Case Name:	Carpenter v. Universal City Studios L.L.L.P.		01/10/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS L. L. L. P. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Universal's Production Service Representative Bonita Chan explained that Universal and Universal Studios, Inc. are related entities, and UNT is a department within "Universal. Various of the Universal companies share the same address at Universal City Plaza. Silverstein explained that Dragnet "was a Universal show using Universal equipment on the Universal lot. "It's Universal Studios Television, but it's Universal  I work for Universal Studios Productions Services.
Note:	[Unpublished] The evidence supports the jury's special verdict that Defendant was Plaintiff's special employer with the result the trial court did not err in denying Carpenter's three motions. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Citation:	B186031
WCC Citation:	WCC 32982008 CA

Case Name:	Carpenter v. WCAB		04/11/1986
Summary:	The change-of-address form was dated August 23, 1983, but bears a WCAB stamp showing receipt by the Board at 1025 a. m. on August 31, 1983. The Board also found 'applicant's attorney has agreed to receive service of process from the Sacramento office [of the WCAB] in that manner [by mail slot]. 'Petitioner's counsel, as an attorney, is presumed to know that service by 'mail slot' is not authorized by statute or by WCAB regulations. Petitioner is therefore bound by his attorney's agreement to accept service of process at his WCAB 'mail slot. 'n3 It is undisputed that delivery by 'mail slot' does not constitute 'personal service' within the meaning of the Labor Code and WCAB regulations.
Note:	Time limit for filing petition for reconsideration runs from date of actual receipt when WCAB serves findings to attorney at unauthorized address.
Citation:	51 CCC 175
WCC Citation:	WCC 27781986 CA

Case Name:	Carr v. Washington Mut. Bank		04/22/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LARESSIA M. CARR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- Laressia M. Carr sued Washington Mutual Bank (Bank), her employer, claiming that she suffered posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as the result of a take-over robbery of Bank's branch where she worked as a teller. After learning from Nawrocki that Bank would not lower her hours, Carr became extremely stressed and starting having more symptoms. Carr also testified that she still considered herself a Bank employee, and Bank does not dispute her status. Bank argues that Carr failed to prove she was entitled to front pay because Carr is, and considers herself to be, an employee of Bank, and there is no evidence that the reinstatement of Carr is not feasible.
Note:	[Unpublished] An employer failed to accommodate a bank teller's post-traumatic stress disorder pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	F051628
WCC Citation:	WCC 35162009 CA

Case Name:	Carrillo v. Wiberg Corporation of California		02/25/2011
Summary:	ARTHUR CARRILLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WIBERG CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Frank DeLaFuente filled in for Carrillo and was told he would have the position until Carrillo came back to work. Since the release did not state Carrillo could return to driving, the company asked Carrillo to provide a more specific release. Welzel instructed Ortega to call Carrillo and to reinstate him, but Ortega did not have a chance to reinstate Carrillo because he was informed Carrillo was looking for another job. Carrillo Asks for a Job Reference and Does Not Return to Work The Wiberg witnesses, including Welzel, Liczyk, Ortega, and Sylvia Cervantes, the California facility's office manager, all testified the company did not terminate Carrillo.
Note:	A disabled employee who quit his job before his employer had a chance to start the interactive process does not have a cause of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B219431
WCC Citation:	WCC 37222011 CA

Case Name:	Carrillo-Torres v. Bergen Part 1/2		03/28/2018
Summary:	.             A144704 .             (Alameda County Super. .           Once Bergen and KL Construction executed the contract, Bergen wrote an initial deposit check to KL Construction for $1,000. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .           On November 15, 2012, Torres filed a complaint against Bergen alleging one cause of action for premises liability and negligence. .           Bergen’s counsel maintained Bergen was protected from liability under Privette because she hired KL Construction, a licensed and insured contractor, who hired Gonzalez, and because Bergen exercised no control over project safety. .           As noted, Torres also contends Bergen schemed with KL Construction to improperly reduce the costs of the project by having Bergen write checks to workers directly.
Note:
Citation:	A144704
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG12656391

