Case Name:	Clark v. WCAB		05/09/2008
Summary:	-ooOoo- *Before Wiseman, Acting P. J. , Cornell, J. , and Kane, J. Barbara Clark petitions this court for a writ of review from an "Opinion and Orders Dismissing Petition for Reconsideration and Denying Removal" of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In December 2001, both Clark and the Hospital concurrently petitioned this court for writs of review from a November 6, 2001, WCAB opinion and order granting reconsideration. "As our court Clerk/Administrator notified Clark previously, there are no legal grounds for this court to further review a decision of the WCAB. Apparently unhappy with the order, Clark refused and instead petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration and removal of the WCJ. Clark then asks this court to annul the February 29, 2008, WCAB decision and to remand the matter to the "WCAB with instructions to use their discretionary powers and remove this case to themselves. "
Note:	[Unpublished] A writ of review only inquires into the lawfulness of the orders, decisions, and awards issued by the WCAB. A federal court's decision to declare claimant a vexatious litigant and to subject her to a pre-filing order is beyond the state appellate court's jurisdiction to review.
Citation:	F054828
WCC Citation:	WCC 33522008 CA

Case Name:	Clark v. WCAB		05/24/1991
Summary:	Mrs. Clark further testified that when Mr. Clark was ill she thought the illness might have been caused by his work for the Youth Authority. When Mr. Clark worked for the Youth Authority, he told Mrs. Clark he had to 'fire up' boilers insulated with asbestos, 'repair[] the asbestos that was [230 Cal. App. 3d 688] wrapped around the pipes,' and 'clean[] out' boilers that contained asbestos. Upon being asked when Dr. Rosen 'either told [Mrs. Clark] or told [her] husband and [her] husband then directed [Mrs. Clark] to file a claim,' Mrs. Clark testified: 'It seems to me that it was some time [sic] after my husband was first hospitalized in December of 1986. 'After Mrs. Clark answered the WCJ's question, her attorney objected on the grounds Mrs. Clark had testified Dr. Rosen told Mr. Clark to get an attorney in December 1986. The Board based this finding on the evidence that Mrs. Clark signed and read Mr. Clark's application during his life, that his application stated the injury occurred because of exposure to asbestos, that Mr. Clark was too ill to sign his application, and that Mr. Clark died three days after his application was filed.
Note:	Dependents' rights to death benefits are independent of and severable from rights of deceased employee.
Citation:	230 Cal.App.3d 684, 56 CCC 331
WCC Citation:	WCC 25201991 CA

Case Name:	Clark v. WCAB (San Joaquin Community Hosp.)		11/16/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT BARBARA CLARK, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAN JOAQUIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, et al. , Respondents. Law Offices of Dennis J. Hershewe and Dennis J. Hershewe, for Respondents San Joaquin Community Hospital and Adventist Health System -- West. (d)), this court recalls Clark worked as a registered nurse for San Joaquin Community Hospital (Hospital) when she sustained an admitted industrial injury on February 16, 1994, to her "head, jaw, teeth, neck, headaches, and psyche. "In December 2001, both Clark and the Hospital concurrently petitioned this court for writs of review from a November 6, 2001, WCAB opinion and order granting reconsideration. As our court Clerk/Administrator notified Clark previously, there are no legal grounds for this court to further review a decision of the WCAB.
Note:	[Unpublished] There are no grounds for this court to further review a decision of the WCAB.
Citation:	F054070
WCC Citation:	WCC 32792007 CA

Case Name:	Claxton v. Waters		08/30/2004
Summary:	CAROLYN CLAXTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RAY WATERS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. I From February 1995 until her resignation in September 1997, Carolyn Claxton worked as an office assistant for defendant Pacific Maritime Association (PMA). On January 16, 1998, Claxton filed a second and separate workers' compensation claim against PMA for injury to "psyche due to sexual harassment. "On September 15, 1998, Claxton filed this civil action against PMA and Waters alleging, as relevant here, sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. ). In support of that motion, Claxton submitted declarations by herself and by the attorney who had represented her in the workers' compensation proceedings.
Note:	C&R does not release civil claims unless intent of the parties clearly expressed in the document.
Citation:	Unpublished
WCC Citation:	WCC 30202004 CA

