Case Name:	Smith v. Dynalectric Company		12/16/2011
Summary:	SMITH v. DYNALECTRIC COMPANY JEROME SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DYNALECTRIC COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. *fn2 Despite having worked at JPL for, as Caltech put it, "several" years, Caltech never described Smith as its employee. The relationship between Smith and Caltech was governed by the Contract, which was entered into between Caltech and SBAR. As against Caltech, Smith alleged causes of action for negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous condition of public property. Indeed, in the Party Identification Sheet attached to Smith's Case Information Statement, Smith is identified as the sole appellant.
Note:	Caltech was not entitled to summary judgment on its exclusive remedy defense against a personal injury lawsuit because of evidence suggesting that the plaintiff was not its employee, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B228770
WCC Citation:	WCC 38332011 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		12/27/1993
Summary:	[n1] Smith contends that the decision of the WCAB is erroneous in that he was entitled to a presumption that his heart trouble arose out of and in the course of his employment (Lab. However, the WCAB found that Smith's myocardial infarction and bypass surgery were the first manifestation of Smith's heart trouble and since those events occurred more than six years after the last day Smith actually worked as a firefighter, they were well beyond the presumptive period and Smith was not entitled to application of the presumption. Smith contends that even without the benefit of the presumption the WCAB should have found in his favor. ------- n1 After the workers' compensation judge filed an opinion denying his claim, Smith sought reconsideration by the WCAB. Smith filed his petition for a writ of review on the 50th day following the decision of the WCAB.
Note:	Presumption does not apply where manifestation occurs beyond presumptive period and substantial evidence reflects non-employment risks.
Citation:	59 CCC 40
WCC Citation:	WCC 4121993 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		05/11/2009
Summary:	*fn2 In 1997, by stipulation, Smith was awarded partial permanent disability indemnity and future medical treatment. Smith contacted the attorney who filed his original workers' compensation claim and the attorney sought utilization review (§ 4610). Pursuant to court order, Smith was examined by an agreed medical examiner, who concluded he needed the injections to relieve his back pain, which was precipitated by his industrial injuries. Citing section 4607, Smith subsequently sought attorney fees. As with Smith, the insurer was disputing Amar's specific requests, not challenging the validity of his award.
Note:	The plain language of LC 4607 does not support attorney fee awards in situations where an applicant successfully challenges an informal denial of medical care.
Citation:	S150528
WCC Citation:	WCC 35202009 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		07/02/1969
Summary:	OPINION MOSK, J. Otis S. Smith died at the age of 45 on November 24, 1967, as the result of congestive heart failure. Smith returned to work after his discharge from the hospital and, in early July of 1964, injured a toe while at work. Smith did not return to work between his discharge from the hospital on August 10, 1964, and his death three years later. The referee found that Smith had sustained a compensable injury but the board reversed this determination. [71 Cal. 2d 591] The report of May 20, 1967, concludes, '. . . Mr. Smith is suffering from heart disease presumably due to alcoholic disease or ventricular hypertrophy.
Note:	The relevant, considered opinion of one physician, even if inconsistent with other med. opinions, may be substantial evidence.
Citation:	71 Cal.2d 588
WCC Citation:	WCC 27411969 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		12/10/1968
Summary:	December 10, 1968 JO ANNE SMITH, PETITIONER, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COUNTY OF VENTURA ET AL. , RESPONDENTS. Fowler's testimony does not constitute substantial evidence that Smith was not required to provide his own car. Respondents offered no evidence, however, that the department applied the same requirement to Mrs. Sheldon in June 1967 as it exacted of Smith in December 1965. In the present case the employer instructed Smith to have his car available on the job every morning. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App. 1931) 40 S. W. 2d 913; State etc. Fund v. Industrial Com.
Note:	Special mission established where employee's vehicle required for work.
