vs. Permanente, etc. et at		04/29/2003
Summary:	Nevertheless, PMG went forward with Dr. Hightower's deposition (although, apparently, it never took the depositions of Yee-Sanchez or Dr. Duong). In response to Yee-Sanchez's letter to him, the PWCJ set a pre-trial conference, even though no application had yet been filed. Prior to the conference, PMG requested that the DEU issue a consultative rating of Dr. Duong's October 19, 2000 report. The DEU's consultative rating opined that the factors of permanent disability in Dr. Duong's October 19, 2000 report rated at 31%. However, the PWCJ took no action at that time, but instead suggested that the parties attempt to reach an informal resolution.
Note:	Definition of rights, duties, penalties for pre-application discovery.
Citation:	68 Cal.Comp. Cases 637
WCC Citation:	WCC 29322003 CA