Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Yellow Cab Coop., Inc. v. WCAB | 01/16/1991 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RICHARD EDWINSON, Respondents. OPINION RACANELLI, P. J. Petitioners Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. (Yellow) and Golden Eagle Insurance Co. challenge a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) holding that Yellow was the employer, for workers' compensation purposes, of applicant Richard Edwinson, a cabdriver. During or after this meeting applicant executed a written 'Taxicab Lease Agreement' designating him as 'Lessee' and Yellow Leasing Co. , a division of Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. , as 'Lessor' or 'Leasing Company. '830 [171 So. 2d 510]; Shinuald v. Mound City Yellow Cab Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1984) 666 S. W. 2d 846; Employers Ins. (See Worrell v. Yellow Cab Co. (1978) 146 Ga. App. 748 [247 S. E. 2d 569], appeal after remand Yellow Cab Co. v. Worrell (1980) 155 Ga. App. 41 [273 S. E. 2d 410] [where ordinance restricted operation to permittee's employees and agents, cab company could not avoid compensation liability by delegating duties via lease]. ) | ||
| Note: | Corporation was employer of cabdriver with full control over his work. | ||
| Citation: | 226 Cal.App.3d 1288 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 25901991 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Yong S. Kim v. WCAB | 08/04/1999 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | YONG S. KIM, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. Facts and Prior Proceedings Petitioner Yong Kim injured his right arm while working. Kim speaks only Korean and requires the assistance of an interpreter for all vocational training classes and activities. Kim claims that interpreter services would cost $5,000 per month (we find no support for this in the record). Kim offered no contrary evidence that the cap was intended to limit access to vocational rehabilitation for non-English-speaking workers. | ||
| Note: | Cap applies to all persons and services, including interpreters; Does not violate Equal Protection. | ||
| Citation: | 73 Cal.App.4th 1357 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 3821999 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Young v. Gannon, DIR | 03/28/2002 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | JOHN D. YOUNG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RICHARD GANNON, Defendant and Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Real Party in Interest. - INTRODUCTION John D. Young appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate. After the lunch, appellant's telephone calls to Donald increased in frequency, and he left messages for her at her office and home. This was accomplished by a Notice of Adverse Action from the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers' Compensation. Therefore, a majority of the Board conclude[d] that dismissal [was] the just and proper penalty for the proven misconduct. ' | ||
| Note: | Regulations adopted governing WCJ conduct upheld; 'filed' decisions means typed and signed. | ||
| Citation: | 97 Cal.App.4th 209, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 187 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 28432002 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Youngblood v. WCAB | 12/15/1989 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | ROBERT YOUNGBLOOD, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondents (Opinion by Anderson, P. J. , with Poch and Perley, JJ. , concurring. )OPINION ANDERSON, P. J. Petitioner Robert Youngblood (applicant) seeks review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) which held that it did not have jurisdiction under Labor Code fn. [216 Cal. App. 3d 768] Applicant also requested vocational rehabilitation, and apparently initiated proceedings before the rehabilitation bureau (Bureau) sometime in 1982. There was no mention whatsoever regarding vocational rehabilitation, either that applicant might be interested in it or that he was requesting it. Finding that applicant's permanent disability had increased to 53 percent, the WCJ granted applicant's petition to reopen for new and further disability. | ||
| Note: | Board lacked jurisdiction to award benefits 5+ years post-injury. | ||
| Citation: | 216 Cal.App.3d 764 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 26411989 CA | ||