Case Name:	Carrillo-Torres v. Bergen Part 2/2		03/28/2018
Summary:	.           _________________________ Schulman, J. [¶] . [¶] . Because Bergen did not adequately explain the relevance of that ruling, and because the information is unnecessary to our analysis, we deny the request.   Elsewhere in his opening brief, Torres submits Bergen had a right under the contract to reject subcontractors. We reject Torres’s contention that Bergen must have hired Gonzalez (and thus must have been his employer) simply because she wrote two checks paying him.
Note:
Citation:	A144704
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG12656391

Case Name:	Carter v. County of LA (En Banc)		06/19/1986
Summary:	Carolyn Carter v. County of Los Angeles John Weatherspoon v. St. Ferdinand's School Elaine Constancio v. Los Angeles County W. C. A. B. Nos. On this ground we will dismiss defendant's petition in 84 LA 504567. (Labor Code 5310) In Constancio v. County of Los Angeles (84 POM 95786), a C&R dated January 23, 1986 was submitted for approval. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration filed in Carter v. County of Los Angeles (84 LA 504567) on February 28, 1986 be, and it is hereby, DISMISSED. 83 LA 504567 (Carter ), 84 POM 95786 (Constancio ) and 85 VN 142848 (Weatherspoon ), be, and they are hereby, REMANDED for further proceedings and decision consistent with the opinion expressed herein.
Note:	No release for subseq. injury in rehab. unless it is a 'compensable consequence' of prior injury.
Citation:	51 CCC 255
WCC Citation:	WCC 25711986 CA

Case Name:	Carver v. WCAB		02/20/1990
Summary:	WILLIAM CARVER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Racanelli, P. J. , with Newsom and Stein, JJ. , concurring. )On September 12, 1988, in response to petitioner's subsequent petition for reconsideration, the Board issued a second opinion affirming its July 21 result. Thus, we must conclude that there was no compliance with the Board rules requiring notice to a party. CIGA was created in 1969 to protect policyholders and claimants under policies of insurance issued by insurers who later become insolvent. The Board also expressed concern over CIGA's ability to defend such claims when employees of the insolvent may become unavailable.
Note:	Nonpayment penalties are benefits, not damages; UEF has burden of seeking reimbursement.
Citation:	217 Cal.App.3d 1539, 55 CCC 36
WCC Citation:	WCC 24471990 CA

Case Name:	Cascade Forest Products, Inc. v. WCAB		10/06/1998
Summary:	Cascade Forest Products, Inc. , Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, William R. Hines, Respondents. Workers' Compensation Judge Robert Kutz (WCJ) imposed a 10 percent penalty on the entire temporary disability award because Cascade Forest Products, Inc. (employer), terminated temporary disability prematurely. Dr. Soong stated employee was not a candidate for vocational rehabilitation and could return to work as a laborer without restrictions. Based upon Dr. Soong's report, employer, on October 4, 1996, filed and served by mail a petition to terminate liability for temporary disability. Employee's counsel objected by letter dated October 10, 1996, to termination, alleging Dr. Soong's opinion was based on inaccurate facts.
Note:	Employer may terminate benefits, then file petition to terminate benefits w/i 10 days; rebuttable presumption that TD extends 1 week following filing petition.
Citation:	63 CCC 1205
WCC Citation:	WCC 27731998 CA

Case Name:	CASE v. Brown		05/05/2011
Summary:	After briefing and argument, the court agreed with CASE that section 11873 prohibits the Governor from furloughing State Fund employees. Defendants argue that they have been prejudiced because the trial court's ruling in this action conflicts with the ruling in CASE I and the conflicting rulings create irreconcilable adjudications of the Governor's authority to furlough CASE employees at State Fund. Because the claims of State Fund employees were not adjudicated in CASE I, there is no conflicting adjudication as to those employees. That petition alleges that "CASE is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of legal professionals in State Bargaining Unit 2 . The order explained that CASE I raised issues "regarding the Governor's authority to order furloughs of [CASE] members, as employees of executive branch agencies.
Note:	A state governor does not have the authority to furlough employees of an autonomous, self-supporting organization.
Citation:	A125292
WCC Citation:	WCC 37592011 CA

