Case Name:	Flahavan v. SCIF		09/01/2011
Summary:	FLAHAVAN v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND WILLIAM FRANCIS FLAHAVAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. On February 16, 2006, Flahavan filed a first amended class action complaint for breach of contract, breach of trust, and a violation of the UCL (Bus. Flahavan filed a motion for summary adjudication and the State Fund filed a second motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication. Flahavan filed two motions for summary adjudication and the State Fund filed a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Flahavan has waived mounting any challenge to the lower court's ruling on his UCL claim.
Note:	State Fund has no obligation to pay its policyholders interest on deposit premiums, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled in an unpublished decision.
Citation:	A128280
WCC Citation:	WCC 37972011 CA

Case Name:	Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. v. WCAB (Moody)		12/16/2005
Summary:	We conclude that they did not and that applicant's employer, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. , is not obliged to provide workers' compensation benefits with respect to the accident. Applicant was employed by Fleetwood as a design manager, and at the time of the accident had worked for Fleetwood for about 30 years. During the trip, applicant used an American Express card in his name, but which was actually a Fleetwood business card. These expenses were primarily funded through Fleetwood's group health program rather than workers' compensation, although Fleetwood apparently directly paid some of the extraordinary expenses and care upgrades. However, it is clear that the medical care was paid either by Fleetwood's company health insurance carrier, or by Fleetwood itself.
Note:	Injury sustained while on pleasure trip is not compensable under the going and coming rule.
Citation:	134 Cal. App. 4th 1316
WCC Citation:	WCC 31322005 CA

Case Name:	Flethez v. San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Association		03/02/2017
Summary:	.             S226779 .             Ct. App. 4/1 D066959 .             San Bernardino County Super. Ct. No. CIVDS 1212542 .             In this action for a writ of mandamus, the superior court determined that San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Association (SBCERA) wrongfully denied Frank Flethez the correct starting date for his disability retirement allowance. A county%u201Fs retirement system is administered by a county retirement board, under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937. The Flethez Matter5  .           In 1990, Flethez became an employee of San Bernardino County (County). In addition to the briefs of the parties, we have received an amicus curiae brief from the Alameda County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, Kern County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, Los Angeles County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, Marin County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, Sacramento County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, San Joaquin County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, Tulare County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, and Ventura County Employees%u201F Retirement Association.
Note:
Citation:	S226779
WCC Citation:	San Bernardino County Super. Ct. No. CIVDS 12

Case Name:	Flores v. Prime Time Products		10/20/2008
Summary:	Plaintiff Adolfo Flores appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award in his unlawful discrimination and wrongful termination action against defendants Prime Time Products, Inc. , Mainland Products, Inc. , Dan Hammond, and John Hammond (together Defendants). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND*fn1 In 1996 Flores became employed by Prime Time Products, Inc. (PT) as its general manager of manufacturing operations. However, after commencement of the litigation, [Flores], under oath, identified the handbooks [e. g. , Manual] as 'implied contracts' between [Flores] and [Defendants]. The arbitrator concluded: "$15,000 is awarded [to Flores] for the retaliation and discrimination claims because damages have been substantially mitigated. "Its case heading correctly identified Flores as the plaintiff and "Prime Time Products, Inc. , et al. " as the defendants.
Note:	[Unpublished] Policy #293 was a contract of adhesion and oppressive.
Citation:	D052205
WCC Citation:	WCC 34372008 CA

Case Name:	Flores v. WCAB		04/11/1974
Summary:	FERNANDO G. FLORES, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ART FALCON et al. , Respondents In Bank. Because the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reached a contrary conclusion in this case, we annul that decision and remand the matter to the board. The applicant, Fernando Flores, suffered an industrial injury while employed by Art Falcon. Prior to 1971, a worker who was injured while working for an uninsured employer was given the right both to seek compensation before the WCAB and to institute a civil suit for damages. 3 When a worker chose to proceed before the WCAB, Labor Code sections 4554 and 4555 fn.
Note:	The obligation of Uninsured Employers Fund is same as uninsured employer
Citation:	11 Cal.3d 171, 39 CCC 289
WCC Citation:	WCC 24111974 CA

Case Name:	Flowmaster, Inc. v. Superior Court		06/23/1993
Summary:	FLOWMASTER, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, Respondent; DONALD VON DOHLEN, Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Sonoma County, No. 197871, Arnold D. Rosenfield, Judge. )(Award Metals, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1128, 1132 [279 Cal. Rptr. Bell v. Industrial Vangas, Inc. , supra, 30 Cal. 3d at p. 277; Watters Associates v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal. App. 3d 1341, 1346 [278 Cal. Rptr. Behrens v. Fayette Manufacturing Co. , supra, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1567, 1574-1575; Watters Associates v. Superior Court, supra, 227 Cal. App. 3d at p.
Note:	Explaining liability of employer when it manufactures its own presses.
Citation:	16 Cal.App.4th 1019, 58 CCC 333
WCC Citation:	WCC 24221993 CA

Case Name:	Foodmaker, Inc. v. WCAB		10/06/1998
Summary:	On June 12, 1996, the Rehabilitation Unit found in favor of Ortega-Ruiz and ordered Foodmaker to commence vocational rehabilitation. On July 9, 1997, Judge Gentile issued findings of fact and an opinion on decision, ruling in favor of Ortega-Ruiz. expressly confers benefits on illegal immigrants: The act defines employee as every person in the service of an employer . On August 29, 1997, the Board issued an opinion and order, adopting Judge Gentile s recommendation in a 2-1 vote. An award of workers compensation benefits should be annulled if the Board has acted in excess of its powers.
Note:	No voc. rehab. where more costly for illegal immigrant than legal under Equal Protection.
Citation:	78 Cal.Rptr.2d 767, 63 CCC 1222
WCC Citation:	WCC 24611998 CA

