Case Name:	21st Century Insurance Company v. The Superior Court Of San Diego County		08/24/2009
Summary:	Filed 8/24/09 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA st CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; SILVIA QUINTANA, Real Party in Interest Ct. App. 4/1 D049430 San Diego County Super. She maintained an auto insurance policy with 21st Century Insurance Company (21st Century) that included first party, no-fault medical payment (medpay) insurance coverage in case of an accident. Quintana's insurance company, 21st Century, paid her $1,000 under her insurance policy's med-pay provisions. Her automobile insurer, defendant 21st Century Insurance Company (21st Century), paid her $1,000 under the policy's no-fault medical payment coverage. Name of Opinion 21st Century Insurance Company v. San Diego County Superior Court Unpublished Opinion XXX NP opn.
Note:	In cases like this, where the insured does not dispute that the settlement adequately compensated her damages, a pro rata apportionment requires the insurer to account for its fair share of the attorney fees by reducing the amount of reimbursement to cover some portion of those fees.
Citation:	S154790
WCC Citation:	WCC 35582009 CA

Case Name:	99 Cents Only Stores v. WCAB		05/03/2000
Summary:	CENTS ONLY STORES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and EDY ARRIAGA, Respondents. The petitioner and employer, 99 Cents Only Stores (Stores), contends the fees awarded were not based on substantial evidence and were excessive. Stores further alleged that although hearing representatives may provide services, inconsistent amounts were awarded by the WCJ and there is no uniformity even among WCAB offices. Stores also asserted $613 was excessive because there was no evidence regarding the qualifications or supervision of hearing representative Plasencia. Finally, Stores argued that most attorneys practicing workers' compensation law receive a lower hourly rate than the amount awarded for Plasencia's services.
Note:	Non-attorney not entitled to full attorney rate for depo fees; analysis same as attorney.
Citation:	80 Cal.App.4th 644, 65 CCC 456
WCC Citation:	WCC 25602000 CA

Case Name:	99 Cents Only Stores v. WCAB		05/03/2000
Summary:	CENTS ONLY STORES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and EDY ARRIAGA, Respondents. The petitioner and employer, 99 Cents Only Stores (Stores), contends the fees awarded were not based on substantial evidence and were excessive. Stores further alleged that although hearing representatives may provide services, inconsistent amounts were awarded by the WCJ and there is no uniformity even among WCAB offices. Stores also asserted $613 was excessive because there was no evidence regarding the qualifications or supervision of hearing representative Plasencia. Finally, Stores argued that most attorneys practicing workers' compensation law receive a lower hourly rate than the amount awarded for Plasencia's services.
Note:	Non-attorney, hearing rep.'s fee of $163/hour deemed excessive.
Citation:	80 Cal.App.4th 644
WCC Citation:	WCC 26002000 CA

Case Name:	A.M. v. Albertsons, LLC.		10/15/2009
Summary:	A delivery truck was arriving, so Sampson asked A. M. if she could wait. A. M. agreed to do so. She called Sampson on the store intercom to say that she needed to go to the bathroom. When Hollis returned, she reported that Sampson said that she was still busy and that A. M. had to wait. The customer walked her to her car and stayed with her for a while. A. M. was becoming more agitated. The next day, she was withdrawn and depressed, in marked contrast to the positive and joyous person that she usually was.
Note:	Under the FEHA, the failure to accommodate and the failure to engage in the interactive process in determining a reasonable accommodation for a known physical disability are separate claims. Once a reasonable accommodation has been granted, the employer has a duty to provide that accommodation. Failure to do so, even on a single occasion, can support a cause of action for damages sustained by the failure as this is in line with the intent of the FEHA and the public policies behind the provision.
Citation:	A122307
WCC Citation:	WCC 35722009 CA

Case Name:	Abdelrahim v. Guardsmark LLC		11/17/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN FATHY ABDELRAHIM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GUARDSMARK, LLC, et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Appellant Fathy Abdelrahim appeals from the judgment upon an order for directed verdicts on his negligence and misrepresentation claims and a jury verdict in favor of respondent Guardsmark, LLC ("Guardsmark") on the remaining claims. Guardsmark was contracted by Marriott Los Angeles Downtown, a hotel, to provide security for the hotel. At the trial, Guardsmark offered the Stryker email into evidence and the court admitted the document over appellant's hearsay objection. After both sides had presented their cases, Guardsmark filed a motion for a directed verdict on all counts.
Note:	In regards to negligence claims. No civil action will stand where a claimant alleges facts that place the claim squarely within the purview of workers' compensation statutes, and fails to allege facts negating the exclusivity rule.
Citation:	B207270
WCC Citation:	WCC 35792009 CA

