Case Name:	Davis v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners		04/12/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) PAUL JEFFREY DAVIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. 07CS00697) The Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) spent over $72,000 in its disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Paul Davis, a 20-year veteran chiropractor in both neurology and orthopedics, for his treatment and billing of a single patient who suffered two industrial accidents at two places of employment with different insurers. Dr. Davis and his wife both testified that he had very little to do with the billing practices in his chiropractic offices. Unlike Dr. Davis and his expert, Michael Martello, D. C. , Dr. Stahl is not a chiropractic orthopedist or a qualified medical examiner (QME). Dr. Martello testified the Board had not codified any standard of care for the treatment of chiropractic patients in California.
Note:	Board Regulation section 318 is not a safe harbor provision exonerating plaintiff for his negligent acts, and the prohibition for 'excessive treatment' is not unconstitutionally vague.
Citation:	C059588
WCC Citation:	WCC 36142010 CA

Case Name:	Davis v. Fireman's Fund Insur. Co.		10/15/1970
Summary:	COUNSEL: For applicant - James H. Davis, in propria persona. Defendant insurance carrier contends that the permanent disability rating is based upon an arbitrary, artificial rule rather than upon the evidence. In the absence of this established procedure, he probably would have rated the disability in this case as 1 per cent flat. 'A rating specialist 'must consider no more and no less than the information provided to him by the fact finder. 'AWARD SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD IS MADE in favor of James H. Davis against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company of: (a) All repair and replacement of heel lifts reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury herein.
Note:	Award of 1% permanent partial disability was not 'nominal' per Sec. 5802.
Citation:	35 CCC 465
WCC Citation:	WCC 26351970 CA

Case Name:	Davis v. First Health Group Corp.		11/25/2009
Summary:	H032183 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. M84885) Defendant First Health Group Corporation is a preferred provider organization (PPO) and provides health benefits services to employers throughout the country. Davis brought suit against First Health nearly six months later, claiming, among other things, that First Health was required to give him a fair hearing and fair procedure before it delisted him. In the application, Davis sought a TRO "restraining [First Health] from failing to allow [Davis] to continue as a preferred provider on its Provider Group Network unless and until such time as it has conducted a fair hearing or other fair adjudicatory proceeding . Adamson also stated that First Health had received Davis's summaries "and various QME providers' reports," which had been reviewed by an unnamed Medical Director of First Health, who recommended delisting Davis. According to supplemental materials supplied by Davis in support of his application,*fn3 First Health is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coventry Health Care.
Note:	[Unpublished] The court did not abuse its discretion by denying a requested mandatory preliminary injunction because this did not represent an extreme case in which claimant's right to the relief was clearly established.
Citation:	H032183
WCC Citation:	WCC 35822009 CA

Case Name:	Davis v. WCAB (City of Modesto)		03/10/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             THEODORE DAVIS, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF MODESTO, Respondents. .             F074957 .             (WCAB Nos. ADJ9468922 & ADJ9467074) .             OPINION .             THE COURT* .             * Before Levy, A. P. J. , Franson, J. , and Peña, J. .           Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton & Helphrey, Eric G. Helphrey and Joseph F. Schneider for Respondent City of Modesto. .           -ooOoo- .           Theodore Davis (Davis) petitions for a writ of review from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
Note:
Citation:	F074957
WCC Citation:	WCAB Nos. ADJ9468922 & ADJ9467074

Case Name:	Davis v. WCAB and Allied Security, et al., and Torres v. WCAB and Williams Tank Lines et al.		11/30/2006
Summary:	H029544 (W. C. A. B. No. SJ0236711) MOISES TORRES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WILLIAMS TANK LINES et al. , Respondents. Davis had suffered a prior work-related injury for which she received an award for permanent partial disability of 35 percent. The question before us, therefore, is whether these changes demonstrate that the Legislature clearly intended to alter the Fuentes rule. DISPOSITION In case No. H029544 (Davis v. WCAB et al. ), the order of the WCAB denying reconsideration is affirmed. In case No. H029834 (Torres v. WCAB et al. ), the order of the WCAB denying reconsideration is affirmed.
Note:	When an employee's overall permanent disability is subject to apportionment for a preexisting disability the calculation of compensation is to be made by subtracting the preexisting percentage of permanent disability from the overall percentage of permanent disability.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 324
WCC Citation:	WCC 31972006 CA