Case Name:	Caso v. Nimrod Productions, Inc.		05/14/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN CHRISTOPHER CASO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NIMROD PRODUCTIONS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. McNicholas & McNicholas, John P. McNicholas and Robert P. Wargo; Joshua M. Merliss for Plaintiffs and Appellants Christopher Caso and Anna Marie Caso. Caso asserted claims for negligence; Anne Marie Caso alleged loss of consortium. For purposes of this summary judgment motion only, Caso does not dispute he was an employee of Touchstone. For purposes of the consolidated summary judgment motions only, Caso did not dispute he was an employee of Touchstone.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because a special employee relationship was established between plaintiffs and defendant, plaintiffs' cause of action for personal injury is barred by workers' compensation exclusive remedy.
Citation:	B198347
WCC Citation:	WCC 33572008 CA

Case Name:	Castro Valley Unif. School Dist. v. WCAB		05/05/1999
Summary:	rehab. In its Findings and Award on the RU appeal, the WCJ found: 1) that the RU should have approved the voc. rehab. rehab. The WCAB granted reconsideration, reviewed the record, adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and recommendation.
Note:	Employer liable for maintenance allowance absent giving notice confirming lack of modified/alternate work; 139.5 cap does not apply until notice given.
Citation:	64 CCC 668
WCC Citation:	WCC 27931999 CA

Case Name:	Catalina Car Wash vs. DIR		01/08/2003
Summary:	CATALINA CAR WASH, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. On May 3, 2000, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (Division), represented by Deputy Labor Commissioner Diana Chen, conducted an inspection at Catalina Car Wash on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles. The agent's cover letter stated an invoice was enclosed for the deposit premium, and asked Catalina to "[p]lease remit payment within 10 days. "The hearing officer concluded the evidence established Catalina did not have a current workers' compensation insurance policy in effect on May 3, 2000. Page 10} In sum, since Catalina was insured at the time the stop order was issued, no basis exists for a penalty assessment, and the judgment against Catalina must be reversed.
Note:	Coverage exists as matter of law where parties intended and no penalty attaches despite lack of documentation.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 29132003 CA

Case Name:	Catalina Car Wash, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations		01/08/2003
Summary:	CATALINA CAR WASH, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. Chen asked to see proof Catalina had secured workers' compensation insurance coverage, as required by statute. The agent's cover letter stated an invoice was enclosed for the deposit premium, and asked Catalina to "[p]lease remit payment within 10 days. "The hearing officer concluded the evidence established Catalina did not have a current workers' compensation insurance policy in effect on May 3, 2000. Co. v. Department of Industrial Relations, supra, 23 Cal. App. 4th at p.
Note:	Intent to renew a work comp policy sufficient to defeat fine for lack of coverage.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 29082003 CA

Case Name:	Catholic Healthcare West v CIGA		10/05/2009
Summary:	In December 2001, Catholic Healthcare West II merged with its parent corporation, Catholic Healthcare West. Catholic Healthcare West II was the surviving nonprofit public benefit corporation and changed its name to Catholic Healthcare West. Background CIGA's cross-complaint for indemnity alleged that (1) CIGA had mistakenly believed that the claims made by or on behalf of Catholic Healthcare West were covered claims for purposes of section 1063. 1, (2) the claims were not covered claims and CIGA was not authorized to pay them, and (3) Catholic Healthcare West was legally obligated to return the $186,093. 51 paid by CIGA, but had refused to return the payment as demanded by CIGA. Hospital Corporation, then named Catholic Healthcare West Central California, merged with Catholic Healthcare West North State, another subsidiary of Catholic Healthcare West. Catholic Healthcare West II was the surviving corporation and changed its name to Catholic Healthcare West.
Note:	Any claims presented by the corporation that employed the claimant were covered claims despite the fact that the corporation changed its name to a name not listed in the insurance policy.
Citation:	F055842
WCC Citation:	WCC 35692009 CA

Case Name:	Catrell Brown v. Foster Farms Poultry		07/13/2009
Summary:	Filed 7/14/09 Brown v. Foster Farms Poultry CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE 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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CATRELL BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FOSTER FARMS POULTRY, Defendant and Respondent. Catrell Brown, in pro. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiff and appellant Catrell Brown was an employee of defendant and respondent Foster Farms Poultry. Appellant subsequently filed an Amended Complaint to Foster Poultry Farms Special Demurrers.
Note:	A worker who believed his co-workers were spitting into his drink failed to clearly state a specific cause of action in his complaint against his employer,.
Citation:	F056603
WCC Citation:	WCC 35412009 CA