Case Name:	Abney vs. Aera Energy; Liberty Mutual		12/08/2004
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. GRO 024430 MYRON ABNEY, Applicant, vs. AERA ENERGY; and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s). Because of the important legal issue presented as to the meaning and application of Senate Bill (SB) 899 (Stats. Following a July 26, 2004 hearing on the issue, the WCJ issued a Findings and Award on August 5, 2004. The question of delay and the reasonableness of the cause therefor shall be determined by the appeals board in accordance with the facts. The Appeals Board's en banc decisions are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and workers' compensation administrative law judges (WCJ).
Note:	5814, as amended, applies to acts prior to effective date if adjudicated after.
Citation:	69 CCC (2004); En Banc
WCC Citation:	WCC 30662004 CA

Case Name:	Abraham vs. WCAB (City of Buena Park)		12/01/2003
Summary:	In this appeal, Sandra Abraham (appellant) challenges a judgment of the superior court denying her petition for writ of administrative mandamus against the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The City of Buena Park (the city), appellant's former employer, appeared as the real party in interest in the proceeding below. Thereafter, in June 1997, appellant sought a determination by the WCAB that her disability was industrial. In accordance with section 21166, the WCAB hears and determines disputes arising under PERS regarding industrial causation of a disability. -------------------------- FOOTNOTES A claim for disability retirement benefits with PERS is a process separate from the application for disability benefits with the WCAB.
Note:	WCAB ruling on PERS disability issue does not alter limitation to bring action within 5 years from date of injury.
Citation:	113 Cal.App.4th 1082
WCC Citation:	WCC 29592003 CA

Case Name:	Abratte v. WCAB; Co. of Los Angeles		07/11/2000
Summary:	OPINION: INTRODUCTION Petitioner, Pilar Abratte, was industrially injured while working for the County of Los Angeles (County). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Pilar Abratte, a medical technologist for the County of Los Angeles, admittedly sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome to her wrists while at work from February 1, 1979, to August 17, 1995. Abratte also cited cases which found discrimination under section 132a for discontinuance of fringe benefits during shorter periods of temporary disability. 134], Abratte was not entitled to further accrual of sick and vacation days as these benefits were not being earned. Petitioner, Ms. Abratte, was an employee of Los Angeles County, and a member of a County employees union.
Note:	Public agencies subject to 132a; covers employment benefits.
Citation:	65 CCC 790-NOT PUBLISHED
WCC Citation:	WCC 28132000 CA

Case Name:	Ackerman v. Poway Unified School District		11/05/2009
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Terri Ackerman (Plaintiff) was injured in when she slipped and fell at the premises of the school where she taught, which was owned and operated by defendant and respondent Poway Unified School District (the District). (John R. v. Oakland Unified School District (1989) 48 Cal. 3d , 441, fn. In her claim, she alleged that the District was negligent because it had installed painted concrete, as opposed to stained and porous concrete. In the District's letter transmitting the correct form, its official stated that "the District is covering Ms. Ackerman's injury under our workers' compensation plan. ")*fn4 She alleged that the District had issued a change order regarding the concrete surface, which created unreasonably dangerous conditions.
Note:	[Unpublished] The equitable tolling doctrine does not allow Plaintiff to forego a timely filing of a court action or other proceeding to seek formal redress of injury, within the statutory periods set by the Act.
Citation:	D054529
WCC Citation:	WCC 35752009 CA

Case Name:	Acosta v. Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System		02/19/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C061089 February 19, 2010 ANA LUISA ACOSTA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Proc. , § 1094. 5. ) In her petition, Acosta sought to compel respondent Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System (SCERS) to grant her application for service-connected disability retirement benefits. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Injuries Sustained in 1993, 1996, and 2001 In December 1988, the County of Sacramento (County) hired Acosta as a public health aide. In November 1994, Acosta transferred to the Public Health Nursing program, where she remained for the duration of her active employment with the County. Respondent Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System shall recover its costs on appeal.
Note:	A public health aide is not entitled to service-connected disability benefits because she has not reached maximum medical improvement.
Citation:	C061089
WCC Citation:	WCC 35992010 CA