Case Name:	CNA Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Valdez)		07/22/1997
Summary:	CNA Insurance Companies, Petitioner v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board, William Lehrich, DPM, (Geni R. Valdez), Respondents. Applicant alleged that she sustained industrial injuries and her claim was denied by the carrier. The case in chief was settled by C&R for $12,000, WCAB reserving jurisdiction over disputed liens. CNA lost on reconsideration and their Petition for Writ of Review was denied. You are counseled to consult the full case for an accurate citation.
Note:	Official Medical Fee Schedule does not apply to self-procured treatment.
Citation:	62 CCC 1145 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28801997 CA

Case Name:	Co. of San Luis Obispo v. WCAB (Barnes)		10/03/2001
Summary:	Finnegan, Marks & Hampton, Ellen Sims Langille, Renee M. Bertenthal for Petitioner County of San Luis Obispo. On remand, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) awarded Barnes one section 5814 penalty for delay in making the $97. 87 penalty payment. DISCUSSION 'In considering a petition for writ of review of a decision of the WCAB, this court's authority is limited. This court must determine whether the evidence, when viewed in light of the entire record, supports the award of the WCAB. (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th 128, 139-140 (Ellison) [WCAB can consider size of a delinquency to determine whether the employer acted unreasonably]. )
Note:	$65K penalty on delayed payment $97.87 unreasonable.
Citation:	92 Cal. App. 4th 869
WCC Citation:	WCC 28172001 CA

Case Name:	Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc et al. v. WCAB and Isaac Espinosa		04/25/2011
Summary:	COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES INC. et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ISAAC ESPINOZA, Respondents. Louis A. Larres Bradford & Barthel, LLP, Counsel for Petitioners Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and Sedgwick CMS. )Section 4650, subdivision (d) provides for an automatic 10 percent penalty on a late TTD payment. (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 902, 910-912 [penalty for "failure to pay at the correct adjusted statutory rate of TTD"]; Jardine v. Workers' Comp. (1984) 163 Cal. App. 3d 1, 4-5, 7-8 [penalty for payment at permanent partial disability rate rather than permanent total disability rate]; Smith v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board miscalculated the amount of a Labor Code Section 5814 penalty by erroneously concluding that a regulation required the employer to pay maximum temporary total disability benefits unless it had documentation that showed the injured worker's actual pre-injury wages, the California 1st District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	A131011
WCC Citation:	WCC 37552011 CA

Case Name:	Code of Civil Procedure 704.160		01/01/2000
Summary:	(a) Except as provided by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4900) of Part 3 of Division 4 of the Labor Code, before payment, a claim for workers' compensation or workers' compensation awarded or adjudged is exempt without making a claim. Except as specified in subdivision (b), after payment, the award is exempt. (1) 'Judgment debtor' or 'support judgment debtor' means a person who is owing a duty of support. (2) 'Judgment creditor' or 'support judgment creditor' means the person to whom support has been ordered to be paid. (3) 'Support' refers to an obligation owing on behalf of a child, spouse, or family; or an amount owing pursuant to Section 17402 of the Family Code.
Note:	Application of temporary disability to satisfy child support award.
Citation:	CCP 704.160
WCC Citation:	WCC 28142000 CA

Case Name:	Coffman v. East Bay Municipal Utility District		09/12/2017
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             DAVID COFFMAN, Applicant, .             v. .             EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Defendant. .           Labor Code section 4662 provides that: .           "Any of the following permanent disabilities shall be conclusively presumed to be total in character: .           (a) Loss of both eyes or the sight thereof. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           MARGUERITE SWEENEY .           ICONCUR, .           FRANK M. BRASS .           I DISSENT. (SEE ATTACHED DISSENTING OPINION) .           DEIDRA E. LOWE .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           SEP 12 20'7 DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER LOWE  .           I respectfully dissent. .           DEIDRA E. LOWE, COMMISSIONER .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           SEP I' 2 2017
Note:
Citation:	ADJ3821371 (OAK 0345422)
WCC Citation:	ADJ3821371 (OAK 0345422) ADJ3491292 (OAK 0345

Case Name:	Cohen v. CDCR		12/22/2011
Summary:	*fn1 CDCR contends: 1) Cohen was not a qualified individual, because there was no evidence that her attendance would have been sufficient to meet the requirements of her job even with accommodation; and 2) CDCR provided reasonable accommodation for Cohen's disability as a matter of law. In Pope's experience working with Cohen previously, she had found Cohen to be an exceptional clinician. To relieve Cohen from walking around the yard, Cohen and Pope agreed that Pope would interview prisoners and Cohen would do the research in their charts. On May 14, 2010, the jury found that CDCR did not discriminate against Cohen on account of her disability, nor did CDCR retaliate against Cohen. However, CDCR contends that there is no substantial evidence to support the jury's findings that Cohen is a qualified individual and CDCR failed to reasonably accommodate her disability.
Note:	The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation failed to reasonably accommodate a staff psychologist's severe anemia by making her walk long distances to the areas where she had to perform her job duties, a California appellate court ruled.
Citation:	B226762
WCC Citation:	WCC 38362011 CA

