Case Name:	Muraoka vs. WCAB		04/28/2009
Summary:	The WCJ relied upon the July 24, 2006 report of Dr. Nagelberg to find Muraoka was permanent and stationary on July 13, 2006. Muraoka filed a Petition for Reconsideration, contending that the 1997 PDRS applied. Applying that standard, the dissent concluded that substantial evidence, including a December 2003 report of Dr. Nagelberg, substantiated his conclusion that Muraoka had sustained permanent disability. The entire medical record provides substantial evidence supporting Dr. Nagelberg's conclusion that Muraoka sustained permanent disability prior to 2005. Those records provided the history of treatment that Muraoka received in 2003 at Kaiser and at Western Hand Center.
Note:	[Unpublished] Board did not consider the entire medical record prior to 2005 to determine whether substantial medical evidence supported application of the 1997 PDRS, and that had it done so, it would have found the 1997 PDRS applicable.
Citation:	B210073
WCC Citation:	WCC 35182009 CA

Case Name:	Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.		08/23/2010
Summary:	MURRAY v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. KEVIN MURRAY, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Factual and Procedural Background Kevin Murray (Murray), a quality assurance auditor at Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska), brought safety concerns to the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which then conducted an investigation that revealed "significant discrepancies relating to air carrier safety. "The Secretary found that Murray had applied electronically for positions at other Alaska facilities and then "inexplicably removed his resume . DISSENTING OPINION BY WERDEGAR, J. Kevin Murray alleges he was wrongfully discharged by Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska). The investigation's treatment of Murray was in marked contrast: "Murray was never contacted by the Secretary [of Labor]'s investigator.
Note:
Citation:	S162570
WCC Citation:	WCC 36592010 CA

Case Name:	Myers v. WCAB (City of LA)		12/15/1969
Summary:	EMMA J. MYERS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents (Opinion by Coughlin, J. , with Brown (Gerald), P. J. , and Whelan, J. , concurring. )At issue was the contention, rejected by the referee, the city chould receive credit for pension payments by it to Myers. Primarily the question is one of interpretation of pertinent provisions of the statute and the action of the appeals board on reconsideration. award. 'Com. , 189 Cal. App. 2d 23, 27 [10 Cal. Rptr. 745], a referee made and filed findings of fact and an award.
Note:	Comp. award includes right to interest from date of filing, judgment on award entered in superior court, lien, and enforcement by execution.
Citation:	2 Cal.App.3d 621
WCC Citation:	WCC 26091969 CA

Case Name:	Myers v. WCAB (Marine Terminals)		09/20/1971
Summary:	FREDERICK N. MYERS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Taylor, J. , with Shoemaker, P. J. , and Kane, J. , concurring. )OPINION TAYLOR, J. Petitioner seeks review and annulment of a decision after remittitur issued by the WCAB. The facts disclose that petitioner was injured in the course and scope of his employment on April 14, 1964. On March 14, 1968, petitioner filed an application with the board for a determination of his permanent disability. Co. (1964) 60 Cal. 2d 816, 818 [36 Cal. Rptr. 612, 388 P. 2d 884]; Myers, supra, p. 629).
Note:	Interest runs from the date of award, not from date of reconsideration.
Citation:	20 Cal.App.3d 120
WCC Citation:	WCC 26221971 CA

Case Name:	Mykles v. Williams		03/01/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             EARL MYKLES, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             MELINDA WILLIAMS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. 34201300153684CUPNGDS) .             Plaintiff and appellant Earl Mykles sued defendants and respondents Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (Local 1000) and union representative Melinda Williams (together, defendants). .             Williams eventually negotiated a settlement for Mykles. The complaint alleges that Mykles would not have entered into the settlement agreement had Williams informed him that he could file an unfair practices charge (UPC) against SCIF with PERB. .             On December 31, 2013, Mykles filed a first amended complaint alleging, again, that Williams negligently failed to inform him of his right to file a UPC with PERB.
Note:
Citation:	C079338
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 34201300153684CUPNGDS