Case Name:	Adams v. Sutter North Medical Foundation		10/02/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) CATHERINE ADAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUTTER NORTH MEDICAL FOUNDATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. (FEHA)),*fn1 plaintiff Catherine Adams appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Sutter North Medical Foundation (Foundation) and Julie Eckardt. Defendants' separate statement of undisputed facts included the following: The Foundation is a multi-specialty medical facility with care centers in the Yuba-Sutter community. In 1987, plaintiff began working for the Marysville Medical Group, which later merged with the Foundation. On January 2, 2003, the Foundation sent plaintiff a letter, stating, "We understand that you are off work due to a medical condition," and her leave was not protected by the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) because the Foundation had not received the necessary physician certification.
Note:	[Unpublished] An inability to work with one's supervisor does not establish the requisite limitation on the major life activity of employment necessary to constitute an actionable disability under FEHA.
Citation:	C052407
WCC Citation:	WCC 32642007 CA

Case Name:	Addington v. Indus. Indem. Co.		04/07/1972
Summary:	KEN ADDINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Facts -- Superior Court We shall confine our statement of facts to those which appear in our record in the case of Addington, et al. , vs. Industrial Indemnity Company, et al. fn. 1 None of the procedural differences between that case and the other three has any bearing on any issue before us. The failure to pay interest was caused by a policy and practice of defendant not to pay interest on awards. By law payments received were, however, applied first to extinguish interest and only then credited against the principal due.
Note:	Lower court not prevented by res judicata from considering claims.
Citation:	24 Cal.App.3d 802, 37 CCC 312
WCC Citation:	WCC 26191972 CA

Case Name:	Addington v. Industrial Indem. Co.		04/07/1972
Summary:	KEN ADDINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Facts -- Superior Court We shall confine our statement of facts to those which appear in our record in the case of Addington, et al. , vs. Industrial Indemnity Company, et al. fn. 1 None of the procedural differences between that case and the other three has any bearing on any issue before us. The failure to pay interest was caused by a policy and practice of defendant not to pay interest on awards. By law payments received were, however, applied first to extinguish interest and only then credited against the principal due.
Note:	WCAB's denial of relief didn't have res judicata effect on class action in superior court.
Citation:	24 Cal.App.3d 802
WCC Citation:	WCC 26071972 CA

Case Name:	Addison v. County of Los Angeles		11/03/2008
Summary:	B201007 c/w B203213 November 3, 2008 JOSEPH C. ADDISON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. This case arises from a summary judgment entered in favor of the respondents, County of Los Angeles, Mark Pestrella and Hector Bordas. Ct. Los Angeles County No. BC328195) against the County, alleging several incidents of racial discrimination and retaliation. Here, the Los Angeles County Civil Service Rules establish a procedure for discharging a County employee like Addison.
Note:	[Unpublished] The record fully supports the trial court's conclusions.
Citation:	B201007 c/w B203213
WCC Citation:	WCC 34562008 CA

Case Name:	Adir International LLC v. Travelers Indemnity Co.		12/30/2020
Summary:	_______________________ INTRODUCTION The Travelers Indemnity Co. appeals from an order granting a motion for reconsideration and declaring arbitration provisions unenforceable and void. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Workers’ Compensation Insurance The Policy Adir International, LLC operates the Curacao chain of retail department stores. Thus, a company with average losses of $500,000, may be charged $750,000 in premium; $500,000 to cover expected loss payments and $250,000 in fees. ” (Matter of Adir International, LLC (Nov. pp. On August 25, 2014, Travelers sent Adir a letter demanding arbitration pursuant to the agreement. Travelers sought arbitration regarding “the amount of premium currently owing to Travelers by Adir .
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an arbitration provision in an agreement between a workers’ compensation insurance carrier and an employer was void, since the agreement had not been filed with the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau.
Citation:	No. B293415
WCC Citation:	No. B293415

Case Name:	Adler-Galloway v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.		08/26/2010
Summary:	FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 4, 2006, Entertainment Partners provided its employee Adler-Galloway to work for CBS as an extra on a television show. The sound stage where the show was filming was leased and operated by CBS. On March 21, 2008, Adler-Galloway filed a personal injury action against several defendants, including CBS, for negligence and premises liability. In addition, the declaration provided no reason to believe CBS was not named as an alternate employer insured as CBS claimed. Adler-Galloway provided no evidence to show that CBS was not named as an alternate employer insured under the policy.
Note:	CBS Broadcasting's exclusive remedy argument prevailed against an extra's premises liability suit by providing declarations that her employer's insurance policy named CBS as a special employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B218163
WCC Citation:	WCC 36602010 CA