Case Name:	Cavanaugh v. WCAB		10/18/1967
Summary:	GEORGE W. CAVANAUGH, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ORANGE COUNTY BUS SYSTEM et al. , Respondents. The Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board filed an order March 9, 1967, in its Santa Ana office, denying George Cavanaugh's petition for commutation. The referee's opinion on the Petition for Reconsideration found the order was served on the parties on March 9, 1967. [1] Under Labor Code, section 5903, a party may petition for reconsideration within 20 days after service of a final order. The court reasoned absent a showing of service of the order, it 'cannot presume' (p. 472) service.
Note:	No presumption of proof of service when endorsement does not contain the date of actual service.
Citation:	255 Cal.App.2d 181, 32 CCC 445
WCC Citation:	WCC 27871967 CA

Case Name:	Cedeno v. American Nat. Ins. Co., etc.		07/21/1997
Summary:	For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the lien claimants' assertion that they were denied due process. The lien claimants alleged that they provided services to applicant and that their liens were served upon defendants in 1991 and 1992. On May 31, 1996, applicant filed an Application for Adjudication and a mandatory settlement conference was held on August 15, 1996. However, neither Neurologic Orthopedic Associates nor the other lien claimants received notice of the mandatory settlement conference. There was insufficient time to complete all of the testimony on September 20 so the matter was continued to October 28, 1996.
Note:	Request for WCJ disqualification denied absent declaration of grounds for request, record of bias.
Citation:	62 CCC 939 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 27681997 CA

Case Name:	Cedillo vs. WCAB		02/14/2003
Summary:	A workers' compensation judge concluded as an unlicensed contractor, Mr. Cedillo was not an independent contractor; hence, Mr. Cedillo was an employee of Mr. Reyes; and Mr. Rodriguez was an employee of the homeowner, Mr. Reyes. The board held: "[A]s between Cedillo, the alleged contractor, and Reyes, (homeowner), Cedillo would be an employee under Labor Code section 2750. 5. However, because Cedillo has no claim against Reyes and does not meet the hour requirement of Labor Code section 3352(h), anymore than the applicant meets the 52 hour requirement, under Division 4, Cedillo cannot be an employee. Therefore, we are not required to revert to the definition of Cedillo, as an employee, as set forth in Labor Code section 2750. 5. [P] Therefore, Cedillo is the employer of applicant. "Mr. Cedillo reasoned as follows: Mr. Reyes was the statutory employer of Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Cedillo; this employment relationship arose from the provision of section 2750. 5; and Mr. Cedillo could not both be an employee of Mr. Reyes, the homeowner, and the employer of Mr. Rodriguez.
Note:	Employee of unlicensed contractor must meet criteria of 3352(h) before customer becomes statutory employer.
Citation:	106 Cal.App.4th 227
WCC Citation:	WCC 29172003 CA

Case Name:	Ceradyne, Inc. v. Argonaut Insurance Co.		06/02/2009
Summary:	Relevant to this case, insurance companies providing workers compensation policies are required by law to disclose and seek pre-approval from the Insurance Commissioner and WCIRB of the insurance plan being purchased. )*fn1 In this case, Argonaut Insurance Company provided a workers' compensation plan to a large corporation, Ceradyne Inc. After several years, Ceradyne filed a lawsuit against Argonaut, having concluded the insurance company was liable for mismanaging the workers' compensation claims and finances. It determined the IPA was unenforceable and void because Argonaut did not comply with section 11658, requiring submission of insurance contracts and endorsements to the Department of Insurance. Argonaut argues the IPA does not look like an "insurance policy," and therefore, the insurance commissioner did not need to review or approve it. Argonaut cites one tax law case to support its theory the IPA contract was not an insurance policy requiring review by the Insurance Commissioner.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the Insurance Program Agreement (IPA) contains a severability clause, we conclude the trial court had authority to sever the void arbitration clause, deny arbitration, and deny the stay/dismissal request.
Citation:	G039873
WCC Citation:	WCC 35292009 CA