Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library



 
Case Name: Zeeb vs. WCAB 10/17/1967
Summary: RAYMOND ZEEB, JR. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents. He stopped seeing her because he was unable to pay her bills and sought reimbursement for the self- procured medical treatment. The issue briefed is a controversy and its determination cannot be avoided on the theory suggested by the referee. Com. , supra, 91 Cal. App. 121, was that the employer did not tender medical treatment and that therefore it did not regain control. Thus the issue of whether the employer could regain control by a proper tender of treatment was not involved.
Note: Employer loses medical control once it is denied.
Citation: 67 Cal.2d 496, 32 CCC 441
WCC Citation: WCC 30131967 CA
 
 
Case Name: Zeinali v. Raytheon Company; Does 1 through 25 04/04/2011
Summary: Plaintiff-Appellant Hossein Zeinali, who is of Iranian descent, was employed by Defendant-Appellee Raytheon Company for approximately four years. Raytheon informed Zeinali that this position required him to obtain a "Secret" level security clearance, and informed Zeinali that his continued employment was contingent on obtaining such clearance. In November 2004, Zeinali transferred to a different engineering position, "Senior Systems Engineer," which, according to Raytheon, also required a "Secret" clearance. Ultimately, though, Raytheon decided to terminate Zeinali because he did not obtain a clearance. Zeinali generally agrees with this outline of events, but points to evidence that at least two non-Iranian engineers were retained while Zeinali was fired.
Note: A federal district court had jurisdiction to hear an Iranian engineer's employment discrimination suit against Raytheon because his suit did not hinge on whether or not he should have received a security clearance, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Citation: 09-56283
WCC Citation: WCC 37412011 CA
 
 
Case Name: Zemke v. WCAB 06/28/1968
Summary: ERNEST J. ZEMKE, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, W. S. SHAMBAN AND COMPANY et al. , Respondents. The petitioner, Ernest J. Zemke, worked as a maintenance mechanic for W. S. Shamban and Company in Newberry Park, California, prior to December 18, 1965. (1949) 95 Cal. App. 2d 443, 450 [213 P. 2d 11]; 2 Hanna, California Law of Employee Injuries and Workmen's Compensation (2d ed. [2] "Whether a disability results in whole or in part from 'the normal progress of a preexisting disease' (Industrial Indemn. We have also said that the W. C. A. B. is not entitled to rely on medical reports which it knows to be erroneous.
Note: Apportionment permitted only as to that part of disability which would have resulted from
Citation: 68 Cal 2d 794
WCC Citation: WCC 29231968 CA
 
 
Case Name: Zenith Ins. Co. v. WCAB 10/01/1981
Summary: ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DOROTHY THWEATT, Respondents. OPINION TAMURA, J. Petitioner Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith), a workers' compensation carrier, seeks review and annulment of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision awarding full death benefits, medical benefits, and burial expenses to the widow of an employee who died of work-induced congestive heart failure. [124 Cal. App. 3d 179] Zenith contends that Labor Code section 3208. 2 which was added in 1968 nullified the Pacific Gas & Elec. The board added, however, that even if the statute applied and foreclosed the merger, under the Pacific Gas & Elec. The court viewed the absence of such provisions as reflecting a legislative choice to make death benefits nonapportionable.
Note: 'Apportionment' of loss by employers, not of benefits; death, medical, and burial benefits not apportionable.
Citation: 124 Cal.App.3d 176
WCC Citation: WCC 25791981 CA
 
 
Case Name: Zenith Ins. Co. v. WCAB 03/20/2006
Summary: Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith), a workers' compensation insurance carrier, seeks review of an order by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) refusing to reconsider the decision of a workers' compensation judge (the WCJ) awarding facility fees to two outpatient medical treatment centers. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Gilberto Capi injured his lower back while working as a book binder for International Coil Bindery, then insured for workers' compensation claims by Zenith. Zenith settled Capi's claims via a compromise and release; however, it disputed the reimbursement claims made by several of Capi's health care providers, including the claims for facility fees sought by the lien claimants. Zenith presented a copy of its civil complaint to the WCJ, requested additional time to complete discovery and for the matter to be stayed pending resolution of its civil action. Zenith filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board, challenging that portion of the findings and order awarding facility fees to the lien claimants.
Note: Lien claimant bears the burden of establishing license and accreditation to establish right to reimbursement.
Citation: 138 Cal. App. 4th 373
WCC Citation: WCC 31482006 CA
 
