Case Name:	State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (Guzman)		01/30/2018
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOSE A. GUZMAN, Respondents. .             H044300 .             (W. C. A. B. No. ADJ6839277) I. )1 Petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), the workers’ compensation carrier for Guzman’s employer, petitioned for reconsideration. .             For reasons that we will explain, we agree with SCIF. .           WE CONCUR: .           __________________________ ELIA, ACTING P. J. .           __________________________ MIHARA, J.
Note:
Citation:	H044300
WCC Citation:	W.C.A.B. No. ADJ6839277

Case Name:	State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (Jose Echeverria)		01/22/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOSE C. ECHEVERRIA, Respondents. A114505 (WCAB No. SRO 131702) The State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) petitions for review (Labor Code § 5952)*fn1* of the decision after reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) affirming an award to respondent, Jose C. Echeverria. State Fund is the insurer for Echeverria's employer, Hiatt Logging. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOSE C. ECHEVERRIA, Respondents. For Petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund Robert W. Daneri, Chief Counsel Suzanne Ah-Tye, Assistant Chief Counsel Don E. Clark, Senior Appellate Counsel For Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board No appearance for Respondent For Respondent Jose C. Echeverria FERCHLAND LAW OFFICE William T. Ferchland, Esq.
Note:	The court agreed to publish an opinion issued on Jan. 5 at the request of State Fund.
Citation:	146 Cal. App. 4th 1311
WCC Citation:	WCC 32052007 CA

Case Name:	State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (Romero)		05/24/2011
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and VINCENTE ROMERO, Respondents. State Compensation Insurance Fund, Suzanne Ah-Tye, Chief Counsel, Patricia Brown, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Don E. Clark, Senior Appellate Counsel, for Petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund. State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) petitioned for a writ of review of an opinion and order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration of the findings of fact and award of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), who had declined to reopen and set aside the parties' stipulation that Vicente Romero had suffered an industrial injury but did reopen and increase the stipulated award of 35 percent permanent disability to 100 percent. State Fund was Four Winds' workers' compensation insurance carrier. State Fund asserted section 5803 provided the WCAB with continuing jurisdiction to reduce or rescind the original award for good cause.
Note:	A petition to reduce disability filed more than five years after the date of injury was untimely, but a workers' compensation judge also erred by increasing an applicant's award, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in an unpublished decision.
Citation:	B224825
WCC Citation:	WCC 37652011 CA

Case Name:	State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (SANDHAGEN)		11/14/2006
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BRICE SANDHAGEN, Respondents. C048668 (WCAB No. RDG0115958) BRICE SANDHAGEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Respondents. Robert W. Daneri, Suzanne Ah-Tye, and Don E. Clark for petitioner and respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund. The employer's insurer, State Compensation Insurance Fund (Fund), disagrees and asserts that only monetary penalties can be imposed for its tardiness; it retains the right to deny the treatment request under the UR process and may pursue remedies under the dispute resolution procedures set forth in section 4062. Fund also asserts the WCAB may impose penalties under section 5814 if an employer delays completion of the UR process.
Note:	The WCAB acted within its authority in prohibiting the use of a report generated by an untimely utilization review process in subsequent proceedings challenging the treatment decision.
Citation:	144 Cal. App. 4th 1050
WCC Citation:	WCC 31902006 CA

Case Name:	State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. WCAB (Felts)		05/14/1981
Summary:	STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and FRED FELTS, Respondents. 2 Preliminarily, there exists a question of the timeliness of the petition for review and, thus, our jurisdiction. The Board's order denying reconsideration was filed on June 10, 1980; the petition for review was not filed in this court until December 10, 1980. Here, the petition for review was filed well within 45 days after State Farm first received notice on October 27, 1980, and the petition was therefore timely filed. [2] A brief review of the record indicates that the contention of State Farm is well founded.
Note:	Statutory period for filing petition begins with receipt of notice when service/notice of order is not timely.
Citation:	119 Cal.App.3d 193
WCC Citation:	WCC 27801981 CA