Case Name:	Ford Construction Co. v. WCAB (Newell)		09/17/2010
Summary:	While he attempted to place a large ripper shank into the tool pocket of a Caterpillar bulldozer, the ripper shank fell, killing Dennis Newell, an employee of petitioner Ford Construction Company, Inc. (Ford). Ford filed a petition for reconsideration with respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), which the WCAB denied. Nelson concluded Ford violated Safety Order 4999, subdivision (b)(1) because the load was not attached by an effective means and properly rigged. The administrative law judge dismissed the citations against Ford for the serious violations, finding them unsupported by the evidence. In the present case, the WCAB reviewed the evidence and concluded it supported a finding of serious and willful misconduct by Ford.
Note:	Substantial evidence showed that an employer did not commit serious and willful misconduct that resulted in a worker's death, the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	C061176
WCC Citation:	WCC 36702010 CA

Case Name:	Ford v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory		01/27/1997
Summary:	Charles Ford, Applicant v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Defendant. W. C. A. B. No. WCK 13904 Workers Compensation Appeals Board CCC 153 January 27, 1997 DISPOSITION: The Findings and Award dated May 3, 1996 are amended, in part, and affirmed, in part. Thereafter, defendant attempted to schedule a medical examination by another orthopedist, under purported authority of Labor Code section 4050. She therefore 'interpret[ed] applicant's filing of the application as being done constructively on the part of the defendant. 'The Board decision left open the possibility that further evaluation might be proper under Labor Code section 5703. 5(a). AMENDED AWARD AWARD IS MADE in favor of CHARLES FORD against LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORY as follows: (a) Permanent disability indemnity in accordance with Finding of Fact number 5, less attorney's fees in accordance with Finding of Fact number 9, (b) Future medical treatment in accordance with Finding of Fact number 6, (c) Increased compensation (10% penalty) in accordance with Finding of Fact number 7.
Note:	No 'constructive' filing of applic. for adjudication by employee for employer liability for atty. fees.
Citation:	62 CCC 153
WCC Citation:	WCC 25641997 CA

Case Name:	Ford v. WCAB (Hernandez)		10/06/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             PEARSON FORD et al. , Petitioners, .             v. .             WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; .             LEOPOLDO HERNANDEZ, Real Party in Interest. .             D070915 .             (WCAB No. ADJ4081602) .             Petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Code, § 5952; Garza v. WCAB (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 312, 317; LeVesque v. WCAB (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 627, 637. ).           The WCJ's determination Hernandez met the second requirement is also vigorously disputed by Pearson Ford. .           As the WCAB points out the AMA Guides are not meant to be a "rigid and standardized protocol .
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a worker convicted of comp fraud was still entitled to collect benefits for a legitimate injury.
Citation:	D070915
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ4081602

Case Name:	Fortich v. WCAB		09/09/1991
Summary:	JOSEPH FORTICH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, KTLA GOLDEN WEST BROADCASTING et al. , Respondents. At the time of the injury, KTLA was insured by respondent Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau). Wausau orally moved for dismissal, and the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) denied Wausau's motion without prejudice. Judge of the Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. The Board later understood this language to mean: 'Sixty days was given to defendant to file a Petition for Dismissal. '
Note:	Lack of notice of intention to order dismissal deprives applicant of due process.
Citation:	233 Cal.App.3d 1449, 56 CCC 537
WCC Citation:	WCC 27201991 CA

Case Name:	Forzetting v. WCAB		06/18/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DOUGLAS FORZETTING, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, OCEANO ICE COMPANY et al. , Respondents. While working as a forklift operator for Oceano Ice Company, Douglas Forzetting industrially injured his back on November 19, 1999, and again on January 27, 2000. Forzetting petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that these PD ratings should have been combined (merged) under Wilkinson v. Workers' Comp. In this case, Forzetting would receive $55,330 if his awards remained separate, but $98,095 if the awards were combined. Forzetting contends that the decisions in Brodie and Benson are unconstitutional because SB 899 did not explicitly repudiate Wilkinson.
Note:	[Unpublished] Each injury must be separately apportioned for cause under sections 4663 and 4664, and PD awards may not be combined.
Citation:	B209323
WCC Citation:	WCC 35352009 CA

Case Name:	Foster v. WCAB		04/17/2008
Summary:	A workers' compensation judge (WCJ) concluded Foster was entitled to two periods of temporary disability indemnity under section 4656(c)(1) for his injuries. The WCAB agreed that Foster was entitled to two periods of temporary disability, but disagreed that the periods should run consecutively. In subsequent workers' compensation proceedings, the WCJ determined that Foster was entitled to two periods of temporary disability benefits. According to the WCAB, the WCJ properly concluded Foster was entitled to two periods of temporary disability indemnity pursuant to section 4656(c)(1) because he suffered two injuries. The WCAB also agreed with the WCJ that Foster could not receive temporary disability indemnity concurrently for both injuries "in the sense that [Foster] cannot collect double benefits. "
Note:	Where independent injuries result in concurrent periods of temporary disability, the 104-week / two-year limitation likewise runs concurrently.
Citation:	C056820
WCC Citation:	WCC 33452008 CA

