Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library

Case Name: Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. The Superior Court of Orange County Part 1/2 02/08/2018
Summary: Filed 2/8/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA .             SOLUS INDUSTRIAL INNOVATIONS, LLC, et al. , Petitioners, .             v. .             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; .             THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. .             S222314 .             Ct. App. 4/3 G047661 .             Orange County Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00581868 .             The Orange County District Attorney brought an action for civil penalties under this state’s unfair competition law (UCL; Bus. .           Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (Solus) manufactures plastics at its Orange County facility. .           The district attorney also filed the present civil action against Solus.
Citation: S222314
WCC Citation: Ct.App. 4/3 G047661
Case Name: Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. The Superior Court of Orange County Part 2/2 02/08/2018
Summary: )  .           Finally, there is no reason to “discount” Congress’s awareness and acceptance of the “background tapestry” of state law in this area. .           WE CONCUR:  .           CHIN, J. .           CORRIGAN, J.   .           LIU, J. (People v. Superior Court (Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC) (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 33. at p. 99) was at issue in Gade because there was no approved state plan that displaced the federal law.
Citation: S222314
WCC Citation: Ct.App. 4/3 G047661
Case Name: Sonic-Calabasas A v. Moreno 07/12/2011
Summary: (Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 546, rev. Frank Moreno is a former employee of Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. (Sonic), which owns and operates an automobile dealership. As a condition of his employment with Sonic, Moreno signed a document entitled `Applicant's Statement & Agreement. 'Proc. , § 1281. 2. ) Sonic argued Moreno waived his right to a Berman hearing in the arbitration agreement. By its terms, the agreement precluded Moreno from pursuing any judicial `or other government dispute resolution forum,' subject to certain enumerated exceptions.
Note: An employer cannot condition a worker's employment upon an arbitration agreement that would require the worker to waive the statutory right to a Berman hearing.
Citation: B204902
WCC Citation: WCC 37802011 CA
Case Name: Sonoma State University & Octagon Risk Services v. WCAB & Lesley Hunton 08/29/2006
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY and OCTAGON RISK SERVICES, Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LESLEY HUNTON, Respondents. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Respondent Lesley Hunton began working as a police dispatcher for Sonoma State University in 1986. Hunton filed a workers' compensation claim in 2000 alleging an injury to her psyche arising out of and in the course of her employment with petitioner Sonoma State. The AME also stated that Hunton would have likely suffered the psychological disability even if she had never worked for Sonoma State. C. Interpretation of "[P]sychiatric [I]njury" as Used in Section 3208. 3 Petitioners Sonoma State and Octagon Risk Services (collectively Sonoma State) argue that Hunton did not meet the predominant causation threshold for compensation eligibility because work-related events had caused only 35 percent of Hunton's overall psychiatric disability.
Note: Pyschicatric disablities are complensable if the employee can prove that work was predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric disability taken as a whole.
Citation: 142 Cal. App. 4th 500
WCC Citation: WCC 31752006 CA
Case Name: Sorbara Construction Corp. v. AIU Insurance Co. 10/21/2008
Summary: Sorbara Construction Corporation, Appellant, v. AIU Insurance Company, Respondent, HRH Construction Corporation et al. , Defendants. MEMORANDUM: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Ins. Co, 294 AD2d 546, 548 [2d Dept 2002]; 57th Street Management Corp v Zurich Ins. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Note: The insured did not give notice to the insurer until it was sued in a third party action--some five and one-half years after the accident. Under the circumstances of this case, such notice was unreasonable as a matter of law and relieved the insurer of its obligation to defend or indemnify the insured.
Citation: 00001
WCC Citation: WCC 34452008 CA
Case Name: Sotelo v. MediaNews Group, Inc. 07/02/2012
Summary: SOTELO v. MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC. CYNTHIA SOTELO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Appellant Sotelo began as a carrier and then became a distributor, contracting exclusively with one newspaper. "Class members are `ascertainable' where they may be readily identified without unreasonable expense or time by reference to official records. The theoretical ability to self-identify as a member of the class is useless if one never receives notice of the action. They propose contacting those class members for whom respondents do have records, and posting notices in respondents' facilities.
