Case Name:	Prock v. Tamura Corporation of America		01/25/2013
Summary:	PROCK v. TAMURA CORPORATION OF AMERICA JUSTIN G. PROCK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TAMURA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Justin Prock appeals a judgment entered after the trial court granted Tamura Corporation of America's (hereafter Tamura) motion for summary judgment. FACTS In his complaint, Prock alleged that he was employed by Tamura and that Tamura is an employer subject to the Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). Tamura "was notified" and was provided with documentation from Prock's doctor that Prock would need leave from work through September 19, 2008. However, it is also undisputed that Tamura summarily dismissed Prock when Prock requested a further extension of his leave.
Note:	The existence of triable issues of fact about whether a worker was a "qualified individual with a disability" barred an employer from obtaining summary judgment against a disability discrimination suit.
Citation:	E054185
WCC Citation:	WCC 39752013 CA

Case Name:	Prudential Ins. Co. v. WCAB		12/15/1978
Summary:	OPINION MANUEL, J. Petitioner Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) seeks review of an order of the respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying its claim of lien filed against an award in favor of respondent Thomas Wright (Wright), an airline employee. Pursuant to the policy, Prudential made payments to him without offset for workers' compensation benefits to which he may have been entitled. In August 1976, Wright filed an application with the WCAB, alleging the October injury was industrial in nature. Prudential filed with the WCAB a notice and request for allowance of lien seeking to recover back these payments to the extent Wright received workers' compensation benefits. The original findings and award of WCAB failed to dispose of Prudential's claim, apparently because the WCAB had misplaced the claim of lien.
Note:	Overpaid disability benefits are outside reach of group disability insurer's liens.
Citation:	22 Cal.3d 776
WCC Citation:	WCC 24481978 CA

Case Name:	Public Service Mutual Ins. Co. v. Svetlik		01/13/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE .             PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervener and Appellant, .             v. .             STEVEN M. SVETLIK, Defendant and Respondent. .             A144803 .             (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13676541) .             Steven M. Svetlik drove his car into a restaurant where Jennifer Carranza was working, injuring her. The restaurant’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), paid $18,388. 14 in workers’ compensation benefits and medical expenses on Carranza’s behalf. Rules of Court, rule 8. 278. ) .           _________________________ Jones, P. J. .           We concur: .           _________________________ Needham, J.
Note:
Citation:	A144803
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13676541

Case Name:	Pugh v. WCAB		11/03/2008
Summary:	Delores Pugh petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding that her claim for benefits is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. In August 2003, Pugh filed a claim with the WCAB alleging that she suffered cumulative psychological and physical injuries while employed by the County during the period April 1972 through July 1999. The WCAB did not reject the judge's factual findings that the County had not posted the statutory notice and that Pugh was unaware of her rights. Rather, the WCAB concluded that Pugh knew in 1998, or at the latest 1999, that her stress was work related and such knowledge was sufficient to trigger the one-year period for filing a claim under sections 5405 and 5412. The WCAB did not address the County's arguments relating to the merits of Pugh's disability award, finding those issues moot.
Note:	[Unpublished] if an employer fails to post the notice of employees' workers' compensation rights required by Labor Code section 3550 and the employee is otherwise unaware of her rights, then the statute of limitations is tolled until the employee gains actual knowledge that she may be entitled to benefits.
Citation:	B201677
WCC Citation:	WCC 34572008 CA

Case Name:	Pullman Kellogg vs. WCAB (Normand)		02/04/1980
Summary:	PULLMAN KELLOGG et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MARTIN G. NORMAND, Respondents (Opinion by Mosk, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Normand's employer, Pullman Kellogg, and its insurance carrier, Eldorado Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as Pullman Kellogg) seek review of the board's decision, asserting primarily that the medical evidence before the board compelled the conclusion that part of the disability was due to Normand's smoking habit, and therefore apportionment was required. We see no reason, nor does Pullman Kellogg offer any, to distinguish between a cumulative trauma and a specific injury in these circumstances. Another contention made by Pullman Kellogg is that Normand is bound by Dr. Sills' opinion because he introduced the doctor's report into evidence. (1966) 243 Cal. App. 2d 380 [52 Cal. Rptr. 276], upon which Pullman Kellogg relies, is not persuasive authority.
Note:	Apportionment is question of fact and must be supported by substantial evidence.
Citation:	26 Cal3rd 450
WCC Citation:	WCC 30261980 CA