Case Name:	Fotheringham v. Avery Denison Corp.		02/13/2013
Summary:	FOTHERINGHAM v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION SILVANA FOTHERINGHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The litigation between Fotheringham and Avery Dennison has consumed more than a decade. FOTHERINGHAM v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION SILVANA FOTHERINGHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. FOTHERINGHAM v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION SILVANA FOTHERINGHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. FOTHERINGHAM v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION SILVANA FOTHERINGHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.
Note:	A worker whose disability discrimination allegations against her former employer spawned litigation lasting more than a decade has lost her challenge to the attorney fee and cost award she received for prevailing at the second of the two trials on her claims.
Citation:	B238282
WCC Citation:	WCC 39862013 CA

Case Name:	Fotheringham v. Avery Dennison		03/19/2008
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Pre-Litigation Background Silvana Fotheringham was a representative in Avery Dennison's Consumer Call Service Center, where she answered consumer inquiries about Avery Dennison products. Breakdown of the Interactive Process Avery Dennison contends that Fotheringham caused the breakdown in the interactive process because after her attorney wrote the November 27 letter to Avery Dennison, Avery Dennison "offered to sit down and discuss the issues with [counsel]," but "nothing else happened. "What Avery Dennison neglects to mention is that its letter offering to discuss the employment issues came after Avery Dennison had told Fotheringham that she no longer had a job. Whether in 1999 Avery Dennison tried to mislead the DFEH with the date on a job analysis, if this is what Fotheringham could prove, is not relevant to whether Avery Dennison properly accommodated Fotheringham's disability. Fotheringham also contends that because Avery Dennison's insurer made the workers' compensation payments and there was no evidence that the insurer had assigned collection rights to Avery Dennison, Avery Dennison was not entitled to the offset for the workers' compensation settlement.
Note:	[Unpublished] It was up to Fotheringham to demonstrate that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether Avery Dennison terminated her employment in retaliation for engaging an attorney to represent her and seek accommodations. Fotheringham met that burden. She produced evidence that Avery Dennison fired her the day after it received her attorney's letter requesting accommodations.
Citation:	B187949
WCC Citation:	WCC 33282008 CA

Case Name:	Fotheringham v. Avery Dennison Corporation		03/22/2011
Summary:	FOTHERINGHAM v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION SILVANA FOTHERINGHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ZELON, J. Silvana Fotheringham sued her former employer, Avery Dennison Corporation, and a jury found that Avery Dennison failed to accommodate her disability. "Silvana Fotheringham was a representative in Avery Dennison's Consumer Call Service Center, where she answered consumer inquiries about Avery Dennison products. Whether in 1999 Avery Dennison tried to mislead the DFEH with the date on a job analysis, if this is what Fotheringham could prove, is not relevant to whether Avery Dennison properly accommodated Fotheringham's disability. A review of the opposition papers filed by Avery Dennison demonstrates that Avery Dennison raised numerous arguments concerning the reasonableness of the fees requested by Fotheringham.
Note:	A plaintiff worker who proved that her employer failed to accommodate her disability, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, is entitled to more than $474,000 in attorney fees and costs in addition to her $54,000 damages award.
Citation:	B217757
WCC Citation:	WCC 37362011 CA

Case Name:	Francies v. Kapla		03/30/2005
Summary:	Francies was diagnosed as HIV positive shortly after Kapla became his primary care physician in 1993. Kapla testified that although he continued to treat Francies for two months after the disclosure and knew that Francies was upset that his employer had learned of his HIV status, Kapla did not know that the report had been faxed to the restaurant until after Francies filed this lawsuit. Kapla contends Francies is precluded from asserting a cause of action based on the first report because the report is a privileged communication under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). Kapla contends Francies did not meet his burden of proof because "(1) neither Dr. Kapla nor Janet Blair intentionally disclosed that Francies was HIV-positive; (2) there was no egregious breach of social norms; (3) there was no public disclosure of private facts; (4) Francies consented to the disclosure; and (5) Francies did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. "*fn10 Kapla points out correctly that Francies did not raise his other arguments concerning the calculation of recoverable damages in the trial court.
Note:	Filing of work comp claim does not amount to consent to disclosure of HIV status.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 1381
WCC Citation:	WCC 30882005 CA

Case Name:	FRANCISCO GONZALEZ v. JOSE SOARES, as Trustee, etc., et al., unpublished		02/10/2021
Summary:	When a party completely fails to plead an affirmative defense in its answer, it is deemed to have waived the defense. insured Jose Soares dba Jose Soares Dairy, but did not insure the others listed. Jose, Teresa, and Avila met with the broker, and Jose and Teresa chose the coverage to buy. In this case, plaintiff was employed by Jose and Teresa, a married couple who owned and operated the dairy known as Jose Soares Dairy. The parties stipulated that Jose and Teresa were the sole trustees of the J&T Soares 2006 Trust, a revocable living trust.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation law barred a dairy worker’s claim for damages for injuries he sustained when his employer-provided home caught fire.
Citation:	NO. F077672
WCC Citation:	NO. F077672