Case Name:	Cohen v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center		10/28/2008
Summary:	This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. Edward Cohen, et al. , Respondents, v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, et al. , Appellants. Submitted by Matthew W. Naparty, for appellants. Corp. , 93 NY2d 914 [1999]; Melber v 6333 Main St. , 91 NY2d 759, 763-64 [1998]). to which the "extraordinary protections of Labor Law 240(1) [do not] extend" (id.
Note:	The presence of two unconnected pipes protruding from a wall was not 'the risk which brought about the need for the [ladder] in the first instance.'
Citation:	00003
WCC Citation:	WCC 34472008 CA

Case Name:	Colantuono v. Lake		03/10/2021
Summary:	Filed 3/10/21 Colantuono v. Lake CA4/2 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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO PATRICK COLANTUONO, Plaintiff and Appellant, E070592 v. (Super. Ct. No. RIC1614958) THOMAS LAKE et al. , OPINION Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION On November 10, 2014, plaintiff and appellant, Patrick Colantuono, incurred an injury when he fell off a residential roof while performing work. The motion was also accompanied by declarations from Thomas and Sandra Lake. Plaintiff also submitted excerpts from the deposition testimony of Thomas Lake.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that property owners who had hired a contractor to work on their home were shielded from liability to the contractor’s injured employee, pursuant to the Privette doctrine.
Citation:	E070592
WCC Citation:	E070592 unpublished

Case Name:	Coldiron v. Compuware; Gallagher Bassett		03/20/2002
Summary:	At that time, defendants indicated that Compuware Corporation was permissibly self-insured, by and through Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. We now understand that for the date of the injury, Compuware was insured by Reliance National Insurance, adjusted by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. , as its adjusting agent. For more than five years, this case has been proceeding with information that Compuware was self-insured and adjusted by Gallagher Bassett. For over six years, in the present case, it appears Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. [6] failed to disclose the correct entity for whom it administered applicant's claim. 3/3/99, 2/1/99, and 11/9/98 identifying the 'Carrier' as Gallagher Bassett Services for the employer Compuware Corporation.
Note:	TPA must disclose to parties and WCAB identity of client, and if a carrier anything that would affect actual liable entities. Failure = penalties.
Citation:	67 CCC 289
WCC Citation:	WCC 28472002 CA

Case Name:	Cole v. Blue Cross		05/13/2009
Summary:	Ct. No. BC359846) JEANNETTE COLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Without elaboration, the letter recommended that Cole not be assigned to the Provider Services Department and that Cole not be assigned to two specific employees. In the conversations, Cole never discussed her medical condition with anyone at WellPoint, nor did Cole refer to an accommodation that she believed was required to enable her to return to work. However, Cole had no such rights because the uncontradicted evidence showed that Cole's position had been eliminated while Cole was on leave. 10 Further, Cole contends she was entitled to preference over other employees because she was disabled. Cole sued Blue Cross of California, an affiliate of WellPoint Companies, Inc.
Note:	[Unpublished] A worker who did not contact her employer for about three years before being terminated failed to raise a triable issue of fact in her Fair Employment and Housing Act suit against her employer.
Citation:	B206872
WCC Citation:	WCC 35222009 CA

Case Name:	Coleman v. Silverberg Plumbing Co.		06/13/1968
Summary:	CAROLYN Z. COLEMAN et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SILVERBERG PLUMBING CO. , Defendant and Respondent. * Plaintiffs Carolyn Z. Coleman and Patricia L. Coleman, a minor, by her guardian ad litem, appeal from a judgment entered upon a nonsuit granted in favor of defendant Silverberg Plumbing Company, a corporation, upon plaintiffs' written opening statement. Silverberg was performing plumbing work on such houses pursuant to a written contract between LISA and Silverberg. For wrongful death of Coleman, a presumptive employee of Silverberg, whose death was caused by Silverberg's presumptive negligence. During oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel conceded, 'As far as I know there is a standard employer's workmen's compensation policy insuring the Silverberg Plumbing Company for workmen's compensation liability to employees of Silverberg Plumbing Company. '
Note:	Lack of compensation for indep. contractors is not a
Citation:	263 Cal.App.2d 74, 33 CCC 906
WCC Citation:	WCC 24361968 CA