Case Name:	Myrick Enterp. and Employee Benefits Ins. Co. v. WCAB		03/05/1984
Summary:	Myrick Enterprises and Employee Benefits Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and Richard D. Brown et al. , Respondents. OPINION: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that Richard D. Brown sustained a permanent partial disability in the course of his employment with petitioner, Myrick Enterprises, and awarded him benefits. Myrick did not file the declaration and the judge issued his findings on December 14, 1982. The Administrative Code permits the WCAB to request the Disability Evaluation Bureau to prepare a recommended rating, based upon described disability factors and medical reports. n7 We do not reach Myrick's last contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the WCAB award.
Note:	Party need not file Declaration of Readiness to obtain hearing to cross examine disability evaluator.
Citation:	49 CCC 194
WCC Citation:	WCC 27621984 CA

Case Name:	Nabors v. Piedmont Lumber & Mill		06/09/2005
Summary:	NOTE: This case has been specifically OVERRULED in Nabors vs. WCAB (A110792, 06/08/2006) WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SRO 0122159, SRO 0113249 DANNY NABORS, Applicant, vs. PIEDMONT LUMBER & MILL COMPANY; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. In relevant part, the WCJ also found that applicant's back and lower extremities injury caused 31% permanent disability after apportionment. On May 2, 1996, applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his low back "and radiating pain to both lower extremities," while employed by Piedmont Lumber & Mill Company as a "working foreman, lumber stacker, [and] forklift driver. "During a period ending August 19, 2002, applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury to his back and lower extremities, while employed by Piedmont Lumber & Mill Company as a mill supervisor. The permanent disability directly caused by the new injury is that which took Mr. Nabors from 49% to 80%.
Note:	Apportion based on percentage, not money or weeks.
Citation:	70 CCC 856
WCC Citation:	WCC 31012005 CA

Case Name:	Nabors v. WCAB		06/08/2006
Summary:	Nabors challenges the Board's permanent disability apportionment formula. Not surprisingly, Nabors asks us to reject the Board's majority opinion, and adopt that of Commissioner Caplane. 1544-1547), and the en banc decision in Nabors (id. Dykes obtained his original award in November 2004 (Dykes, supra, 134 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1541); Nabors obtained his the following month. Nabors petitioned this court for writ of review in July 2005, which we granted in October.
Note:	'Formula C' which requires dollar value of previous award subtracted from dollar value of total current permanent disability, is correct method for calculating apportionment.
Citation:	140 Cal. App. 4th 217
WCC Citation:	WCC 31632006 CA

Case Name:	National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group Inc.		02/11/2009
Summary:	Ct. No. RG07315658)                 Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National) provided excess insurance to the workers' compensation program of the Bank of America (Bank), which was administered by defendant Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (Cambridge). Because Cambridge had authorized payment for the surgery, the Bank and National were obligated to pay the expenses associated with its consequences. The first cause of action alleged that Cambridge breached the Cambridge contract by mishandling the Metter claim and that National was subrogated to the Bank's right of recovery against Cambridge for that breach. In addition, it altered the basis of the negligent misrepresentation claim, alleging misrepresentation to the Bank rather than directly to National. The Merits           National may pursue a cause of action for negligence against Cambridge only if, under the circumstances alleged, Cambridge owed a duty of care to National.
Note:	A third-party administrator owed a duty of care to let a bank's excess insurer know the circumstances of a costly claim it allegedly mishandled.
Citation:	A120072
WCC Citation:	WCC 34912009 CA

Case Name:	Navarro v. A&A Farming; Western Growers		02/13/2002
Summary:	Alonso Navarrro, applicant, vs. A&A Farming, Western Growers Insurance Co. , defendants; Case Nos. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Const. . , N. A. , Inc. (Dillingham) (1997) 519 U. S. 316, 324 [117 S. Ct. 832, 136 L. Ed. 2d 791]. )(Travelers, supra, 514 U. S. at [quoting from Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (Alessi) (1981) 451 U. S. 503, 523 [ 101 S. Ct. 1895, 68 L. Ed. 2d 4021. )was to avoid a multiplicity of regulation in order to permit the nationally uniform administration of employee benefit plans. Here, the WCJ's Opinion on Decision stated [t]he facts show that [the Western Growers Assurance Trust] .
Note:	ERISA preempts LC 132a.
Citation:	67 CCC 145
WCC Citation:	WCC 28392002 CA