Case Name:	Advekian v. 20th Century Fox		06/22/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR EDWARD AVEDIKIAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, Kevin D. Smith, Anne K. McIntyre and Nicholas M. Gedo for Defendant and Respondent Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. The complaint was amended to name Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Fox) and Davis Entertainment Company (Davis) as Doe defendants on a theory of vicarious liability because Nevarez allegedly was acting as their employee at the time of the accident. As to Fox, the trial court refused to extend the special risk exception to the going-and-coming rule as appellant urged. Opinion Footnotes *fn1 Although appellant appealed from the judgment in favor of both Fox and Davis, in his opening brief, he stated that he was only pursuing the appeal as to Fox.
Note:	A sleepy worker's long hours did not create vicarious liability for his employer in a tort action under respondeat superior.
Citation:	B205933
WCC Citation:	WCC 35362009 CA

Case Name:	Adventist Health v. WCAB		10/23/2012
Summary:	ADVENTIST HEALTH v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD ADVENTIST HEALTH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and EVELYN FLETCHER, Respondents. The petition for a writ of review by the self-insured employer, Adventist Health (Adventist), is but the latest installment in the ongoing battle over Evelyn Fletcher's treatment. Fletcher did not always prevail in the various disputes that erupted; Adventist prevailed in at least two of its petitions for reconsideration before the WCAB. Like Dr. Malik, whom Adventist had successfully removed, Dr. Rodriguez had not submitted any medical reports to Adventist. Neither the judge, Adventist, nor Fletcher has cited any statutory or regulatory authority that permits the WCAB to withhold medical reports.
Note:	An employee was not entitled to reimbursement for the treatment she received from doctors who were not designated as her primary treating physicians, had not been approved by Adventist, did not provide any treatment plan or medical reports, and did not consider the treatment plan provided by the lead physician..
Citation:	C069906
WCC Citation:	WCC 39442012 CA

Case Name:	Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. WCAB		11/15/1973
Summary:	AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ALVIN H. COLTHARP et al. , Respondents (Opinion by The Court. )Finally, section 5303 provides as follows: 'There is but one cause of action for each injury coming within the provisions of this division. The specific incidents applicant recalled and filed on were clearly an aggravation of a pre-existing condition that started in 1948. 'The referee concluded that the lay and medical evidence substantially supported the finding of 'a cumulative trauma injury. 'In this regard, we shall initially focus on the correctness of the WCAB determination that the applicant did not suffer a 'specific' injury in 1969.
Note:	Whether injury is to be treated as specific or cumulative is issue of fact and conclusive upon review.
Citation:	35 Cal.App.3d 329, 38 CCC 720
WCC Citation:	WCC 27371973 CA

Case Name:	Aguilar v. Heiman		05/29/2009
Summary:	Filed 5/29/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT FREDDY AGUILERA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROBERT P. HEIMAN et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Law Offices of Bradford L. Treusch and Bradford L. Treusch for Defendant and Respondent Robert P. Heiman. On April 16, 2007, almost 10 years later, Aguilera filed this civil action against respondents Robert P. Heiman, individually and doing business as Pegasus Properties (Heiman), and 2612 Montana Avenue Owners Association (Association). The last day to commence an action under section 3706 therefore was June 16, 2002, for Heiman and August 12, 2002, for the Association. Although not reflected in the record before us, Heiman asserts in his brief that the petition for the joinder of Heiman and Association in the workers' compensation proceeding was filed by codefendant Hruby and not Aguilera.
Note:	Claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure former section 340, subdivision (3) and the equitable tolling doctrine does not apply where original claim is not timely filed.
Citation:	B206790
WCC Citation:	WCC 35272009 CA

Case Name:	Aguirre v. WCAB		07/22/1991
Summary:	He conceded that in that event the applicant would have subsequently come into his office to sign the compromise and release agreement. He next testified that he had no present recollection of when Mr. Aguirre came into his office to sign the settlement papers and no present recollection of what he said to Mr. Aguirre about the content of the settlement agreement. Mr. Chavez later denied having said that he told applicant a future injury in rehabilitation might exceed the amount of the settlement. Mr. Chavez ultimately testified that he recalled personally reading verbatim to Mr. Aguirre the language purporting to waive benefits for any future injuries sustained during rehabilitation and asking Mr. Aguirre if he understood what had been read to him; Mr. Aguirre answered yes, and there was thereafter no need for Mr. Chavez to explain the compromise and release. Mr. Chavez finally conceded that he could not explain why his signature did not appear on that copy of the document.
Note:	Compromise/release of liability for future injuries sustained during rehab. must be express, clear to applicant.
Citation:	232 Cal. App. 3d 744, 56 CCC 420
WCC Citation:	WCC 25691991 CA