Case Name:	Quadri v. Alkayali		03/09/2011
Summary:	QUADRI v. ALKAYALI AKRAM QUADRI et al. , Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. AHMAD ALKAYALI et al. , Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and cross-defendants Akram Quadri and Fatma Boukhari, who are married to each other (individual plaintiffs), and NeoCell Corporation against defendants and cross-complainants Ahmad Alkayali (Alkayali) and Terri Alkayali, finding the individual plaintiffs owned all the shares in NeoCell and defendants owned none. In the breach of contract count defendants pleaded that pursuant to the 2002 amendment 66 percent of the shares were transferred to Alkayali and plaintiffs breached that agreement by claiming Alkayali owned no shares. Alkayali was "intelligent and sophisticated" whereas Quadri who was 81 was less sophisticated and completely trusted Alkayali, so much so that he would sign anything Alkayali requested. But they fail to include evidence on which the court relied that Quadri would "sign any paper put in front of him [by Alkayali]" because he had "placed all of his faith and confidence in [him] .
Note:	The forgery of an employer's stock certificates to defraud a workers' compensation carrier played a role in a breach of contract suit about who actually owned a business, according to a decision from the 4th District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	G042758
WCC Citation:	WCC 37252011 CA

Case Name:	Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District		04/19/2017
Summary:	Filed 4/19/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Plumas) .             REBECCA MEGAN QUIGLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             GARDEN VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             C079270 .             (Super. She sued, inter alia, defendants and respondents Garden Valley Fire Protection District, Chester Fire Protection District, and their employees Frank DelCarlo, Mike Jellison, and Jeff Barnhart for damages, claiming she was injured as a result of their negligence, a dangerous condition of public property, and defendants’ failure to warn. The three men, all retired Forest Service employees, became employees of defendant local fire agencies Chester Fire Protection District and Garden Valley Fire Protection District in order to serve on NorCal 1. .           We concur: .           /s/ DUARTE, J.
Note:
Citation:	C079270
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. CV1000225

Case Name:	Quinn v. State of California		09/10/1975
Summary:	Case no. 23146 THOMAS QUINN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent; INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Claimant and Respondent (In Bank. Plaintiff sued the state, which owned the construction site, alleging its negligence as the proximate cause of his injuries. California courts have long applied this principle of apportionment. Furthermore, we point out below that the Legislature has clearly referred to this general equitable precept in the statute before us. (See Lasky, Subrogation Under the California Workmen's Compensation Laws -- Rules, Remedies and Side [15 Cal. 3d 182] Effects (1972) 12 Santa Clara Law.
Note:	When an injury involves a negligent third party, the employer should bear his share of litigant's attorney fees due to the equitable principle of apportionment.
Citation:	15 Cal.3d 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 32121975 CA

Case Name:	Quinn v. U.S. Bank		06/06/2011
Summary:	QUINN v. U. S. BANK NA ROBERT QUINN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U. S. BANK NA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Robert Quinn (plaintiff) is a former senior vice president of defendant U. S. Bank NA. Peatros was brought by a bank vice president who contended that Bank of America (bank) terminated her because of her race and age in violation of FEHA and other state laws. Two of the cases cited do not assist the Bank: Andrews v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (4th Cir. In the third case cited by the bank, Arrow v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (6th Cir.
Note:	A federal statute does not preempt bank officers from filing disability discrimination suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B226143
WCC Citation:	WCC 37722011 CA

Case Name:	Rabin v. Lotta		12/07/2009
Summary:	Rabin met Lotta at the Workers Compensation Appeals Board in the first half of the 1990s. Lotta represented Rabin in collecting his liens from workers compensation cases. Lotta cross-complained against Rabin, Rabins son Mathew, and Mathews wife, Jennifer Rabin. According to Lotta, Rabin was supposed to trade services to Lotta on a quid pro quo basis in exchange for the time Lotta spent on the Pourzia matter. According to Lotta, this list represented way less than 10 percent of the cases Lotta had with Rabin over the years. Rabin testified that Lotta was behind in payments to him, that Rabin was in his 80s, and felt the need to memorialize what Lotta owed him for his services.
Note:	[Unpublished] Probable cause for quantum meruit exists if any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.
Citation:	B211590
WCC Citation:	WCC 35852009 CA