Note: Class-action status was denied to a group of newspaper carriers who allege a Southern California media group illegally classified them as independent contractors instead of employees.
Citation: A130585
WCC Citation: WCC 39112012 CA
Case Name: Soto v. Vujicic 08/25/2011
Summary: SOTO v. VUJICIC HECTOR LARES SOTO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DARIO VUJICIC, Defendant and Respondent; LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Intervenor and Appellant. Soto was injured in a head-on collision when his work vehicle was hit by a diesel Dodge Ram pickup truck that was owned by defendant Vojislav Vujicic and his wife (not parties to this appeal; referred to together as V. Vujicic). In June 2008, Soto sued Dario, V. Vujicic and other family members, and Eric, on two causes of action, negligence and negligent entrustment. C. Opposition; Reply Both Soto and Intervenor filed opposition to the defense motions, lodging other deposition excerpts from Soto, Eric, the Vujicic defendants, and the third passenger in the truck, Nicholas West. Soto vigorously responds that this is a new argument on appeal of "superseding joint entrustment," and that Soto should be able to proceed on his original negligent entrustment theory equally against Dario and V. Vujicic.
Note: An applicant and his workers' compensation insurer failed to prove that another motorist had owed the applicant a duty not to let his 19-year-old friend drive a truck.
Citation: D056946
WCC Citation: WCC 37952011 CA
Case Name: Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. WCAB 10/22/1997
Summary: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GARY A. TATE, Respondents. Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter, WCAB) disagreed and held that the credit threshold cannot be offset by such payments. Facts On November 13, 1984, petitioner Southern California Edison Company's (hereinafter, SCE) employee and real party in interest, Gary Tate (hereinafter, Tate), sustained injuries while servicing a General Electric meter which exploded. SCE filed a petition for reconsideration with respondent WCAB on November 3, 1995, asking the WCAB to reconsider the WCJ's finding and to hold that SCE may offset its past payments to meet its requisite credit threshold. 1 Respondent WCAB held and Tate contends that the $85,000 threshold cannot be offset by previous workers' compensation payments.
Note: An employer's credit threshold is reduced by settlement received from a 3rd party.
Citation: 58 Cal.App.4th 766
WCC Citation: WCC 23931997 CA
Case Name: Southern Insurance Company v. WCAB (EJ Distribution Corporation) 05/10/2017
Summary: Filed 5/10/17 Certified for Publication 5/22/17 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS%u201F COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, EJ DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. .             B278412 .             (WCAB No. ADJ6865421) .             PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers%u201F Compensation Appeals Board. .             Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton & Muehl, Alexander G. Abdoulin and George Woolverton for Petitioner. .           Workers%u201F compensation insurance policy number WSI0006904-01 (hereafter “the policy”) was issued by Southern Insurance Company2 for an annual period beginning on January 1, 2009. .           __________________________, Acting P. J. CHAVEZ .           We concur: .           __________________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           __________________________, J.
Citation: B278412
WCC Citation: WCAB No. ADJ6865421
Case Name: Southwest Airlines v. WCAB 10/07/1991
Summary: SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and SUSAN BELAND, Respondents. Introduction Petitioner Southwest Airlines (Southwest) seeks review of an opinion and order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) denying reconsideration of a ruling that Labor Code section 3600. 5, subdivision (a),fn. [234 Cal. App. 3d 1423] [1a] Beland contends that the petition for writ of review must be denied as untimely under section 5950fn. Factual and Procedural Background Beland filed an application for adjudication of claim in 1988, alleging an injury to her back while 'in flight' as a flight attendant for Southwest. [1b] The petition herein is untimely under section 5950 unless the time for filing it was extended by the provisions of section 1013.
Note: 45 day limit for filing petition not extended by Reg. S. 10500, Civ. Code S. 1013; 'Villa' case not followed.
Citation: 234 Cal.App.3d 1421
WCC Citation: WCC 27771991 CA
1706 Results Page 148 of 171