Case Name:	Aitken v. Pacific Steel Casting Co.		02/07/2011
Summary:	Charles J. Aitken v. Pacific Steel Casting Co, No. A126395 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 02/07/2011) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A126395 February 7, 2011 CHARLES J. AITKEN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. PACIFIC STEEL CASTING CO. , DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. INTRODUCTION Appellant Charles J. Aitken appeals from the trial court's ruling granting respondent Pacific Steel Casting Co. 's motion for summary judgment. (Marsh v. Tilley Steel Co. (1980)26 Cal. 3d 486, 493 (Marsh); Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 168, 175 (Kowalski). )It was Plant Maintenance, and not Pacific Steel, who paid appellant directly. In his deposition, appellant states that he "needed some tools that they didn't have at Pacific Steel .
Note:	Exclusive remedy barred a worker's suit against a borrowing employer after it proved that he was a special employee, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	A126395
WCC Citation:	WCC 37152011 CA

Case Name:	Alberda v. Board of Retirement of Fresno County Employees' Retirement Assoc.		02/20/2013
Summary:	ALBERDA v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION THOMAS ALBERDA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. The Board of Retirement of Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association (Board) denied Thomas Alberda's application for a service-connected disability retirement. The knee did not require ongoing treatment; Alberda passed his Fresno County pre-employment physical as well as the physical requirements of the law enforcement academy. On April 4, 2008, the Board denied the application and instead approved the grant of a non-service connected disability retirement if Alberda wished to apply for one. Dr. Morgan, a board certified orthopedic surgeon who also performed independent medical evaluations, examined Alberda on November 4, 2009, and prepared a report.
Note:	A Fresno County deputy sheriff is getting a second chance at proving his entitlement to a service-connected disability retirement since the trial judge who upheld the administrative denial of his application applied the wrong standard of review to the Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association's decision.
Citation:	F064017
WCC Citation:	WCC 39882013 CA

Case Name:	Albertson's v. WCAB (Bradley)		04/29/1982
Summary:	We granted a writ of review in this case to consider whether an employee's claim of a cumulative injury (Lab. When she returned to work, Bassinger's attitude toward her appeared to have changed; he was now "very curt with [her]. "Bradley was "so embarrassed that [she] just wanted to die," and she rapidly began to experience difficulty breathing, shaking and nausea. She told Bassinger she was sick and wished to see her doctor; he responded, in a "very nasty" tone, "'[w]hatever suits you. '"Her doctor gave her a tranquilizer and kept her at his office for four or five hours after this incident.
Note:	Honest misperception of job harassment may mix with pre-existing psychiatric condition so as to cause compensable job stress, but must be supported by competent evidence.
Citation:	131 Cal.App.3d 308
WCC Citation:	WCC 31161982 CA

Case Name:	Albillo vs. Intermodal		12/11/2003
Summary:	Named plaintiffs and appellants Irwin Albillo and Luis Montoya are class representatives of the appellant class of independent contractor truck owners and owner-operators, who contracted to transport freight for defendants and respondents Intermodal Container Services, Inc. , Intermodal Container Services, Inc. doing business as Harbor Rail Transport, Interstate Consolidation, Inc. , and Interstate Consolidation, Inc. doing business as Cartage Service. The two primary companies are Intermodal Container Service, Inc. and Interstate Consolidation Service, Inc. [FN 2] A division of Intermodal does business as Harbor Rail Transport; a division of Interstate does business as Cartage Service. Intermodal motor carriers, or trucks, are a critical link in the intermodal chain, as they are the only effective means of moving trailers or containers from marine and rail terminals. Appellants Irwin Albillo and Luis Montoya filed the operative first amended complaint on April 8, 1999, on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated individuals. The companies' founders sold their interest in Intermodal and Interstate to Pacer International in 1997, after this lawsuit was initiated.
Note:	It is unlawful for a company to enter into a contract with an independent contactor and then require the independent contractor to pay the cost of workers' compensation insurance premiums.
Citation:	114 Cal.App.4th 190
WCC Citation:	WCC 29612003 CA

