Case Name:	Smyers v. WCAB		06/12/1984
Summary:	SUSAN SMYERS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, I. T. T. JENNINGS et al. , Respondents. Petitioners, Susan Smyers and Ethel J. Hoffman, sought and were granted writs of review. In 1977, employer stipulated, in both cases, to findings and awards of 100 percent disability and continuing medical treatment for life. In 1977 the physicians treating both women recommended that housekeeping services be provided as part of medical treatment. These episodes of coughing are clearly related to the amount of physical activity engaged in by both Mrs. Hoffman and Mrs. Smyers.
Note:	Housekeeping (or other) services reasonable and necessary med. treatment.
Citation:	157 C.A. 3rd 36
WCC Citation:	WCC 28341984 CA

Case Name:	Snedecor v. WCAB		08/17/2009
Summary:	Frank Snedecor, a plumber for the Los Angeles Community College District (District), injured his cervical spine at work on February 20, 2003. Snedecor argues that the WCAB is mistaken that section 4660(d) requires Dr. Schiffman to expressly state that permanent disability exists, and the entire record should have been considered under Genlyte. Snedecor argues that the WCAB similarly applied the 1997 schedule based on permanent disability indicated by whole person impairment due to surgical hip replacement in Rosas School District v. Workers' Comp. Since the WCAB did not reach this issue and has extensive expertise and experience in such highly technical matters of workers' compensation, we conclude that the WCAB should determine the issue on remand. In its opinion, the WCAB rejected the WCJ's reasoning because the District's notice was triggered by the requisite period of time Snedecor was out of work and not by a medical opinion that he was a qualified injured worker.
Note:	[Unpublished] Since the record supports the WCJ's finding that 2004 treating physician's reports incorporated diagnostic reports, the WCAB's determination that the WCJ relied solely on diagnostic reports to find indication of the existence of permanent disability under section 4660(d) is not supported by substantial evidence.
Citation:	B209686
WCC Citation:	WCC 35552009 CA

Case Name:	Snodgrass v. WCAB		09/11/1985
Summary:	Howard Snodgrass, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and City of Baldwin Park, Respondents. Section 132a expresses the broad policy that employees who have sustained compensable industrial injuries not be discriminated against. An employee may proceed under this section to obtain increased compensation or reinstatement and reimbursement of lost wages by filing an appropriate petition. Third, applicant's pursuing the civil action without simultaneously pursuing a claim before the Board was reasonable and in good faith. n3 At the time applicant filed his civil action the case of Meyer v. Byron Jackson, Inc. (1981) 46 Cal.
Note:	Filing a civil claim for injury tolls the statute of limitations on the filing of a 132a claim.
Citation:	50 CCC 501
WCC Citation:	WCC 27661985 CA

Case Name:	So. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. Inc. v. WCAB		01/18/1979
Summary:	Manuel [23 Cal3d Page 160] Petitioner Southern California Rapid Transit District, Inc. (RTD) seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration of an award of temporary disability benefits to respondent Elliot Weitzman (Weitzman). RTD's petition for reconsideration was denied by the WCAB on October 18, 1977. (g) Where the injury does not arise out of an altercation in which the injured employee is the initial physical aggressor. "The hearing judge and the WCAB found Laines v. Workmen's Comp. The determination by the WCAB that the injury did not arise out of his employment was annulled by the Court of Appeal.
Note:	Injury compensable where employee required to travel to work to deliver medical release.
Citation:	23 Cal. 3d 158
WCC Citation:	WCC 30501979 CA

Case Name:	Sobiniak v. WCAB		05/25/1984
Summary:	Sobiniak initiated a civil action against the manufacturer of the pump. That action was settled for 'a gross recovery of $135,000,' Sobiniak receiving final payment on January 28, 1982. On January 5, 1983, the WCJ found that Sobiniak sustained industrial injury while employer Rohde was illegally uninsured, and awarded benefits to Sobiniak. The WCJ further opined that Sobiniak, having received compensation for his injury from the third party, is precluded from double recovery by the credit provision. 1598) which had resulted in disputes as to its meaning in several respects in cases involving both civil actions and proceedings before the WCAB.
Note:	UEF entitled to credit for net amt. of employee third party recovery.
Citation:	156 Cal.App.3d 448
WCC Citation:	WCC 24451984 CA