Case Name:	Francisco Gonzalez vs Jose Soares		02/10/2021
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this action against “Jose Soares, individually and dba Joe D. Soares and Jose D. Soares Dairy; Teresa Soares; J&T Soares 2006 Trust;” and Does. By later amendment, he identified two of the Doe defendants as Jose D. Soares as trustee for the J&T Soares 2006 Trust and Teresa Soares as trustee for the J&T Soares 2006 Trust. The parties also stipulated that: As a result of his injuries, plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim against Jose Soares Dairy, Jose Soares dba Jose Soares Dairy, Teresa Soares, and Jose D. Soares Dairy; plaintiff’s injuries were sustained while he was in the course and scope of his employment with Jose and Teresa; the only policy of workers’ compensation insurance in effect at the time was a policy with Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith); and Zenith filed a notice of lien in this civil action, asserting a lien on any settlement or judgment in favor of plaintiff and against anyone other than Jose Soares dba Jose Soares Dairy. The first amended application for adjudication of claim named Jose Soares Dairy, Jose Soares, individually and dba Jose Soares Dairy, Teresa Soares, and Jose and Teresa Soares Dairy, as plaintiff’s employer; it identified Zenith as the insurer. insured Jose Soares dba Jose Soares Dairy, but did not insure the others listed.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation law barred a dairy worker’s claim for damages for injuries he sustained when his employer-provided home caught fire.
Citation:	F077672
WCC Citation:	F077672

Case Name:	Franczak v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.		05/24/1977
Summary:	JOSEF FRANCZAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Mosk, J. , with Tobriner, Acting C. J. , Sullivan, J. , and Lillie, J. , concurring. We conclude that under the plain language of section 5806 of the Labor Code, the court does have such jurisdiction. Each of the awards contained an order that it was to be paid 'with interest as provided by law. 'Although defendant paid plaintiffs an amount equal to the principal sum of each award, it failed to pay the interest thereon. Franczak was awarded $1,485 by the board on April 22, 1965, but defendant did not pay that sum until April 27, thereby incurring $1. 44 in interest payments.
Note:	Superior court had jurisdiction to enforce interest awarded by WCAB.
Citation:	19 Cal.3d 481, 42 CCC 422
WCC Citation:	WCC 26061977 CA

Case Name:	Frank D. Brown v. Desert Christian Center		03/17/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT F060139 March 17, 2011 FRANK D. BROWN, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. DESERT CHRISTIAN CENTER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OPINION In this personal injury case, defendant Desert Christian Center was successful in proving its affirmative defense that the injuries alleged by plaintiff Frank D. Brown were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the workers' compensation system. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court had jurisdiction to award costs under the particular circumstances of this case. The total amount of costs claimed in the memorandum was $7,909. 88, the majority of which consisted of deposition costs. The trial court agreed that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs and granted the motion to strike the memorandum of costs.
Note:	A trial court had jurisdiction to award a defendant employer $7,910 in costs it incurred while defending against an employee's civil suit.
Citation:	F060139
WCC Citation:	WCC 37302011 CA

Case Name:	Fred T. Hines v. New United Motors Mfg.		04/30/2001
Summary:	Fred T. Hines, Applicant v. New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. , Great American Risk Management, Defendants W. C. A. B. Nos. Such an award coupled with section 4600 entitles the injured worker to reasonable changes of treating physicians. BACKGROUND Applicant sustained industrial injury to his lower back while employed as a truck conveyer worker on August 18, 1998. On June 29, 2000, Dr. Bernfeld reported that applicant requested chiropractic care and evaluation for his work-related low back injury. The WCJ found that applicant was entitled to the further medical treatment recommended by his newly selected treating physician, Dr. Bernfeld.
Note:	If existing award for treatment, employee does NOT need to follow 4061/4062 for new physician.
Citation:	66 CCC 478 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28152001 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Comp Ins Co vs. Sierra Pine, Ltd.		08/04/2004
Summary:	FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SIERRA PINE, LTD. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Fremont paid Nesmith $125,000 in death benefits pursuant to a Board order, and is obligated for other amounts, such as burial expenses. Code, § 3503), was his actual dependent and would have been entitled to benefits even had they never been married. Because a subrogee stands in the shoes of the subrogor, they argued Fremont had no standing to sue to recoup the benefits. If for some reason he chose not to sue them, Fremont "likewise" could have sued defendants to recoup its payments.
Note:	Carrier has subrogation rights independent of work comp beneficiary.
Citation:	121 Cal. App. 4th 389
WCC Citation:	WCC 30182004 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		03/31/1980
Summary:	FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EMELDA ROCHA; and DOMESTIC LAUNDRY & CLEANING COMPANY, Respondents. OPINION: Petitioner Fremont Indemnity Company (Fremont) contends that respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) has erred in finding Fremont was the workers' compensation insurance carrier for respondent Domestic Laundry & Cleaning Company (Domestic) on March 1, 1977, when Domestic's employee, respondent Emelda Rocha, claims she sustained an industrial injury. Fremont avers the deposition of Henderson is important as therein Henderson testifies concerning the cancellation of Domestic's policy with Fremont. Fremont asserted (1) substantial evidence did not support the findings of coverage by Fremont on the date of injury, and (2) the WCJ failed to comply with Labor Code section 5313. Fremont asserts that the WCJ's report was not served upon Fremont or its counsel as required by WCAB Rules section 10860.
Note:	WCJ's failure to specify reasoning in decision deprives party of meaningful right to petition for recon.; WCJ's Notice of Intention was not sufficient for proper service.
Citation:	45 CCC 391
WCC Citation:	WCC 27361980 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		03/29/1984
Summary:	FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and HENRY H. ZEPEDA, Respondents. OPINION DANIELSON, J. Petitioner Fremont Indemnity Company petitions for review and annulment of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals [153 Cal. App. 3d 968] Board (Board) finding that the applicant sustained an injury to the right hip. Facts Applicant and respondent Henry H. Zepeda (applicant) filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging industrial injury to his back and right leg on March 18, 1976, against Service Greeting Card Company and its insurer Fremont Indemnity. Petitioner, insurance carrier Fremont Indemnity, contested injury to the right hip. Said reports . . . have been stricken due [153 Cal. App. 3d 969] to counsel for Fremont Indemnity Company's objection to the indicated communication and because the record was complete without them. '
Note:	Judge's two phone calls to independent medical examiner denied parties a fair trial.
Citation:	153 Cal.App.3d 965, 49 CCC 288
WCC Citation:	WCC 27971984 CA