 
Case Name: Zenith Ins. v. WCAB 01/29/2008
Summary: Zenith petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration that the new schedule applies because the notice of permanent disability indemnity was required with the last payment of temporary disability indemnity in 2005 under the express language of section 4061(a). The WCAB adopted the WCJ's decision and report and denied Zenith reconsideration. Cugini answers that the former schedule is applicable because the requirement to provide notice of permanent disability indemnity arose when Zenith paid temporary disability indemnity in 2004. Standard of Review and Rules of Statutory Construction A decision by the WCAB that is based on factual findings which are supported by substantial evidence is affirmed by the reviewing court. If Zenith is correct that a permanent and stationary status is required under section 4660(d), then the new schedule would necessarily apply to Cugini's permanent disability.
Note: The injured worker's permanent and stationary status is not required before a physician's report can indicate the existence of permanent disability under section 4660(d).
Citation: B197186
WCC Citation: WCC 33102008 CA
 
 
Case Name: Zenith Insurance v. WCAB (Azizi) 07/18/2007
Summary: A116761 (WCAB Case No. OAK 0317766) Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith), the workers' compensation carrier for Hutchinson Motors, petitioned for a writ of review of the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) on the claim of Nader Azizi. Zenith paid temporary disability indemnity on Hutchinson Motors' behalf for the period between October 21, 2004 and August 5, 2005. It deferred a decision on the amount of permanent disability and remanded the case for further proceedings on the issue of apportionment. Zenith was required to provide notice under section 4061, "together with the last payment of temporary disability indemnity," in August 2005. Filed 7/18/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ZENITH INSURANCE CO. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and NADER AZIZI, Respondents.
Note: Labor Code 4660, subdivision (d) states the general rule that the applicable schedule is the one in effect on the date of the injury, and then provides an exception to that rule, namely, that the new schedule will apply to pre-2005 injuries unless one of three specified circumstances existed prior to 2005.
Citation: 153 Cal. App. 4th 461, 72 CCC 785
WCC Citation: WCC 32362007 CA
 
 
Case Name: Zhu v. WCAB (Department of Social Services) 06/20/2017
Summary: Filed 6/20/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE .             YU QIN ZHU, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondents. .             No. B278696 .             (W. C. A. B. No. ADJ10324875) .             PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. .             Law Offices of F. Michael Sabzevar and F. Michael Sabzevar for Petitionier. DISPOSITION .           KRIEGLER, Acting P. J. .           We concur: .           BAKER, J. .           DUNNING, J. %uF02A .           %uF02A Judge of the Orange Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Note:
Citation: B278696
WCC Citation: W.C.A.B. No.ADJ10324875
 
 
Case Name: Zimmon v. City of San Bernardino 09/16/2011
Summary: ZIMMON v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GARRETT ZIMMON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Defendant and Respondent. Defendant and Respondent City of San Bernardino (City) denied Plaintiff and Appellant Garrett Zimmon's application for disability retirement. For example, Zimmon described a time when the mayor, at a city council meeting, wanted Zimmon to personally arrest the city attorney. The hearing was part of the Office of Administrative Hearings for the City Council of the City of San Bernardino. Zimmon argued that the City appeared to be conceding the fact that Zimmon is incapacitated; however the City raised a "`gotcha' affirmative defense. "
Note: The former police chief for the City of San Bernardino is entitled to a disability pension after showing that he would have likely received a disability retirement had he not been terminated, the 4th District Court of Appeal determined.
Citation: E050314
WCC Citation: WCC 38032011 CA
 
 
Case Name: Zinchik v. Moore 10/26/2011
Summary: PAUL ZINCHIK et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JAMES W. MOORE, Defendant and Appellant. Zinchik did not feel that defendant "had a handle on the project," in terms of costs and billings. She called Zinchik and sent e-mails to him regularly that informed him of the progress and costs of the work. Zinchik testified that all of the bidding, orders for materials, and negotiating with subcontractors "always went through" Perez-Stable. The trial court based this date on the response by defendant to billing inquiries made by Paul Zinchik and the subsequent directives by defendant to Zinchik regarding the role of Perez-Stable.
Note: A contractor must reimburse a customer $1.47 million he received for construction work on a residential home because he had misclassified an administrative worker, the 1st District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation: A129548
WCC Citation: WCC 38162011 CA
 
1705 Results Page 170 of 171