Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library

Case Name: Shanahan v. State Farm General Insurance Co. 03/08/2011
Summary: SHANAHAN v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY JOHN M. SHANAHAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Shanahan had a renter's insurance policy and a separate personal liability policy (umbrella policy) with State Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm). He sued State Farm for breach of contract and breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing based upon State Farm's refusal to defend the Skigin lawsuit. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, contending it had no duty to defend Shanahan. Shanahan had two insurance policies with State Farm: a renter's policy and an umbrella policy.
Note: An employer's personal liability policy and renter's insurance policy provided no coverage for his $700,000 settlement of a sexual harassment and battery suit, according to a published decision from the California 4th District Court of Appeal.
Citation: G042988
WCC Citation: WCC 37292011 CA
Case Name: Shannon et al. v. Los Angeles County Fire Department et al. 01/25/2012
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT MICHAEL SHANNON et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. BC380970) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. * * * * * * This case arises out of appellant Michael Shannons (Shannon) termination from employment at the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). While on leave, on November 5, 2005, Shannon completed a form entitled Los Angeles County Fire Department Employees Report of Injury/Illness. Shannon Is Diagnosed With PTSD On April 4, 2006, Dr. Diane DeSilva diagnosed Shannon with major depressive disorder and PTSD.
Note: A California appellate court rejected a Los Angles firefighters claim that he was wrongfully terminated due to his post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis.
Citation: B223650
WCC Citation: WCC 38472012 CA
Case Name: Sharareh v. WCAB 10/18/2007
Summary: A113864 (WCAB Case No. WCK 51625) Shahiram and Violeta Sharareh (petitioners), successors in interest to the estate of their son Sina Sharareh (Sharareh), seek to annul an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying their son compensation for injuries he suffered when he was shot in the throat. Thys then left, checked with his supervisor [and] approved a deal made with [Sharareh] to check on Matt Anderson . The arbitrator and the Board also unduly emphasized that Sharareh initiated the contact and offered to assist Thys. If Sharareh and Thys had entered into an agreement that Sharareh would assist Thys, the fact that Sharareh initiated the contact should not be a basis upon which to deny him informant status. The arbitrator found: "The evidence does show that [Sharareh] did provide information to law enforcement officials which was, in fact, used against Anderson, and the evidence further suggests Anderson almost certainly became aware of this later, prior to the time he shot [Sharareh] and was then killed by police. "
Note: The legal consequence of the Board's failure to prepare a summary of evidence is that the Court of Appeal is unable to conduct a meaningful review of the Board's order and therefore, the order is annulled.
Citation: 156 Cal. App. 4th 189; 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 147
WCC Citation: WCC 32692007 CA
Case Name: Sheaffer v. Board of Retirement San Joaquin Couty 07/02/2008
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- TIMOTHY A. SHEAFFER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND, Real Party In Interest and Respondent. As to the merits, Sheaffer contends the evidence established his psychological disability was permanent and service-connected, or if the evidence was insufficient, the Board of Retirement of the San Joaquin County Employees' Retirement System (the Board) had a duty to develop a fuller record on these issues. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Beginning in 1985, Sheaffer was a deputy district attorney for San Joaquin County. The ALJ granted the motion of real party in interest San Joaquin County Employees' Retirement Fund (the Fund) to exclude the report. Sheaffer petitioned for a writ of mandate to set aside the decision denying industrial disability retirement or to reinstate Sheaffer to his former position.
Note: [Unpublished] Since Sheaffer failed to establish a permanent disability, the trial court did not err in denying the petition for a writ.
Citation: C054229
WCC Citation: WCC 33902008 CA
Case Name: SHELBY v. SeaRIVER MARITIME INC. 02/18/2011
Summary: SHELBY v. SeaRIVER MARITIME INC. MACK SHELBY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEARIVER MARITIME INC. , Defendant and Appellant. This is an appeal from the final judgment after the jury awarded plaintiff Mack Shelby $8 million in damages for harm sustained from exposure to petroleum products containing benzene and other hydrocarbons while employed as an able-bodied seaman by defendant SeaRiver Maritime Inc. , formerly named Exxon Shipping Company (SeaRiver). After taking a six-month medical leave of absence to address his condition, plaintiff returned to work with SeaRiver. In 2006, plaintiff brought this action, asserting claims against SeaRiver under the Jones Act (see 46 U. S. C. 30104) (Jones Act), and general maritime law. According to SeaRiver, plaintiff failed this burden because he presented "no evidence of [his] present inability to work at SeaRiver or anywhere else. "
Note: The California 1st District Court of Appeal upheld an $8 million jury verdict in favor of a cancer-stricken seaman in a Jones Act lawsuit, rejecting the employer's arguments that a doctor's testimony that petroleum products had likely caused the cancer was only conjecture.