Case Name:	Colleran v. WCAB		12/16/2010
Summary:	(W. C. A. B. Nos. . ADJ4402731 [VNO 0460581]) PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Colleran was injured on April 28, 1999, in the course of her employment with the City. On December 2, 2008, Colleran filed a request for vocational rehabilitation benefits and services at the Rehabilitation Unit. Accordingly, we do not address whether Colleran was denied due process because the Board had not considered her answer to the City's petition for reconsideration. Colleran not only knew her remedy could be abolished, she knew it would be, and on what day, four years in advance.
Note:	An employer must pay authorized vocational rehabilitation benefits even though the statute allowing those benefits was repealed because it did not file an appeal before the effective date of the repeal.
Citation:	B220878
WCC Citation:	WCC 36932010 CA

Case Name:	Collins v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.		07/11/2012
Summary:	COLLINS v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY JAMES RUSSELL COLLINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Following a collision involving two Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific or defendant) trains, Hulcher responded to the derailment site. Union Pacific also made a motion to amend the judgment to reflect a set-off of $205,195. 16 against the damage award, for the workers' compensation lien which Hulcher assigned to Union Pacific. In the present case, the jury heard testimony from both Hulcher and Union Pacific employees describing the working relationship of Hulcher employees vis-à-vis Union Pacific derailments. Hulcher seeks Union Pacific approval before bringing equipment down to the derailment site and follows Union Pacific's directions at the site.
Note:	A California appellate court has upheld a $3.9 million jury verdict against the Union Pacific Railway for a workplace accident which shattered the face of a contractor's employee.
Citation:	E051218
WCC Citation:	WCC 39132012 CA

Case Name:	Colmenares vs. Braemar Country Club		02/20/2003
Summary:	FRANCISCO COLMENARES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BRAEMAR COUNTRY CLUB, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. In 1997, defendant Braemar Country Club (Braemar) terminated plaintiff Francisco Colmenares, who had been in its employ for 25 years. In 1972, plaintiff Colmenares began working for defendant Braemar as a general laborer. In July 1997, Braemar reassigned Colmenares from supervising a course maintenance crew to supervising a clubhouse construction project that involved heavy labor. Braemar moved for summary judgment on the ground that Colmenares had no "legally cognizable disability" because his back condition did not "substantially" limit a major life activity.
Note:	Under FEHA, as contrasted with ADA, plaintiff need show only 1) physiological disease or condition affecting a body system; 2) that limits ability to engage in major life activity.
Citation:	29 Cal.4th 1019
WCC Citation:	WCC 29462003 CA

Case Name:	Colony Ins. Co. v. First Specialty Ins. Corp.		05/18/2010
Summary:	Colony Insurance Company (Colony) appeals a judgment for equitable contribution in favor of First Specialty Insurance Corporation (First Specialty) and StarNet Insurance Company (StarNet). Colony issued subcontractor Mechanical a general liability policy (the Colony policy) that contained an additional insured endorsement insuring EWB under specified terms. After the settlement with Mechanical, only First Specialty and StarNet's causes of action against Colony for equitable contribution and declaratory relief remained to be tried. Colony is mistaken in asserting that the First Specialty and StarNet policies do not contain the same "other insurance" language. Colony acknowledges in its opening brief that the amount of damages sought by First Specialty and StarNet was "a set sum. "
Note:	A general liability insurer's policy exclusion for an additional insured was too vague to allow it to escape contribution to a $1.05 million settlement emanating from an injured subcontractor's negligence suit.
Citation:	D055213
WCC Citation:	WCC 36222010 CA

Case Name:	Coltherd v. WCAB		11/19/1990
Summary:	ELSIE COLTHERD, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, LANTANA HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING et al. , Respondents; ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Claimant and Respondent. Introduction Elsie Coltherd (petitioner), the widow of employee Brian Coltherd, has petitioned this court to review a decision and order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granting claimant and respondent St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company's (St. Paul's) application for a $10,000 lien on the workers' compensation death benefits of $95,000 awarded to petitioner and her children. Petitioner petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration of the trial judge's decision and order. The WCAB concluded that it had jurisdiction to allow a lien for medical treatment provided by reason of an industrial injury. The matter is remanded to WCAB for a determination of the reasonable attorneys' fees to be awarded petitioner's attorney.
Note:	No reimbursement to carrier for uninsured motorist benefits absent specific provision in policy.
Citation:	225 Cal.App.3d 455, 55 CCC 431
WCC Citation:	WCC 25261990 CA