Case Name:	Davis vs. Interim Healthcare		09/15/2000
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARY DAVIS Applicant, vs. INTERIM HEALTHCARE, ITT SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC. ; WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendants. Both injuries were sustained while applicant was employed as a nurse by Interim Healthcare, insured by ITT Specialty Risk Services from October 8, 1996 to September 26, 1997, and by Wausau Insurance Company from September , 1997 to October 8, 1997. Dr. Hunt also concluded that applicant was in need of further medical treatment, and that she was a candidate for vocational rehabilitation. There was no indication that Dr. Hunt changed any of the conclusions reached in his March 23, 1999 report. Dr. Wertheimer submitted a final report dated October 8, 1999, after viewing a sub rosa videotape of the applicant.
Note:	4062.9 presumption may be raised at trial for first time, but not on reconsideration.
Citation:	65 CCC 1039
WCC Citation:	WCC 29042000 CA

Case Name:	De La Cerda v. Intermountain Slurry Seal		11/14/2011
Summary:	Plaintiff Juan De La Cerda worked for defendant Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc. (ISS) as a driver and laborer on a seasonal basis. ISS did not rehire De La Cerda in 2007; it claimed it could no longer accommodate his disability and could not afford to have extra labor present to assist De La Cerda with lifting. Olsen declared that after De La Cerda's accident, De La Cerda performed "light duty" work for ISS. ISS provided an assistant to help De La Cerda with lifting and De La Cerda performed other light work such as posting notifications on homes, driving, and training. The court noted De La Cerda had failed to provide evidence of how ISS could furnish sufficient accommodations such that it would enable De La Cerda to perform his former job.
Note:	An employer won summary judgment against a worker's disability discrimination and failure to accommodate suit because he was unable to show a reasonable accommodation existed.
Citation:	C066086
WCC Citation:	WCC 38252011 CA

Case Name:	de la Huerta v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.		10/18/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             PAZ DE LA HUERTA, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B271844 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Fox Rothschild, David Aronoff and Rom Bar-Nissim for Defendants and Respondents. .             Actress Paz de la Huerta appeals from the order partially granting an anti-SLAPP motion as to claims based on the use of a voice double. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS .           EPSTEIN, P. J.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that her breach-of-contract action against Lions Gate Entertainment had been properly dismissed as a strategic lawsuit against public participation and because her workers’ compensation remedy was her exclusive recourse for her physical injuries.
Citation:	B271844
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC124294

Case Name:	De Los Reyes v. Hanley		05/25/2012
Summary:	DE LOS REYES v. HANLEY ALEXANDER A. DE LOS REYES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KEVIN F. HANLEY, Defendant and Respondent. De Los Reyes sued defendant Kevin F. Hanley, M. D. , alleging that defendant filed a false medical report in connection with plaintiff's application for workers' compensation benefits. On appeal, plaintiff has failed to show that he has stated a viable cause of action. The complaint purported to state causes of action against defendant for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
Note:	An injured California worker could not assert a civil action against the qualified medical examiner who allegedly prepared a false report in connection with the worker's claim for benefits.
Citation:	C066453
WCC Citation:	WCC 38992012 CA

Case Name:	De Santiago v. D and G Plumbing, Inc.		09/19/2007
Summary:	Lee, Bazzo, & Nishi, Ted M. Lee and Allison M. Hunt for Defendant and Respondent D and G Plumbing. Facts Plaintiff Joaquin De Santiago suffered a work-related injury when a coemployee, defendant Daniel Flores, discharged a nail gun and struck De Santiago in his left eye. On February 2, 2001, De Santiago filed a personal injury complaint against Flores and his employer, D and G Plumbing (D&G). The register of actions states that on August 8, 2005, the trial court vacated the August 8, 2005, trial date. The trial court replied: "You're not going to see a date until July of next year at the best. "
Note:	Where there is a possibility that the case could have been brought to trial before the expiration of the five-year mark, despite continuances, the continuances themselves do not result in impracticability. The court must look at whether the moving party exercised due diligence in getting its case in front of a judge.
Citation:	155 Cal. App. 4th 365; 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 882
WCC Citation:	WCC 32562007 CA