Case Name:	French Valley Aviation, Inc. v. Superior Court of Riverside County		10/17/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO No. E046169 October 17, 2008 FRENCH VALLEY AVIATION, INC. , PETITIONER, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, RESPONDENT; AIR PETRO CORP. , REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. The opinion of the court was delivered by: McKINSTER Acting P. J. McKaye himself answered interrogatories indicating ATW was his employer, although in a deposition he stated that both entities were employers. The Supreme Court noted as an additional factor that the worker believed his employment relationship was with the maintenance company. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to set aside its order denying FVA's motion for summary judgment and to issue a new order granting the motion.
Note:	[Unpublished] Under Labor Code section 3864 real party in interest is barred from seeking contribution or indemnity from employer.
Citation:	E046169
WCC Citation:	WCC 34362008 CA

Case Name:	Fresno Unif. School Dist. v. WCAB		11/22/2000
Summary:	* ] FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DANIEL HUMPHREY, Respondents. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW Respondent Daniel Humphrey was employed as a custodian for petitioner Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) between September 15, 1982, and August 20, 1997. FUSD filed a timely petition for reconsideration with the WCAB on December 9, 1999. Although FUSD argues that all three apply in this instance, the WCJ and WCAB found that none do. (Dills v. Redwoods Assocs. , Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 888, 890, fn. 1. ) DISPOSITION The judgment (order) of the WCAB is affirmed.
Note:	Unrelated noncompensable injury means a disabling event which, had it been work-related, would be compensable under the worker's compensation laws; Apportionment requires pre-existing labor disability.
Citation:	84 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 65 CCC 1232
WCC Citation:	WCC 4042000 CA

Case Name:	Fruehauf Corp. v. WCAB		07/13/1967
Summary:	FRUEHAUF CORPORATION et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and THOMAS C. STANSBURY, Respondents. OPINION MOSK, J. Petitioners, Fruehauf Corporation and its insurance carrier, seek review of a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter board) awarding compensation to Thomas C. Stansbury, an employee who suffered an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of his employment by Fruehauf. Stansbury was employed by Fruehauf from July 21, 1962 to July 5, 1964, as an assembler. It persisted while he was at home and when he was in bed at night, as well as at work. He did not work for Fruehauf after July 2, 1964.
Note:	Statute of limitations begins on date of last exposure for cumulative injuries.
Citation:	68 Cal.2d 569, 33 CCC 300
WCC Citation:	WCC 25301967 CA

Case Name:	Fuentes v. WCAB		02/02/1976
Summary:	JOHN FUENTES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, PACIFIC STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al. , Respondents In Bank. However, in 1971 the Legislature amended section 4658, establishing a different method for computing the number of weekly benefits to be awarded. From this figure is subtracted the dollar value (§ 6,422. 50) of the 24. 25 percent of the noncompensable, nonindustrial disability. [16 Cal. 3d 6] [1a] We have concluded that formula A is the proper one, and accordingly affirm the decision of the Board. As we have previously noted, the purpose of that statute is to encourage employers to hire physically handicapped persons.
Note:	4658 is limited by 4750 only where employee had preexisiting disability.
Citation:	16 Cal.3d 1, 41 CCC 42
WCC Citation:	WCC 25101976 CA

Case Name:	Fuller v. County of Los Angeles		01/22/2013
Summary:	FULLER v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DOUGLAS FULLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. PERLUSS, P. J. Douglas Fuller, a former firefighter trainee with the Los Angeles County Fire Department, appeals the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County of Los Angeles and County employees Dave Saran and Pitt Gilmore (collectively the County defendants) on Fuller's claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation and related torts. Under County Civil Service Rules, either termination was sufficient by itself to disqualify Fuller from employment with the County Fire Department. On March 17, 2007 the Board of Supervisors denied the claims on the merits, informing Fuller its investigation of the matter "fail[ed] to indicate any liability on the part of the County of Los Angeles. "Fuller's Lawsuit On April 25, 2007 Fuller filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court asserting claims for (1) violation of his federal civil rights (42 U. S. C. § 1983) (against County only); (2) interference with prospective economic advantage (against County and Saran); (3) retaliatory conduct in violation of Los Angeles County Code section 5. 02. 060 and Labor Code section 1102. 5 (against County, Saran and Gilmore); and intentional infliction of emotional distress (against County, Saran and Gilmore).
Note:	A California appellate court has rejected a former firefighter trainee's claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation and related torts based on the conduct of the fire department and its officials after he boiled his foot during a training exercise.
Citation:	B228815
WCC Citation:	WCC 39742013 CA

