Case Name:	Moore v. California Surety Investigations, inc., et al.		01/07/2011
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION ONE D055253 January 7, 2011 JAMES M. MOORE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. CALIFORNIA SURETY INVESTIGATIONS, INC. , ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Plaintiff James Moore injured his back while working as an investigator for defendants California Surety Investigations, Inc. (CSI) and Two Jinn, Inc. (TJ) (together Employer). Thereafter, Tipps spoke with Moore on September 6, 2007, and asked whether Moore would be interested in any job openings available at Employer's corporate headquarters in Carlsbad, California. The Lawsuit and Judgment There were no further communications between Moore and Employer until Moore served his complaint for damages. Reasonable Accommodations and the Interactive Process Reasonable Accommodation The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (§ 12900 et seq. )
Note:	An employer's efforts to find reasonable accommodations for an injured bounty hunter were thwarted by the employee refusing jobs and requesting all communications go through his attorney, California's 4th District Court of Appeals ruled in affirming a trial court's decision to throw out a discrimination suit filed under the Fair Housing and Employment Act.
Citation:	D055253
WCC Citation:	WCC 37012011 CA

Case Name:	Moore v. WCAB (Bob Longpre Pontiac)		11/13/1980
Summary:	ARTHUR MELVIN MOORE, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and BOB LONGPRE PONTIAC, et al. , Respondents. Applicant petitioned for reconsideration contending that the report of Dr. Klein did not constitute substantial evidence to support the apportionment. Absent the industrial stress, it is possible that he would have had 25% less disease and 25% less coronary atherosclerosis. The Board rescinded the findings and award filed by the WCAB Judge and substituted in lieu thereof its own findings and award. On March 24, 1980, applicant's attorney filed a petition for writ of review in the Second Appellate District.
Note:	Petition filing untimely where attorney had knowledge of Board's decision but did not file w/i statutory period.
Citation:	45 CCC 1119
WCC Citation:	WCC 27811980 CA

Case Name:	Mora v. Hollywood Bed & Springs		07/14/2008
Summary:	Salvador Mora appeals a summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Hollywood Bed & Spring (Hollywood Bed), and its president, Larry Harrow. Factual Background Hollywood Bed manufactures metal bed frames, bed rails, rollaway beds, and similar products and parts. Hollywood Bed employed Mora as a power press operator beginning in approximately February 2000. Hollywood Bed filed objections to specific items of evidence submitted by Mora. The court entered a judgment in favor of Hollywood Bed and Harrow and against Mora in March 2007.
Note:	The statutory definition of 'specifically authorized' unambiguously requires an 'affirmative instruction' by the employer. The ordinary meaning of the words 'affirmative instruction' in this context is an express directive statement, rather than an implied statement or tacit acquiescence.
Citation:	B197576
WCC Citation:	WCC 33982008 CA

Case Name:	Morales-Simental v. Genentech		10/19/2017
Summary:	.           During his deposition, Ong gave various reasons for his trip to Genentech that morning. Genentech presented evidence that all of Ong’s lead technician duties were performed at Genentech during work hours. .           Ong resided in Hayward, California and commuted to Genentech in his own vehicle. The record shows no evidence that anyone from Genentech requested that Ong drive to Genentech in the dead of night. .           We concur: .           Ruvolo, P. J. .           Rivera, J. Gisselle Morales-Simental is the daughter of the deceased, Marisol Morales.
Note:	The 1st District Court of Appeal last week ordered publication of a decision it issued last month finding an employer could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of an employee in causing a fatal car accident.
Citation:	A145865
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13678136

Case Name:	Moran v. Bradford Bldg., etc.		05/08/1992
Summary:	Procedural History Of Cases In Moran vs. Bradford Building, Inc. , Permissibly Self-Insured, et al. , LA 63401, a claim form (DWC 1) was mailed to the employer on March 13, 1990, alleging an injury '12/89 Ct in the nature of stress. 'On March 28, 1991, the presiding workers' compensation judge denied relief indicating: 'There is no statutory authority for the relief you seek. 'Carrier's attorneys sought reconsideration contending that it is within the Appeals Board's equitable powers to grant relief by dismissing the claim form. The presiding workers' compensation judge took no action on the petition for dismissal advising the parties: 'There is no provision to dismiss. 'Under the Reform Act, the filing of a claim form with the employer commences proceedings and establishes the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board.
Note:	WCAB has inherent and statutory authority to provide for dismissal of claim forms.
Citation:	57 CCC 273
WCC Citation:	WCC 3671992 CA

