Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library

Case Name: Sierra Pacific Industries v. WCAB 06/30/2006
Summary: Sierra Pacific Industries v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No. C050589 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 06/30/2006) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C050589 June 30, 2006 SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD ET AL. RESPONDENTS. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) petitions for a writ of review to determine the lawfulness of an award and an order denying reconsideration in a proceeding before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB found the treatment reasonable and necessary through February 26, 2004, and denied SPI's petition for reconsideration. Following the recommendation of the WCJ, the WCAB denied reconsideration. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note: The reasonableness standard of medical care in SB 899 applies regardless of date of injury.
Citation: 140 Cal. App. 4th 1498
WCC Citation: WCC 31702006 CA
Case Name: Signature Fruit Co. v. WCAB 08/31/2006
Summary: Signature Fruit Company petitions this court to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarding one of its seasonal employees, Eva Ochoa, temporary disability benefits. The record supports the stipulation by revealing that Ochoa could only recall working as a seasonal employee with Signature Fruit Company in recent years. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORIES Eva Ochoa worked as a seasonal sanitation worker for Signature Fruit Company (Signature) since 1998. Lacking any dispute over the underlying facts, Signature presents a pure question of law reviewable by this court de novo. *fn2 An en banc decision of the WCAB binds future WCAB panels and WCJs as legal precedent in the same manner as a published appellate opinion.
Note: When a seasonal employee does not have any off-season earnings and does not compete in the open labor market during a portion of the year, the employee is not entitled to temporary disability payments during that season.
Citation: 142 Cal.App.4th 790
WCC Citation: WCC 31772006 CA
Case Name: Silas v. Arden 12/31/2012
Summary: SILAS v. ARDEN MARTINA A. SILAS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ELLIS ARDEN, Defendant and Appellant. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. JOHNSON, J. James Ellis Arden (Arden) appeals judgment in favor of Martina Silas (Silas) in Silas's action against Arden for malicious prosecution of a malpractice action against her. Arden understood that for Gunnell to prevail on malpractice that Arden had to prove that Silas would have been successful on the fraudulent misrepresentation theory. Silas argues Vafi, the case upon which Arden relies, should not be applied retroactively, and that Arden waived the defense by failing to raise it earlier. A portion of our factual statement is taken from the opinion in the personal injury action, Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4th 710, the opinion in Gunnell's action against Silas, Gunnell v. Silas (Jan. 27, 2006, B180744), and the opinion in this action regarding Arden's special motion to strike, Silas v. Arden (Dec. 31, 2009, B210297).
Note: The 2nd District Court of Appeal has decided to publish its decision affirming a $300,756 malicious prosecution award for an attorney who prevailed against an injured worker's malpractice suit.
Citation: B235835
WCC Citation: WCC 39672012 CA
Case Name: Simi Corp. vs. John Garamendi, as Ins. Comm. 06/26/2003
Summary: Neither Simi Corporation, the employer, nor its insurer rejected liability for the claims at issue within 90 days of the claims' filing. The experience rating plan in effect when Simi Corporation's employees made the three claims at issue here sets out the rules governing experience rating. Simi Corporation sued Superior Pacific Casualty Company at some point before 1998, alleging that the insurer's erroneous report of data regarding the three claims referenced above had damaged Simi Corporation. Simi Corporation then appealed that decision to the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Insurance Code section 11753. 1, subdivision (a). In summary, the trial court erred in adopting Simi Corporation's interpretation of the pertinent regulation rather than the Insurance Commissioner's interpretation.
Note: Deference given to Ins. Commisioner's interpretation of regulations governing the reporting status of claims.
Citation: 109 Cal.App.4th 1496
WCC Citation: WCC 29412003 CA
Case Name: Simi vs. Sav-Max Foods, Inc. 02/01/2005
Summary: Defendant initially denied the claim but eventually accepted liability after obtaining an "AOE/COE report" from Dr. Michael A. Uro, a podiatrist. On February 23, 2004, Dr. Weiner observed that applicant was having problems with a "Baker's cyst" in the left knee. Defendant's notification letter stated that the QME exam was being set "[i]n accordance with Section 4060 et. On July 27, 2004, the WCJ issued the "Order Compelling Attendance at Defense QME and to Suspend Benefits" disputed here. The Appeals Board reasoned that it was still "possible" to return to the original psychiatrist to address the WCJ's concerns.