Case Name:	Furtado v. State Personnel Board		01/07/2013
Summary:	FURTADO v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD BRUCE FURTADO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Alvin Gittisriboongul for Defendants and Respondents California State Personnel Board and Suzanne Ambrose. INTRODUCTION Bruce Furtado appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate directing the California State Personnel Board (SPB) to set aside its order sustaining the decision of California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) to medically demote Furtado to a non-peace officer position, and not to place Furtado in a newly-created administrative correctional lieutenant peace officer position. The instructor who tested Furtado concluded that Furtado had failed multiple aspects of the test. The instructor gave Furtado an overall rating of "Fail," and noted that Furtado had "very little control over [the] baton when both hands [were] required. "
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to medically demote an injured guard to a non-peace officer position as a result of his physical limitations from an off-duty car accident.
Citation:	D059912
WCC Citation:	WCC 39712013 CA

Case Name:	Gaiera v. WCAB		03/28/1969
Summary:	EMILIO GAIERA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ROSALIE GAIERA et al. , Respondents. We have concluded that when the appeals board denies a petition for reconsideration, its order may incorporate and include therein the report of the referee. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753 [68 Cal. Rptr. 825, 441 P. 2d 633], wherein the appeals board issued its order granting reconsideration. Dr. Gaiera, the son of petitioner, stated that petitioner's 'major complaint is irremediable. '[4] The referee's instructions to the Permanent Disability Rating Bureau are, in effect, findings of fact on these issues.
Note:	Selection of factors for disability rating and percentage are sole discretion of WCAB.
Citation:	271 Cal.App.2d 246, 34 CCC 182
WCC Citation:	WCC 25381969 CA

Case Name:	Gallamore v. WCAB		03/26/1979
Summary:	JIM D. GALLAMORE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAN RAMON GLASS COMPANY et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Richardson, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Carrier did not inform applicant of his right to reimbursement for any transportation expenses related to necessary medical examinations. Applicant's attorney advised carrier in late August 1976 that such payments should be made "to avoid the possibility of a penalty. "Thus, as of September 1976, applicant had sought three separate 10 percent penalties pursuant to the two petitions then pending before the board. The question of delay and the reasonableness of the cause therefor shall be determined by the appeals board in accordance with the facts.
Note:	Multiple penalties proper for multiple delinquencies in benefits.
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 815
WCC Citation:	WCC 28731979 CA

Case Name:	Gallo v. WCAB		10/31/2007
Summary:	The WCJ admittedly declined to consider new medical evidence proffered by Gallo at trial after discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference and concluded Gallo did not sustain any additional industrial injuries. Gallo petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration on April 19, 2007, primarily contending the WCJ refused to consider his medical evidence. The WCAB's order indicates the WCAB served Gallo by mail at his current post office box. On May 29, 2007, Gallo wrote a "To Whom it May Concern" letter to the WCAB stating he "received a letter of order denying reconsideration. "There is no indication Gallo petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration on the supplemental award.
Note:	[Unpublished] When a party fails to seek review within the time allotted, both the WCAB and the court is without jurisdiction to hear future challenges to the decision.
Citation:	F053819
WCC Citation:	WCC 32752007 CA

Case Name:	Galloway v. WCAB		05/05/1998
Summary:	Galloway selected Dr. John Kayvanfar as the qualified medical examiner to examine him and evaluate his status following the surgery. Insurer objected to the preliminary rating report in that Galloway had made no claim for a neck injury. As a result, a rating was made by the disability evaluation unit, a copy of which was sent to Galloway. On March 29 and April 1, 1993, Galloway, who was not represented by counsel, telephoned Insurer to discuss his status. In reversing that decision, the WCAB found that Galloway knew or should have known by at least April 1, 1993, making the claim untimely.
Note:	Failure to notify applicant of time limits for filing injury comp. claim tolled statute of limitations.
Citation:	63 Cal.App.4th 880, 63 CCC 532
WCC Citation:	WCC 3751998 CA

Case Name:	Galt v. WCAB		09/21/2007
Summary:	Filed 9/21/07 City of Galt v. WCAB (Ramos) CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) CITY OF GALT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CONCEPCION RAMOS, Respondents. As we will explain, we agree with petitioner City of Galt (the city) that the WCJ used the wrong schedule. While that petition was pending, the WCAB (sitting en banc) decided Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 95. The three dissenting members of the WCAB concluded that the "plain language" of sections 4061 and 4660(d) required a different result.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because a medical report submitted by the plaintiff did not contain an indication of permanent disability, the 2005 schedule applies.
Citation:	C055118, SAC327100
WCC Citation:	WCC 32602007 CA

Case Name:	Galvan v. WCAB		12/20/1990
Summary:	Marcus Galvan, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, and Ford Motor Company, Respondents. Accordingly, we will annul respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision in this case. Facts and Procedural History Petitioner Marcus Galvan (employee) was employed as a paint mixer by respondent Ford Motor Company (Ford) when the plant closed on July 15, 1983. 1990) 569 A. 2d 697; Dugan v. W. C. A. B. (Fuller Co. ) (Pa. Comwlth. We agree with the board's assessment that MacDonald is distinguishable from the case at bar based on this factual finding. These factual findings will determine whether employee became entitled to receive temporary disability indemnity after his decision to retire.
Note:	Receiving voluntary retirement benefits does not terminate right to disability indemnity.
Citation:	55 CCC 483
WCC Citation:	WCC 24871990 CA