Case Name:	Compton v. Superior Court of LA County		03/19/2013
Summary:	COMPTON v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LEASA COMPTON Petioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC et al. , Real Parties in Interest. AMS then propounded special interrogatories on Compton, which she never answered because the district court remanded the action to state court in February 2010. After remand to the superior court, AMS propounded more discovery requests, including form and special interrogatories, document production requests, and requests for admission. According to Compton, when she applied for a job with AMS, she met with Paula Palento, who Compton believed was an administrative assistant for the company. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court discussed its earlier decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 148 (Discover Bank).
Note:	Unconscionability is a defense to the enforcement of an entire contract, or particular provisions of a contract, including agreements to arbitrate disputes.
Citation:	B236669
WCC Citation:	WCC 39932013 CA

Case Name:	Conrad v. 105 St. Assoc., LLC		10/28/2008
Summary:	Conrad v 105 St. Assoc. , LLC NY Slip Op 08180 Decided on October 28, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. 105554/04 4405A 590118/05 [*1]Richard Conrad, Plaintiff, v Street Associates, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, BFC Construction Corp. , et al. , Defendants. 105 Street Associates, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, BFC Construction Corp. , et al. , Third-Party Plaintiffs, Larry E. Knight, Inc. , et al. , Third-Party Defendants, JEM Erectors, Inc. , Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. We reject 105 Street's additional argument for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against JEM based on the latter's failure to remove debris near the opening.
Note:	That the general contractor may have assumed responsibility for erecting a barricade around the opening did not, absent contractual provision to the contrary, absolve JEM of its contractual obligation to implement adequate safety measures itself.
Citation:	4405 105554/04 4405A 590118/05
WCC Citation:	WCC 34432008 CA

Case Name:	Consolidated Structural v. SCIF, et. al.		10/21/2002
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CONSOLIDATED STRUCTURAL MATERIALS, INC. et al. ,Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. ,Defendants and Respondents. The Parks Suit In the First Amended Complaint, the Parks Suit alleged that the decedent was an employee of CSM. State Fund further agreed to "defend at our expense any claim, proceeding or suit against [CSM] for benefits payable by this insurance. "However, State Fund "ha[d] no duty to defend a claim, proceeding or suit that is not covered by this insurance. "However, State Fund did not have to defend "a claim, proceeding or suit that is not covered by this insurance. "
Note:	Coverage B does not require a defense against a civil suit where allegations fall clearly within work comp exclusive remedy.
Citation:	Unpublished
WCC Citation:	WCC 28942002 CA

Case Name:	Contemporary Services v. Staff Pro		08/05/2010
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Both appellant Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC) and respondent Staff Pro Security, Inc. (Staff Pro) provide security and event staffing services to arenas, stadiums, and similar venues in which concerts, athletic events, and trade shows are held. CSC sued Staff Pro and its President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Cory Meredith (collectively Staff Pro). Staff Pro never bid a contract with the knowledge that Staff Pro would not make a profit or that Staff Pro's bid would be below its cost. Even assuming that Staff Pro sold its services below cost whether it did so is a question of fact, [citation] CSC must prove that it [Staff Pro] did so with the express purpose of damaging or destroying competition. Assuming arguendo that Staff Pro did engage in ghost billing, the parties who suffered an "injury in fact" as a result of that practice are the venues Staff Pro ghost billed because they paid Staff Pro for services they never received.
Note:	A security staffing agency's unfair competition suit against a competitor failed because it could not prove that the defendant's alleged 'ghost billing' caused it to suffer an 'injury in fact.'
Citation:	B198981
WCC Citation:	WCC 36552010 CA