Citation:	69 Cal. 2d 814
WCC Citation:	WCC 30401968 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		09/21/1981
Summary:	CHERYL J. SMITH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ED SMITH WELDING et al. , Respondents. Bobby Burton Morris (Morris) testified that he was employed by Ed Smith Welding and that, on the day of the accident, he began work at the shop at 6:30 a. m. Eddie Smith (Smith) was already there and outlined the work he wanted done. As Morris and Smith talked on the radio, they joked; Smith said he was low on gas and not to pass him. When the witness met Smith at the park, Smith was waiting for trucks to bring clay from the mountains to be put on the diamond. It was not unusual for Smith to drink quite a bit, but, in Chambers' opinion, Smith did not drink to excess.
Note:	Employer's burden met b/c intoxication was substantial factor in accident.
Citation:	123 Cal.App.3d 763
WCC Citation:	WCC 25841981 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB and California Youth Authority, and Amar v. WCAB and Mel Clayton Ford		01/16/2007
Summary:	GRO 16225, 16226, ) d Civil No. B190655 (W. C. A. B. No. GOL 89438) DWIGHT SMITH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, et al. , Respondents. and DAVID AMAR, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MEL CLAYTON FORD, et al. , Respondents. In Amar, the parties previously stipulated to an award of future medical care for a foot injury. Facts and Procedural History Smith Smith sustained industrial injuries from cumulative trauma to his right shoulder, neck and psyche while working for the California Youth Authority (CYA). The award provided that "medical-legal expenses" would be paid by defendant, Mel Clayton Ford.
Note:	Insurance carriers who fail to provide previously awarded medical care may not avoid attorney fees to successful applicants' attorneys through the expedient of an informal denial, even when they do so in good faith.
Citation:	146 Cal. App. 4th 1032
WCC Citation:	WCC 32032007 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB, Alma Piston Co. (Lee)		02/13/2002
Summary:	STEPHEN J. SMITH, as Director, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ALMA PISTON COMPANY, Respondents. Grancell, Lebovitz, Stander, Marx and Barnes, Norin T. Grancell and Lawrence Kirk for Respondent Alma Piston Company, dba Tomadur Engine Company. RELEVANT FACTUAL ANDPROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 1994, Yoon applied to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) for a painting contractor's license. On this matter, Labor Code section 2750. 5 provides that 'any person performing any function or activity for which a [contractor's] license is required . Respondents Alma Piston Company, dba Tomadur Engine Company are awarded their costs.
Note:	Contractor's license status determinative of property owner's liability.
Citation:	96 Cal.App.4th 117
WCC Citation:	WCC 28362002 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB, JRW Contemporary		02/28/2002
Summary:	STEPHEN J. SMITH, as Director of Industrial Relations, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and J. R. W. CONTEMPORARY, INC. , Respondents. At the time, he was working for J. R. W. Contemporary (JRW), a furniture manufacturer. JRW objected to dismissal of the Walker's application and filed its own claim on the Walkers' behalf. The Board allowed the claim to proceed and JRW to make dependency arguments for the Walkers. Instead, JRW repeats the WCJ's position that the Walkers relied upon Joshua's payment in purchasing their house.
Note:	Rent may be evidence of dependency only if such payments contributed to maintaining alleged dependents standard of living.
Citation:	96 Cal. App. 4th 560
WCC Citation:	WCC 28372002 CA

Case Name:	Smith vs. Churn Creek Const.; SCIF		06/01/2004
Summary:	We note that on January 16, 2004, Dr. Krohn was within his authority to perform his utilization review. Mr. Smith has stated if surgery is necessary in order to get better, he is ready to proceed. Next, on February 10, 2004, Dr. Crawford stated in a letter to SCIF, as follows: "'Please review the attached consultation letter from Dr. Leppla. As indicated in his letter, Dr. Leppla recommends that Leon Smith proceed with epidural steroid injections. AWARD "AWARD IS MADE in favor [sic] Leon Smith against Churn Creek Construction Company and State Compensation Insurance Fund, as follows:" "Further medical treatment. "
Note:	Though the ACOEM Guides were in effect but not presumed correct, burden still on treating physician to justify treatment request with evidence-based medicine.
Citation:	69 CCC 1012
WCC Citation:	WCC 30622004 CA