Case Name:	Galvao v. WCAB		12/19/2008
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Petitioner Lavender Galvao (Galvao) petitions for review of an order by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board). Galvao did not return to work at Kinko's, but began working at a less physically-demanding job for a different employer. Specifically, Zurich did not send Galvao a Notice of Potential Eligibility (NOPE) for vocational rehabilitation, did not provide an appropriate written offer of modified work, and did not send Galvao a denial of vocational rehabilitation services. Zurich concludes that allowing Galvao to receive both VRMA and her wages would result in a windfall to Galvao. Galvao should not be penalized for obtaining work to support her family, nor should Zurich be rewarded for its delays in providing services to Galvao.
Note:	Employers are not entitled to credit against vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits for wages earned by an employee because VRMA benefits are not wage replacement benefits.
Citation:	A122284
WCC Citation:	WCC 34712008 CA

Case Name:	Gamble v. WCAB		09/21/2006
Summary:	We agree with Gamble and conclude the Board's finding is unsupported by the statutory or case law. He noted, there was unrebutted trial testimony Gamble and his family were dependent on his two incomes, and concluded Gamble should not be penalized for his continuing work in a much less physically demanding occupation with the School District. United again disputed Gamble was a Qualified Injured Worker and reasserted it should be given credit for wages earned by Gamble at the School District. United did not file a petition to challenge the Board's determination Gamble was a Qualified Injured Worker or its finding Gamble was entitled to receive VRMA benefits. Simply stated, Gamble is entitled to all components of VRMA benefits because he a Qualified Injured Worker.
Note:	An employee's earnings from his second job are not a proper consideration in calculating an employer's liability for VRMA benefits.
Citation:	143 Cal. App. 4th 71
WCC Citation:	WCC 31822006 CA

Case Name:	Gapusan v. Jay		09/09/1998
Summary:	EDMUND GAPUSAN et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DAVID PATRICK JAY et al. , Defendants; CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Intervener and Appellant. Factual and Procedural Background In 1994, Gapusan and McGee were seriously injured when a drunk driver, David Patrick Jay, caused his pickup truck to collide with their patrol car. 3 Jay had liability insurance of $100,000 per injured person and apparently no ability to pay additional damages. 4 City and plaintiffs accepted the policy limits in settlement of their respective claims against Jay, but failed to agree on any apportionment of the funds. In sum, we conclude the court erred in equitably distributing a portion of the settlement proceeds to Gapusan and McGee.
Note:	Employer no subrogation rights to loss of consortium claim.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.4th 734, 63 CCC 1144
WCC Citation:	WCC 23891998 CA

Case Name:	Garau v. Department of Industrial Relations		10/30/2017
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             OLGA H. GARAU, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B276212 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Christopher G. Jagard, Chief Counsel, Christopher Frick, Assistant Chief Counsel, Marilyn Bacon, Counsel, State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Office of the Director, Legal Unit, for Defendants and Respondents. Facts .           Plaintiff worked as an attorney for the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), a division within the State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations (Department). .           ______________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           We concur: .           _________________________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           _________________________, J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that former Division of Occupational Safety and Health attorney who agreed to settle her disability discrimination action could not back out of the deal after cashing the check covering part of the settlement and demanding additional money.
Citation:	B276212
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC483476

Case Name:	Garcia v. Becker Bros. Steel Co.		04/18/2011
Summary:	GARCIA v. BECKER BROS. STEEL CO. ELIAS GARCIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BECKER BROS. STEEL CO. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The original slitter line was sold to Becker Brothers Steel Supply Company in 1973, and Becker Brothers operated the line for 26 years. *fn5 Three years later, Garcia amended his complaint to add Becker Brothers and Shama LLC as defendants. Warren Becker and Sheldon Becker are both principals of both Becker Brothers and Shama and operated the businesses on a day-to-day basis. Garcia filed a non-opposition to Becker Brothers' and Shama's demurrer to Garcia's strict liability claim as to these defendants.
Note:	A steel business that sold its used steel-cutting machinery did not owe a duty of care to the employees of future businesses that bought the machinery.
Citation:	B221096
WCC Citation:	WCC 37452011 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. ESS Prisa II, LLC		09/13/2011
Summary:	ANDREW GARCIA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ESS PRISA II, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Andrew Garcia was seriously injured when he fell through a skylight while performing rooftop air conditioning repairs for his contractor/employer on a building owned by defendant and respondent ESS Prisa II, LLC (ESS). On the day of the injury, Garcia met with ESS manager, Von K. Stroff, who told him there was a problem with one of the air conditioning units. ESS never instructed Garcia about how to do his job and did not supply him with tools or equipment. Here, even if Garcia is correct that ESS maintained control over the premises a dubious point there is no evidence ESS exercised the type of control of the worksite that affirmatively contributed to Garcia's injury.
Note:	The California Supreme Court's decision in Seabright v. US Airways barred another independent contractor's employee from suing the party that hired the contractor.
Citation:	B222128
WCC Citation:	WCC 38002011 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Industrial Accident Commission		11/13/1953
Summary:	2d 689; 263 P. 2d 8 November 13, 1953 EVERARDO GARCIA ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission granting lien. Schauer [41 Cal2d Page 691] Everardo Garcia, an applicant for workmen's compensation, and Pacific Indemnity Company, carrier of the workmen's compensation insurance of Garcia's employer, seek review of an Industrial Accident Commission award of a lien (allowed pursuant to Lab. On August 3, 1950, the employe filed with the commission his application for adjustment of claim for an allegedly industrial injury which was sustained March 17, 1950. The final determinations whether an employe is entitled [41 Cal2d Page 694] to workmen's compensation, the amount of such compensation and the period during which he is eligible therefor, must be made by the Industrial Accident Commission. In such circumstances, the Industrial Accident Commission properly might infer that the disability was work connected and determine that the Department of Employment had established a prima facie case for the amount of its claim.
Note:	The employee and the insurance carrier, if they object to allowance of the lien, must show that it should be disallowed.
Citation:	41 Cal. 2d 689, 263 P.2d 8
WCC Citation:	WCC 33421953 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Oceans Sports Bar, Inc.		04/28/2010
Summary:	FACTS Plaintiffs' father, Reyes A. Garcia (Garcia) worked as a doorman/bouncer at Oceans, located at 14302 Telegraph Road in a strip mall in the City of Whittier. Plaintiffs alleged that while Garcia was working at Oceans on February 9, 2007, a group of men in gang attire attempted to enter Oceans. Plaintiffs alleged that when the men attempted to enter Oceans, Garcia told them to leave the bar and parking lot. While Garcia was in the parking lot, Nunez, who was one of the men who Garcia had kept out of the bar, shot and killed Garcia. They sought adjudication that Garcia was not an employee of Oceans; Oceans did not own or control the property on which Garcia was killed; Oceans did not owe Garcia a duty to protect him from Nunez's unforeseeable criminal acts; Oceans did not breach any duty to Garcia; and Oceans' acts or omissions were not the proximate cause of Garcia's death.
Note:	A bar did not owe a bouncer a duty of care to protect him from a parking lot shooting because it was not foreseeable.
Citation:	B217207
WCC Citation:	WCC 36182010 CA