Case Name:	Continental Casualty vs. WCAB (Goodin)		04/24/2009
Summary:	Filed 4/24/09 Continental Casualty v. WCAB (Goodin) CA4/2 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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO CONTINENTAL CASUALTY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BERNADETTE GOODIN, Respondents. The workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found no apportionment to be appropriate and it is this element of the award that petitioner Continental Casualty challenges. STATEMENT OF FACTS Applicant, born in 1957, worked at a nursing home operated by petitioner's insured from November 1997 until October 2002. The symptoms progressed to the point where she could no longer work due to chronic and severe airway obstruction.
Note:	[Unpublished] WCJ can not ignore the only evidence on apportionment; if the WCJ did not feel the evidence was sufficient she should have developed the record further under LC 5701.
Citation:	E046117
WCC Citation:	WCC 35172009 CA

Case Name:	Contreras v. Jones		01/04/2011
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Monica P. Contreras met Jones in mid-May 2009, while Jones was a probationary employee with the County of Alameda (County), training to be an Eligibility Technician. After mid-July, Contreras had no further workplace contact with Jones, and the County ultimately dismissed his workplace complaint. In October 2009, Jones filed a small claims action against Contreras alleging she had defamed him during the conference about his performance. Contreras was shocked to see Jones and felt seriously threatened by the fact he had tracked her down. Several days later, Jones sent Contreras a letter stating he would dismiss his small claims case if she paid him several thousand dollars.
Note:	The 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed an Alameda County supervisor's restraining order against a subordinate employee who caused her to fear for her safety.
Citation:	A127068
WCC Citation:	WCC 36972011 CA

Case Name:	Contreras v. WCAB		01/09/2012
Summary:	CONTRERAS v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD SALVADOR CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al. , Respondents. In 2004, petitioner Salvador Contreras timely filed a petition to reopen his industrial claim at the Los Angeles district office of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In June of 2001, the WCAB ruled in favor of Contreras, awarding him a 27 percent permanent partial disability. (Rivera v. WCAB (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1124, 1133; Boehm & Associates v. WCAB (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 513, 515-516. )which request action by the [WCAB] shall be filed with the office of the [WCAB] district office where the case has been assigned for hearing .
Note:	The mistake of accidentally filing a petition to reopen at the wrong Workers' Compensation Appeals Board office should not have barred an applicant's petition to reopen.
Citation:	B233103
WCC Citation:	WCC 38432012 CA

Case Name:	Cooper v. Brannon		09/25/2012
Summary:	COOPER v. BRANNON RANDY COOPER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LARRY BRANNON et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Archer Norris, Gary A. Watt, Teresa Li; Rifenbark & Wolf, Edward O'Connor, for Defendants and Respondents Larry Brannon and Susie Brannon. Cooper contends that homeowners Larry Brannon and Susie Brannon and their company, Brannon, Inc. , dba Smith Electric, Inc. , (Smith Electric) owed a duty to protect him from falling through an unguarded attic stairwell pursuant to Cal-OSHA regulations. Cooper sued Larry and Susie Brannon and Smith Electric for negligence and premises liability. Cooper declared that on one occasion, when the owner of Dream Builders was not present, Larry Brannon directed the Dream Builders employees to retrieve siding materials from the attic.
Note:	The employee of a contractor hired to perform a house remodel was barred from suing the homeowners for their alleged failure to comply with state safety regulations for attic stairwells.
Citation:	B235309
WCC Citation:	WCC 39332012 CA

Case Name:	Cooper v. Dept. of Fire and Police Pensions LA		04/07/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE GARY D. COOPER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND POLICE PENSIONS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. Cooper knew that the Department of Pensions separately handled claims for disability pensions. In February 1992, Cooper lost consciousness while driving to work in an unmarked police car. Cooper continued to work in the Claims Validation Unit until he retired with a service pension on September 3, 1994. Cooper knew that the Department of Pensions separately handled claims for disability pensions.
Note:	In deciding whether he should file an application for a service connected disability pension, it would be unreasonable for appellant to have relied on the opinions of his supervisor and co-worker about whether he should apply for workers' compensation.
Citation:	B210610
WCC Citation:	WCC 36132010 CA

Case Name:	Corbin v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Public Works		02/24/2012
Summary:	NETTIE CORBIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, and Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Nettie Corbin appeals from the trial court's order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement filed by defendants the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Eric Russell, and Mihran Sarkisian. In September 2010, a jury trial commenced before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel. Shortly thereafter, Corbin refused to sign the written settlement agreement prepared by the City.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the terms of a settlement agreement between a municipal agency and an employee which asserted that it would not affect her pending workers' compensation claim, but required that she retire, foreclosing reinstatement as a possible remedy in her workers' compensation action.
Citation:	B230414
WCC Citation:	WCC 38612012 CA