Note: LC 4062 as it existed prior to SB 899 applies to represented employees injured before 1/1/05.
Citation: 70 CCC 217
WCC Citation: WCC 30782005 CA
Case Name: Simmons v. Dep't of Mental Health 06/17/2005
Summary: WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. LBO 0340807 LISA SIMMONS, Applicant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH (METROPOLITAN STATE HOSPITAL), Legally Uninsured; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). Lisa Simmons (applicant) sustained an industrial injury to her right shoulder and bilateral wrists on August 20, 2002. At the time of her injury, she was employed as a janitor by the State of California, Department of Mental Health (Metropolitan State Hospital), legally uninsured and adjusted by State Compensation Insurance Fund (collectively, SCIF). The WCJ, however, prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the May 6, 2004 decision be affirmed. However, AOE/COE [injury arising out of and in the course of the employment] issue re: R shoulder has not been resolved.
Note: Utilization review report is not admissible for determining whether the injury caused the need for a particular treatment.
Citation: 70 CCC 866
WCC Citation: WCC 31062005 CA
Case Name: Singh v. Southland Stone 07/01/2010
Summary: SINGH v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U. S. A. , INC. GURPREET SINGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U. S. A. , Inc. , et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Factual Background Johar is the president and owner of Southland Stone, an importer and distributor of natural stone based in North Hollywood. During a visit to India in November 2003, Johar informed Singh that Southland Stone was seeking a general manager for Internet sales. Singh returned to the Los Angeles area for three weeks in November and December 2004 to work as a consultant for Southland Stone. According to Choti, she gave the envelope containing the three checks to another Southland Stone employee to mail to Singh.
Note: The exclusive remedy of workers' compensation barred an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against an employer, according to a decision from the California 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Citation: B208620
WCC Citation: None
Case Name: Singh v. WCAB (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 08/25/2017
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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             RAVINDERJIT SINGH, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Respondents. .             F075483 .             (WCAB No. ADJ8763257) .             OPINION THE COURT*  .             * Before Gomes, Acting P. J. , Franson, J. , and Smith, J. .             Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone and Ryan T. Trotta for Petitioner. .           Carla Anene, Mary Huckabaa, and Ryan J. Artola for Respondent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. .           -ooOoo- .           Ravinderjit Singh (Singh) petitions for a writ of review from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
Note: The 5th District Court of Appeal has sent a worker’s claim for temporary disability benefits back to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board for reconsideration after the board admitted that it failed to consider all the legal theories that could have entitled the worker to benefits.
Citation: F075483
WCC Citation: WCAB No. ADJ8763257
Case Name: Six Flags Inc. v. WCAB 11/27/2006
Summary: [1] IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE [2] No. B184245 [4] November 27, 2006 [5] SIX FLAGS, INC. [24] PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND [25] Bantita Rackchamroon, an operator hostess for Six Flags, Inc. , sustained industrial injury and death on April 9, 2004. Pursuant to section 4706. 5, the workers' compensation judge also awarded $125,000 to the Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit. The workers' compensation judge issued a report recommending that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) deny the petition for reconsideration. [37] Thus, at present, article XIV, section 4, does not include estates as a class of beneficiaries entitled to workers' compensation death benefits.
Note: Section 4702(a)(6)(B) is unconstitutional because the constitutional enabling provision, article XIV, section 4, does not identify estates as a class of beneficiaries entitled to workers' compensation death benefits.
Citation: 145 Cal. App. 4th 91
WCC Citation: WCC 31952006 CA
Case Name: Smith v. City of Oakland 06/22/2012
Summary: SMITH v. CITY OF OAKLAND QUINCY SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF OAKLAND et al. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS MARCHIANO, P. J. Quincy Smith, employed by the City of Oakland (City), sued the City and individually named defendants, including Brook Levin and David Ferguson, alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). About two weeks after the plaintiffs submitted a complaint about the appointment to the City Auditor, Robles-Wong began a campaign of harassment against them. The City filed a general demurrer to the first amended complaint at the end of December 2010. Smith alleged he was "an African-American male, age 39," while McConnell, alleged he was "a disabled Caucasian male, age 62. "
Note: A city employee who thrice failed to state a cognizable claim for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act despite receiving multiple opportunities to amend his complaint was not entitled to yet another chance.
Citation: A133070
WCC Citation: WCC 39092012 CA
1706 Results Page 145 of 171