Case Name:	Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California LLC		06/07/2011
Summary:	SODERSTEDT v. CBIZ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC ROGER WILLIAM SODERSTEDT, JR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CBIZ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiffs and appellants Roger William Soderstedt, Jr. , and Ruslan Daych appeal from an order denying class certification in the action they filed against their former employer, defendant and respondent CBIZ Southern California, LLC (CBIZ). Appellant Soderstedt began work as an Associate at CBIZ's Oxnard office in September 2005, immediately following his graduation from college. In connection with this policy, CBIZ issued guidelines for tax return review, which outlined three phases of review. CBIZ sought judicial notice of an order in another matter, California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001, a February 1989 opinion letter from the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and various federal and state regulations.
Note:	A trial court was correct to deny two plaintiff accountants' motions for class certification in a misclassification suit against their former employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B224349
WCC Citation:	WCC 37702011 CA

Case Name:	Soil Engin. Constr., Inc. v. Super. Ct.		10/06/1982
Summary:	SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; EDWARD MORRILL et al. , Real Parties in Interest. Petitioner contends that respondent court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. Real parties are plaintiffs in an action brought in their capacity as nondependent heirs and personal representatives of the deceased employee, their son Edward Francis Morrill. [¶] (c) Where the injury is proximately caused by the employment, either with or without negligence. '[¶] (b) A death benefit, to be allowed to the dependents when the employee leaves any person dependent upon him for support. '
Note:	Superior Court lacked jurisdiction (exclusive remedy rule) even though no recovery by parents as nondependent heirs.
Citation:	136 Cal.App.3d 329
WCC Citation:	WCC 25621982 CA

Case Name:	Solano County Probation Department v. WCAB (Auilar)		01/07/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A129342 January 7, 2011 SOLANO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND PAULA AGUILAR, RESPONDENTS. STATEMENT OF FACTS Respondent Paula Aguilar suffered injuries to her left shoulder, left elbow, low back, and left hip. The injuries arose in the course of her employment with petitioner Solano County Probation Department (Solano). Peter Mandell, M. D. , acting as an agreed medical examiner, examined Aguilar on at least four occasions and prepared several reports on her condition. In his first report, dated in October 2002, Dr. Mandell noted that Aguilar had pre-existing arthritis in her left hip.
Note:	A workers' compensation judge mistakenly assumed that a doctor withdrew his opinion that 33% of a left hip injury should be apportioned to obesity and arthritis when the doctor amended his opinion on apportionment of a spine injury, California's 1st Appellate District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	A129342
WCC Citation:	WCC 36992011 CA

Case Name:	Solis v. Sunset Development Company		12/27/2007
Summary:	Filed 12/27/07 Solis v. Sunset Development CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR JOANNE SOLIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND During the time period relevant to this dispute, respondent Sunset Development Company (Sunset) was responsible for the development, management, and maintenance of office buildings in Bishop Ranch Business Park, including 4000 Executive Parkway, in San Ramon. Sunset was responsible for the landscaping, maintenance, inspection, and repair done in the area around the building. We construe the trial court's August 11, 2006, "Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendants Sunset Development Company and Defendant Alexander Properties Company," which was submitted by respondents' counsel and orders that "judgment is entered in favor of defendants," as an appealable judgment because it evidences a clear intent to finally dispose of appellant's complaint against respondents.
Note:	[Unpublished] Defendant did not owe appellant a duty because she fell in an area not intended for pedestrian traffic.
Citation:	A115772
WCC Citation:	WCC 32942007 CA

Case Name:	Solorzano v. Imperial Toy Corp.		06/30/2008
Summary:	In October 2003, plaintiff Cecilia Solorzano commenced employment with defendant Imperial Toy Corporation. As to Imperial Toy, the Family Rights Act was inapplicable because Solorzano had not been employed there for more than 12 months. The FEHA claims and the wrongful termination claim against Imperial Toy failed because Solorzano did not have a physical disability. The question of whether Solorzano was disabled does not necessarily turn on whether Imperial Toy had full knowledge of her condition. But Imperial Toy did not establish that Barth knew about its contents before he chose Solorzano for termination.
Note:	[Unpublished] The ADA's definition of 'disability' applies under the FEHA if it would result in 'broader protection.' Generally, the FEHA, as distinguished from the ADA, does not exclude all temporary, nonchronic impairments.
Citation:	B195855
WCC Citation:	WCC 33892008 CA