Case Name:	DeCelle v. City of Alameda		11/22/1960
Summary:	ROBERT E. DeCELLE, Respondent, v. CITY OF ALAMEDA et al. , Appellants. COUNSEL Frank Annibale, City Attorney, and Ralph Reisner, Assistant City Attorney, for Appellants. * Robert E. DeCelle petitioned for alternative and peremptory writs of mandate directing the city of Alameda to pay him a disability pension pursuant to its Ordinance No. 1079 New Series. Judgment was for petitioner, and from that judgment and the peremptory writ of mandamus entered in accordance therewith, the city of Alameda now appeals. The petition further alleges that by reason of said injury petitioner was permanently disabled from performing his duties as a member of said fire department of the city of Alameda.
Note:	Disability in this section is not as to earning power only, but efficiency in ordinary pursuits of life.
Citation:	186 Cal.App.2d 574, 25 CCC 247
WCC Citation:	WCC 25321960 CA

Case Name:	DeCunha v. IAC		12/14/1964
Summary:	Josephine DeCunha sustained an industrial injury to her leg in May, 1959. The insurance policy specifically excluded sisters-in-law of the employer from coverage. The carrier voluntarily furnished temporary disability benefits and medical treatment for four years. The issue of coverage was not raised in the answer to the application nor the pretrial conference. You are counseled to consult the full case for an accurate citation.
Note:	Voluntary provision of benefits does not estop carrier from denying coverage on relative exclusion.
Citation:	29 CCC 272
WCC Citation:	WCC 3861964 CA

Case Name:	Dedekian v. Central Unified School Dist.		10/24/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULINE DEDEKIAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CENTRAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- Defendant Central Unified School District (CUSD) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Pauline Dedekian (Dedekian) after a court trial on her claim that CUSD violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. In March 1999, Dedekian became interim principal of Central High School West (Central West). Dedekian became the permanent principal of Central West for the 1999-2000 school year, and continued in that position for the 2000-2001 school year. Powell told Dedekian that "half of [her] school" had been "coming in droves" to complain about her and she created the low morale at the school.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the issue of the appellant's obligation to engage in the interactive process is primarily a factual one, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.
Citation:	F050381 & F050977
WCC Citation:	WCC 32702007 CA

Case Name:	DeFrates v. Clark		11/08/2011
Summary:	DeFrates argues that the trial court erred when it found that Clark was not personally liable for DeFrates' on-the-job injuries, because Clark's actions as the hirer of DeFrates's employer, R. G. Clark Construction, Inc. , did not affirmatively contribute to DeFrates's injuries. He contends that Clark is personally responsible for his (DeFrates's) injuries because Clark, in his capacity as the person who hired DeFrates's employer, R. G. Clark Construction, supplied defective safety equipment to the jobsite. In addition, DeFrates describes Clark as not only the owner of the property, but also as the "representative of the employer R. G. Clark Construction. "DeFrates's catalogue of various activities Clark engaged in on the property does not establish that when Clark gave DeFrates safety instructions he did so as an individual, rather than as DeFrates's employer. Thus, even assuming that Clark gave DeFrates safety instructions in his capacity as the hirer of R. G. Clark Construction, Inc. , he was not liable for DeFrates's injuries because there was no affirmative contribution.
Note:	A construction foreman's sole remedy for his roof injury was workers' compensation.
Citation:	A131222
WCC Citation:	WCC 38222011 CA

Case Name:	Del Rio vs. Quality Hardware, Republic Indemnity		04/20/1993
Summary:	The reasons for the settlement included a dispute over injury AOE/COE and nature and extent of the employee's disability. The Summary of Evidence reflects that the employee, Jose Del Rio, testified that he complained about medical problems related to his employment in 1987 and 1989. On February 5, 1991, Jose Del Rio was examined by Neurologic Orthopedic Associates and a report of that examination was sent to the employee's attorney on February 12, 1991. Lien Claimants' Exhibit III-A is a letter dated February 26, 1991, from Quality Hardware returning the form letter with insurance information. Neither Neurologic Orthopedic Associates nor Bristol Diagnostics timely raised the issue of penalty and interest under Labor Code section 4622.
Note:	Employer not liable for medical-legal costs prior the filing of a claim form or notice or knowledge by the employer of the injury followed by a reasonable time to accept or deny the claim.
Citation:	58 CCC 147 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 30601993 CA

