Case Name:	Rosales v. Depuy Ace Medical Co.		02/07/2000
Summary:	HECTOR ROSALES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPUY ACE MEDICAL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. [22 Cal. 4th 281] Graham & James, James H. Broderick, Jr. , Benjamin E. Goldman and Brian F. Van Vleck for Defendant and Respondent. (Ceja v. J. R. Wood, Inc. (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 1372 (Ceja); Graham v. Hopkins, supra, 13 Cal. App. 4th 1483 (Graham). )The appellate court held the saw was not a power press because the saw blade was not a die. They determine that Rosales, who was injured after defendant Depuy Ace Medical Company intentionally [22 Cal. 4th 289] removed a point of operation guard from the Wasino L3-J3, could not seek a tort remedy under Labor Code section 4558 because the machine is not a power press within the meaning of the statute.
Note:	Defining what constitutes a 'die.'
Citation:	22 Cal.4th 279
WCC Citation:	WCC 24212000 CA

Case Name:	Rosales v. Keenan & Associates		09/23/2008
Summary:	Filed 9/23/08 Rosales v. Keenan & Associates CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO CONNIE DIANA ROSALES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KEENAN & ASSOCIATES, Defendant and Respondent. On or about June 27, 2006, Claimquest paid the lien by check in the amount of $24,432 to EDD. On June 22, 2006, appellant filed the complaint in this matter, alleging causes of action against respondent for breach of contract and fraud. Her complaint was apparently based on her mistaken belief that she, not the EDD, was entitled to collect the EDD's lien.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because appellant has not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on her claims, the anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted.
Citation:	B199725
WCC Citation:	WCC 34282008 CA

Case Name:	Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications		01/24/2008
Summary:	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA GARY ROSS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. RAGINGWIRE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. , DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. On September 10, 2001, defendant RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. , offered plaintiff a job as lead systems administrator. In September 2001, plaintiff accepted a job with defendant RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. (RagingWire) as a lead systems analyst. Nevertheless, without offering any other form of accommodation for his back condition, RagingWire discharged plaintiff because of his at-home, doctor-recommended marijuana use. RagingWire has not argued that plaintiff's requested accommodation would interfere with the rights or interests of its other employees.
Note:	An employer did not violate the Fair Employment and Housing Act by firing a medical marijuana user for failing a drug test because the 1996 initiative that legalized medical marijuana use did not create a general right to use medical marijuana, but only protected patients from criminal sanctions.
Citation:	S138130
WCC Citation:	WCC 37172008 CA

Case Name:	Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.		01/24/2008
Summary:	On September 10, 2001, defendant RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. , offered plaintiff a job as lead systems administrator. In September 2001, plaintiff accepted a job with defendant RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. (RagingWire) as a lead systems analyst. Nevertheless, without offering any other form of accommodation for his back condition, RagingWire discharged plaintiff because of his at-home, doctor-recommended marijuana use. RagingWire has not argued that plaintiff's requested accommodation would interfere with the rights or interests of its other employees. Name of Opinion Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.
Note:	Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action under the FEHA based on defendant employer's refusal to accommodate his use of medical marijuana.
Citation:	S138130
WCC Citation:	WCC 33052008 CA

Case Name:	Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.		09/07/2005
Summary:	Instant case depublished by Ross v. Ragingwire, 36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494, 123 P. 3d 930. In accordance with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, plaintiff Gary Ross had a physician's recommendation to use marijuana for his chronic back pain. Plaintiff then got a call from the clinic, advising him that he had tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main chemical found in marijuana. On September 20, 2001, defendant informed plaintiff that he was being suspended as a result of the drug test results. Plaintiff gave defendant a copy of his physician's recommendation and explained that he used marijuana to relieve chronic back pain.
Note:	FEHA does not preclude employers from firing or not hiring a person who uses illegal drugs.
Citation:	132 Cal. App. 4th 590
WCC Citation:	WCC 31182005 CA