Citation: A122449
WCC Citation: WCC 37192011 CA
Case Name: Shell Oil Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n 01/23/1962
Summary: No. 77 January 23, 1962 SHELL OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, BETTY BYRD ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding death benefit to widow and minor children of an employee. Stone [199 CalApp2d Page 427] Petitioner, Shell Oil Company, seeks annulment of an award to the widow and minor children of Charles H. Byrd, deceased. On March 16, the Shell Oil Company held a dinner meeting in Stockton, which was called the Spring Dealers' Meeting. They were unable to determine immediately what was wrong with the automobile, so they parked it at a Shell station and continued on to the meeting. Petitioner stresses the fact that the agreement between Byrd and Shell Oil Company prohibited him from making any major automobile repairs at the service station.
Note: Employees injuries are in course and scope of employment if related to attendance of special meeting/training.
Citation: 199 Cal. App. 2d 426
WCC Citation: WCC 30411962 CA
Case Name: Sherwood v. City of Los Angeles 01/28/2008
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE ROCKY SHERWOOD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Carlos De La Guerra, Assistant City Attorney, and Martin R. Boags, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Following a hearing before the Board of Rights, Rocky Sherwood (Sherwood) was removed from his position as a police officer for the City of Los Angeles (City). In December 2002, Sherwood was informed by Sergeant Linder that there was a pending criminal and administrative investigation against Sherwood. (Jackson v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 111 Cal. App. 4th at p.
Note: [Unpublished] At the relevant time and during the period Plaintiff was off duty TTD, there is no evidence that he knew or should have known that he should have returned to work.
Citation: B195551
WCC Citation: WCC 33072008 CA
Case Name: Shipley v. WCAB 06/29/1992
Summary: MARSHALL S. SHIPLEY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF WHITTIER, Respondents. OPINION WALLIN, J. Marshall S. Shipley successfully petitioned this court for a writ of review of orders of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturning a compensation award and denying Shipley's petition for reconsideration. The city referred Shipley to Dr. Hillsman, who concluded his injury was '100% non industrial. 'Several months later, Shipley again inquired about the status of the petition and the location of the file. Shipley is entitled to the board's review of his petition and its decision on its merits.
Note: Time period is subject to tolling by Board when circumstances warrant it.
Citation: 7 Cal.App.4th 1104
WCC Citation: WCC 26991992 CA
Case Name: Shipman v. California Dep't of Corrections and Rehabilitation 01/03/2008
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. F050317 January 3, 2008 JAMES SHIPMAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant, Michael W. Pott and Thomas L. Riordan for Defendants and Respondents California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Matthew C. Kramer and Kathleen Prosper. Shipman has no information, however, that Kramer, Prosper or Bollinger ever said Shipman had broken into Bollinger's office. While these counselors didn't indicate Bollinger made any such statements about Shipman, Shipman believed the counselors heard that from Bollinger. H. Shipman's Government Claim and Appeal On July 6, 2004, Shipman filed a government claim with the State of California Board of Control.
Note: Making comments about an employee's truthfulness in the course of a workplace investigation does not exceed all bounds of conduct usually tolerated in a civilized society.
Citation: F050317
WCC Citation: WCC 32972008 CA
Case Name: Shope v. WCAB 12/02/1971
Summary: RICHARD SHOPE, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondents (Opinion by Aiso, J. , with Stephens, Acting P. J. , and Reppy, J. , concurring. )That he was entitled to workmen's compensation benefits awarded him by the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (Board) is not disputed. The employer went out of business in December 1968 and has not joined in this review. We hold in favor of petitioner on both questions and order the decision of the Board annulled for the reasons we set forth below. We therefore, hold that petitioner has standing to have this court review the Board's determination as to the insurance coverage.
Note: Worker can institute review of decision because he was affected adversely.
Citation: 21 Cal.App.3d 774
WCC Citation: WCC 27081971 CA
1706 Results Page 144 of 171