Case Name:	Morehouse v. WCAB		04/10/1984
Summary:	Morehouse requested preferential rehiring and was subject to recall if Goodyear reopened its Los Angeles plant. In February 1981 Morehouse filed an application for reemployment as a warehouseman in Goodyear's Los Angeles warehouse. On July 23, 1981, Bunderson telephoned Morehouse and said that if he was ready, he could go to work. In response to Bunderson's inquiry regarding Morehouse's back and knee, Morehouse said they were as good as when he was laid off. On August 12, 1981, Morehouse signed a 'Compromise Agreement and Release' (WCAB Form 15) settling his injury claim for $25,000.
Note:	Petition for 132a benefits is procedurally separate and distinct from application for ordinary benefits.
Citation:	154 Cal.App.3d 323, 49 CCC 313
WCC Citation:	WCC 27671984 CA

Case Name:	Morgan v. WCAB		10/24/1978
Summary:	JOHN T. MORGAN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF SANTA MONICA et al. , Respondents. OPINION ALLPORT, J. Petitioner John T. Morgan contends the board and the permanent disability specialist erred in the manner in which they rated the multiple factors of disability from his industrial injury. On March 29, 1977, Morgan filed a petition to reopen his claim, alleging new and further disability. Morgan renewed his objection to the rating by filing a written 'Motion to Strike Rating. 'Second, we observe that in the initial proceedings where Morgan received the 74 percent rating Morgan was rated solely for the hypertension condition.
Note:	Objection to reopen waived by failure to recon; Board must describe all disability, up to evaluator to decide MDT vs duplication.
Citation:	85 Cal.App.3d 710, 43 CCC 1116
WCC Citation:	WCC 26741978 CA

Case Name:	Morris v. County of Marin		02/03/1977
Summary:	RICHARD MORRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MARIN, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Tobriner, J. , with Wright, C. J. , Mosk and Richardson, JJ. , and Sullivan, J. , concurring. [18 Cal. 3d 904] Douglas T. Maloney, County Counsel, Allen A. Haim, Deputy County Counsel, Boornazian, King & Schulze, George King and James L. McIntosh for Defendant and Respondent. The trial court ruled in favor of the county, concluding that even if the county had failed to comply with its statutory obligation, it could not be held liable for monetary damages. In July 1972, defendant Marin County issued a building permit to Guy Cahoon authorizing construction work on a building located in Muir Beach. (See, e. g. , Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal. 2d 258, 262-263 [175 P. 2d 1]; French v. Edwards (1872) 80 U. S. (13 Wall. )
Note:	Failure of public entity to secure WC certificate of insurance from building permit applicant creates civil liability.
Citation:	18 Cal.3d 901, 42 CCC 131
WCC Citation:	WCC 24801977 CA

Case Name:	Morris v. Southern California Edison Company		02/04/2011
Summary:	NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS MORRIS v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY KENNETH MORRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Southern California Edison Company, plaintiff's former employer, is the defendant (SCE). Plaintiff Alleges Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act SCE employed plaintiff for approximately 37 years. In his complaint plaintiff alleged causes of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA, Gov. Code, 12900 et seq. ). "[T]rial error is usually deemed harmless in California unless there is a `reasonabl[e] probab[ility]' that it affected the verdict. "
Note:	A Los Angeles County Superior Court did not make any reversible errors when it ruled that Southern California Edison was not liable for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, an appellate court ruled in an unpublished decision.
Citation:	B221329
WCC Citation:	WCC 37142011 CA

Case Name:	Morton v. WCAB		07/22/1987
Summary:	RALPH W. MORTON, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LUCILLE LYDON, Respondents (Opinion by Feinerman, P. J. , with Ashby and Hastings, JJ. , concurring. )[1] The Board granted reconsideration on its own motion pursuant to Labor Code section 5900, subdivision (b). Appeals Bd. , supra, 119 Cal. App. 3d at page 643 reaffirmed the Marcus holding, noting: 'Unfortunately, the WCAB fails to understand the full reach of the Marcus decision. Labor Code section 134 requires that the WCAB proceed in contempt proceedings in the same manner as courts of record. Accordingly, the WCAB must follow the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure pertaining to contempt.
Note:	The Board, and not the WCJ is empowered to ADJUDGE contempt.
Citation:	193 Cal.App.3d 924, 52 CCC 315
WCC Citation:	WCC 3721987 CA