Case Name:	Aldi v. Carr, McClellan, etc.		06/21/2006
Summary:	*fn2 Because of the important legal issue presented as to the meaning and application of Senate Bill (SB) 899 (Stats. )*fn3 rating schedule applies, unless one of the exceptions delineated in the third sentence of section 4660(d) is present. "Three Interpretations of Subdivision (d) of Labor Code Section 4660 "There are three possible interpretations of the second and third sentences in subdivision (d). Since the Administrative Director did not adopt the revised rating schedule until January 1, 2005, the third sentence is moot. "We do not address at this time when and how the exceptions in the third sentence of section 4660(d) apply.
Note:	Failure by the Division of Workers' Compensation to adopt a new permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS) on or before 1/1/05, as mandated by Labor Code section 4660(e), did not otherwise alter its applicability to injuries that occurred earlier than 1/1/05.
Citation:	70 CCC 783
WCC Citation:	WCC 31672006 CA

Case Name:	Alejandre v. Valleycrest Companies		09/29/2008
Summary:	Filed 9/29/08 Alejandre v. Valleycrest Companies CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR CATALINA ALEJANDRE et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. VALLEYCREST COMPANIES, Defendant and Respondent. In January 2002, defendant Valleycrest Companies (Valleycrest) took its pickup truck to a dealer because the air bag light was flashing. *fn1 About a year after these events, in March 2003, Valleycrest hired Ignacio Alejandre, Sr. In September 2004, Alejandre was driving the Valleycrest truck to a work site with other employees when a vehicle from the opposite direction crossed the center line and collided head-on with the truck.
Note:	[Unpublished] An employee's dependents may not maintain a civil action for damages where, as here, the employee is injured by the employer's deliberate failure to assure that workplace equipment is safe, and conceals the lack of safety features on that equipment.
Citation:	A120256
WCC Citation:	WCC 34312008 CA

Case Name:	Algara v. Automobile Club of Southern California		08/21/2012
Summary:	ALGARA v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JULIA ALGARA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION RAMIREZ, P. J. Julia Algara, plaintiff, was terminated from her employment at Automobile Club of Southern California (Automobile Club), after multiple extensions of her medical leave of absence. Plaintiff contacted the Palm Springs office of Automobile Club and was informed that there were openings, but that a hiring freeze was in effect. On May 3, 2011, the motion was granted by the superior court, and judgment in favor of Automobile Club was entered accordingly. She urges that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Automobile Club terminated plaintiff's employment for a non-discriminatory reason, because Automobile Club had not presented uncontroverted evidence of a "need" to fill plaintiff's position.
Note:	An office worker who was unable to return to work after more than six months of medical leave could not assert a viable disability discrimination claim against her employer based on its decision to terminate her and hire someone else to fill her position, which it had held open for 24 weeks.
Citation:	E054171
WCC Citation:	WCC 39242012 CA

Case Name:	Alhambra Comm. Hospital v. WCAB		06/21/1979
Summary:	Petitioner Alhambra Community Hospital (Alhambra Hospital), a non-profit hospital corporation, provided medical care on a 'self-procured' basis totalling $5,581. 73 in billing to Avelar for the alleged industrial condition. n7 A conference was then held, but Alhambra Hospital could not resolve its differences with Avelar and Elmore. Thus, Avelar and Elmore proposed to 'settle around' Alhambra Hospital; thereby leaving Alhambra Hospital to litigate its lien. Alhambra Hospital sought reconsideration by the WCAB on the approval of the settlement without provision being made for its lien. Since Alhambra Hospital's lien does not come within section 4903. 1, the appeals board has no authority to force Alhambra Hospital to take a reduction on its lien.
Note:	Disputed claim can be settled without satisfaction of any outstanding liens or lien claimant's consent.
Citation:	44 CCC 611
WCC Citation:	WCC 25271979 CA

Case Name:	Ali v. USA. Cab Ltd.		07/24/2009
Summary:	Ali also submitted a copy of the training manual USA Cab provided its lessees. Before entering into a lease with USA Cab, Ali leased a taxi from Ivory Cab. Ali also testified he kept no financial records and could not ascertain how much he earned while driving the USA Cab taxi. In July, without leave of court, Ali filed declarations by Hristov and two additional drivers for USA Cab, which set forth individualized claims. After his relationship with USA Cab ended in 2007, Hristov worked for two other cab companies as an independent contractor and without any employee benefits.
Note:	The declarations of 36 putative class members sufficiently shows that they plaintiffs failed to meet their burden as to the predominance of common issues.
Citation:	D052127
WCC Citation:	WCC 35472009 CA