Case Name:	Roth v. WCAB		10/06/1971
Summary:	EDWIN N. ROTH, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, E. R. SMITH et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Reppy, J. , with Kaus, P. J. , and Aiso, J. , concurring. )Dr. Weaver reported that the symptoms were not caused by physical damage and that he suspected malingering. That was the date when applicant had an appointment with Dr. Eugene Malitz for a psychiatric examination. In the event that Mr. Roth fails to appear at that time, the matter will be dismissed. In preparation for trial, defendants are entitled to further medical evaluation and if Mr. Roth fails in any way to cooperate in that examination, the matter will be dismissed. '
Note:	Benefits may be barred if an applicant does not submit to a medical exam.
Citation:	20 Cal.App.3d 452
WCC Citation:	WCC 24031971 CA

Case Name:	Roth vs. L.A. Door		02/24/2004
Summary:	I FACTS John Michael Roth (Roth), a Nutrilite Products (Nutrilite) employee, was injured on November 1, 1999, during the course and scope of his employment. While Roth was on Nutrilite premises, a metal overhead trailer door fell to a "closed" position, striking him in the back of the head. Nutrilite paid workers' compensation benefits to Roth through RSKCo. , Nutrilite's independent third party workers' compensation benefits administrator. Door), alleging that it had designed and manufactured the door. It sought reimbursement for the workers' compensation benefits it had paid to Roth on account of his injuries.
Note:	Self insured employer cannot subrogate vs. CIGA nor insured of insolvent carrier.
Citation:	115 Cal.App.4th 1249
WCC Citation:	WCC 29712004 CA

Case Name:	Routh v. Kern County Probation Department		02/01/2012
Summary:	MELISSA ROUTH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KERN COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, Defendant and Respondent. Kern County has adopted a Civil Service System by which discipline of County employees is carried out. On June 25, 2009, Routh filed a complaint in Kern Superior Court, naming the Department as the sole defendant. Certainly the Department had the right to confront Routh about both her probation reports and her time card. In County of Riverside, an officer obtained employment with the County of Riverside when his prior employer, the City of Perris, discontinued its police department and contracted with the County for law enforcement.
Note:	The exclusive remedy of workers' compensation did not bar a Kern County probation officer's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Citation:	F061156
WCC Citation:	WCC 38522012 CA

Case Name:	Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. WCAB		08/27/1978
Summary:	ROYAL GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JAMES FAULKNER, Respondents. Reconsideration was sought on the ground that Royal Globe had '. . . discovered new evidence, material to [it] . . . , which [it] . . . could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the hearing. 'Scope of employment was seriously contested at the hearing on November 22, 1977, and in response to Faulkner's testimony on the subject (by deposition, infra), Royal Globe offered several witnesses. Nineteen days later, on January 13, 1978, Fosdick and Royal Globe filed with the board a 'Petition for Reconsideration on Grounds of New and After Discovered Evidence. '[1a] Fosdick and Royal Globe claim an abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.
Note:	Recon. not granted where 'new' evidence was at all times in possess. of one of the parties.
Citation:	84 Cal.App.3d 287
WCC Citation:	WCC 26721978 CA

Case Name:	Royse v. Lexington Insurance Co.		11/26/2008
Summary:	In this personal injury action, plaintiff Joseph Royse appeals from summary judgments entered in favor of defendants Lexington Insurance Company and DC3-E, LLLP. Lexington accepted the claim and provided workers' compensation insurance coverage to Royse as a "Residence Employee" under the policy. As of November 14, 2006, Lexington had paid Royse and his health care providers a total of $633,453. The evidence adduced below demonstrated that Royse was employed at the ranch, that the ranch was insured under a homeowners insurance policy issued by Lexington that contained workers' compensation coverage for residence employees, and that Lexington paid Royse and his health care providers over $600,000 of benefits under the policy. Royse argues Lexington "exhibited its knowledge that Mr. Royse did not work for Mrs. Phelps through its actions in the worker's compensation case .
Note:	A claimant failed to show that a carrier conspired with a homeowner to claim that he was a resident employee at the time of his injury.
Citation:	A117798
WCC Citation:	WCC 34652008 CA