Case Name:	State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. WCAB (Leonard)		12/18/1997
Summary:	STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PATRICK A. LEONARD, JR. , Respondents. This case presents the question whether Leonard, Jr. , is a covered employee under the workers' compensation law and the State Farm policy. In January 1989, Leonard, Sr. , and his wife purchased a homeowners policy from State Farm. In October 1994, State Farm admitted that Leonard, Sr. , was insured under the policy. Ironically, it is State Farm, not Leonard, Jr. , that asserts the existence of his 'right' not to be subject to the workers' compensation provisions.
Note:	Regardless of relationship, if parties jointly consent to WC coverage, liability will be found against 'employer'.
Citation:	16 Cal.4th 1187
WCC Citation:	WCC 4191997 CA

Case Name:	State Farm Insurance et al. v. WCAB (Pearson)		01/26/2011
Summary:	INTRODUCTION State Farm Insurance Company (State Farm) petitions for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950*fn1 of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's opinion and order denying reconsideration of a joint supplemental findings and award. Without giving notice to State Farm, counsel for Apparicio and Pearson contacted Dr. Barras and provided her with several medical reports. State Farm also argued that the WCJ's finding regarding reimbursement of Pearson for caregiver services was excessive and unreasonable. State Farm alleged that Apparicio and Pearson scheduled an appointment with Dr. Barras without notifying State Farm, and did not provide State Farm with notice of the time, date, or location of the evaluation. The WCJ also cited Pearson's testimony that State Farm provided services at a $30 hourly rate during 2002 before terminating those services for reasons State Farm never explained.
Note:	The California 2nd District Court of Appeal created new case law Wednesday when it ruled that an applicant improperly had ex parte communication with a medical examiner in a case.
Citation:	B211431
WCC Citation:	WCC 37112011 CA

Case Name:	State of CA Division of Occupational Safety and Health v. Superior Ct. of LA County		04/23/2012
Summary:	STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; MARGARITA ALVAREZ BAUTISTA et al. , Real Parties in Interest. Cal-OSHA has produced those files, along with all the 2009 files, totaling 1,100 files and 100,000 pages of records. Proc. , § 2016. 010) (the Act) applies to traditional mandamus proceedings brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 (Code Civ. Cal-OSHA moved for clarification of these proceedings in the superior court, but the court declined to rule on the motion. Cal-OSHA contends that had the superior court ruled on the motion (and narrowed the proceedings), it would not have granted Bautista's broad discovery request.
Note:	The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health does not need to produce the 2,200 files requested by a litigant.
Citation:	B235419
WCC Citation:	WCC 38892012 CA

Case Name:	State of CA v. IAC (Corsinotti)		10/03/1961
Summary:	STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, MARINO CORSINOTTI, an Incompetent Person, etc. , et al. , Respondents. He performed manual tasks with gross clumsiness; he was best suited to activities involving large arm movements performed under supervision. At the time of the accident he attended the Sheltered Workshop of Aid Retarded Children, Inc. (hereinafter designated 'ARC'). The program consisted of the sorting of old newspapers for sale to florists, van and storage companies and other purchasers. The commission ordered that 'State of California, Subsequent Injuries Fund be joined as a party defendant.
Note:	Imbecility of worker didn't foreclose finding that he suffered compensable permanent partial disability.
Citation:	196 Cal.App.2d 10
WCC Citation:	WCC 25481961 CA

Case Name:	State of CA v. Super. Ct.		12/12/1997
Summary:	THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; STACI BETH GLOVSKY et al. , Real Parties in Interest. COUNSEL Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Richard J. Rojo, Susan Kawala and D. L. Helfat, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioners. Bollington & Roberts, Wayne Hunkins, James D. Roberts, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, Thomas N. Charchut and Caroline E. Chan for Real Parties in Interest. *- Statement of the Case Petitioners, cross-defendants in the cause below, petitioned this court for a writ of mandate on July 21, 1997. State Compensation Insurance Fund filed a complaint in intervention to recover benefits it paid to Falquez.
Note:	Third-party barred from cross-complaining against employer for indemnity and contribution.
Citation:	60 Cal.App.4th 659
WCC Citation:	WCC 23961997 CA