Case Name:	Garcia V. Paramount Citrus Association, Inc.		07/21/2008
Summary:	on rehearing) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IGNACIO GARCIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PARAMOUNT CITRUS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. Similarly, in the present case, this court's original opinion and judgment were vacated automatically upon the grant of rehearing. In both of those cases, an appeal had been decided by a three-member panel of the federal circuit court of appeals. We set forth our opinion and judgment in this case, as follows: Facts and Procedural History This is an appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent Ignacio Garcia and against appellant Paramount Citrus Association, Inc. On April 2, 2001, Andrade had a crew picking oranges on the Burdick Ranch, which was adjacent to appellant's Abercrombie Ranch, which also consisted of citrus groves.
Note:	Appellant owed no legal duty to respondent.
Citation:	F050528
WCC Citation:	WCC 34002008 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Paramount Citrus Association, Inc.		03/26/2008
Summary:	Filed 3/26/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IGNACIO GARCIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PARAMOUNT CITRUS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- This is an appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent Ignacio Garcia and against appellant Paramount Citrus Association, Inc. On April 2, 2001, Andrade had a crew picking oranges on the Burdick Ranch, which was adjacent to appellant's Abercrombie Ranch, which also consisted of citrus groves. At about 7 a. m. , Andrade drove west on Abercrombie Road at about 35 miles per hour, looking for Road 172. Without slowing appreciably, he rammed a van in which respondent and other farm workers were being transported to a worksite.
Note:	The foreseeability of the type of negligent act at issue in the present case does not outweigh the high burden the proposed duty would place upon rural landowners to prevent such conduct.
Citation:	F050528
WCC Citation:	WCC 33312008 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. The Vons Co. (WCAB En Banc)		03/14/2001
Summary:	On or about March 10, 1999, Valley Subrogation served the Board with notice that it was now representing La Mirada. On March 23, 1999, the matter came on for trial on all pending issues, including La Mirada's lien. On May 20, 1999, the Board served notice of the June 21, 1999 lien trial on La Mirada. On July 9, 1999, Valley Subrogation filed a letter objecting to the June 21, 1999 notice of intention to disallow La Mirada's lien. The July 16, 1999 order also set the issue of La Mirada's lien for another trial on August 31, 1999.
Note:	Duty on petitioner to apprise WCAB of correct address; WCAB service of decision is effective, petition untimely.
Citation:	66 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 27862001 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. The Vons Co. (WCAB En Banc)		03/14/2001
Summary:	On or about March 10, 1999, Valley Subrogation served the Board with notice that it was now representing La Mirada. On March 23, 1999, the matter came on for trial on all pending issues, including La Mirada's lien. On May 20, 1999, the Board served notice of the June 21, 1999 lien trial on La Mirada. On July 9, 1999, Valley Subrogation filed a letter objecting to the June 21, 1999 notice of intention to disallow La Mirada's lien. The July 16, 1999 order also set the issue of La Mirada's lien for another trial on August 31, 1999.
Note:	Sanctions may be awarded for frivolous Reconsideration.
Citation:	66 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 3552001 CA

Case Name:	Garcia-Laverentz v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services		04/17/2017
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             KARLA GARCIA-LAVERENTZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. .             B267176 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiff Karla Garcia-Laverentz filed a complaint against her employer Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (Sedgwick), alleging myriad disability-related claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .           Sedgwick provides workers’ compensation and disability claims administration and related services to large employers throughout the United States. .           On April 20, 2010, Sedgwick retained engineers to conduct an air quality study, which did not uncover any dangerous air contaminants.
Note:
Citation:	B267176
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC485324