Case Name:	Del Taco v. WCAB		04/20/2000
Summary:	Facts and Procedural History Jorge Gutierrrez (worker) was employed at a Del Taco restaurant when he injured his lower back. A week later, Del Taco discovered that he was not legally in the United States and that he had provided Del Taco an invalid social security number. The parties stipulate that if worker had produced a valid social security number, Del Taco would have allowed him to continue his work in a modified capacity. Here, Del Taco provided modified work to worker and after he commenced the modified work, Del Taco terminated the employment because it discovered that he was not legally permitted to work in the United States. Nevertheless, the WCAB required Del Taco to provide worker vocational rehabilitation services, apparently in Mexico, because Del Taco was not legally able to provide modified work in the United States.
Note:	Worker gets TD but not voc. rehab. when can't work because he's illegal immigrant.
Citation:	79 Cal.App.4th 1437, 65 CCC 342
WCC Citation:	WCC 24582000 CA

Case Name:	Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc.		02/02/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             LUZ ELENA DELGADILLO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             TELEVISION CENTER, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. .             B270985 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiffs Luz Elena Delgadillo, Christian Franco, and Valeria Franco (plaintiffs) are the surviving wife and children, respectively, of Salvador Franco (decedent). .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS .           EDMON, P. J. .           We concur: .           LAVIN, J.
Note:
Citation:	B270985
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC512758

Case Name:	Delgadillo v. United States Liability Ins. Co.		03/29/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             ELENA DELGADILLO ET AL. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. , Defendants and Respondents. .             A143452 .             (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG13681917) .             Plaintiffs Elena Delgadillo and Jesus Cortes appeal an order of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of defendant United States Liability Insurance Company (USLI) without leave to amend. .             Plaintiffs’ insurance policy (the policy) contained the following exclusions pertinent to this case: “d. .           We concur: .           _________________________ Reardon, J. , Acting P. J. .           _________________________ Streeter, J.   Lopez was also named as a defendant.
Note:
Citation:	A143452
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG13681917

Case Name:	Delgado v. PJH Brands		11/08/2011
Summary:	Brothers Juan and Luis Delgado, and Juan's wife Alma Delgado (collectively plaintiffs) sued PJH Brands (defendant or PJH) for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium for injuries that Juan and Luis sustained in a gas explosion at work. Quite the opposite: the parties stipulated that PJH was a customer of APP, and it was undisputed that PJH provided bookkeeping services to APP pursuant to contract. Mr. Land reasoned that the decision not to upgrade the tanks must have been made by PJH, because PJH paid APP's bills. APP's shipping and receiving manager, Margarita Siordia, testified that she considered PJH staff to be her "supervisors," because they caused PJH to issue purchase orders for APP to ship products to PJH. Plaintiff Juan Delgado (an employee of APP but not of PJH) testified that PJH employees instructed APP employees how to more efficiently fill PJH's purchase orders.
Note:	Insufficient evidence showed PJH owed plaintiffs a duty of care under any recognized principles of tort law, as alleged or otherwise.
Citation:	B227522
WCC Citation:	WCC 38232011 CA

Case Name:	Demetry v. Leeds		03/29/2013
Summary:	DEMETRY v. LEEDS TAMMY DEMETRY et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. REBECCA LEEDS, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Tammy Demetry, a clerk for the County of Orange, was taking a walk during her break when she was struck by a car driven by another County employee, Rebecca Leeds, as Leeds was exiting a driveway. On appeal, Demetry argues that Leeds failed to meet her burden of production in a manner warranting summary judgment. We disagree, finding that Leeds met her burden with relevant, admissible and undisputed evidence, while Demetry offered none on her own behalf. She crossed the driveway apron to the parking garage where Leeds was exiting, and Leeds struck Demetry with her car.
Note:	An Orange County clerical worker's negligence claim against a fellow county employee for striking her with a car was barred by exclusivity as a matter of law.
Citation:	G046951
WCC Citation:	WCC 39982013 CA

Case Name:	Demkowski v. Lee		08/30/1991
Summary:	LAWRENCE DEMKOWSKI, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOON KEUN LEE, Defendant and Appellant; CITY OF SAN JOSE, Claimant and Respondent. Statement of the Case Plaintiff Lawrence Demkowski filed an action against defendant Soon Keun Lee for personal injuries he suffered when her car collided with his. Demkowski's employer, the City of San Jose (City), filed a complaint in intervention against Lee to recover the workers' compensation benefits it had paid Demkowski as a result of the accident. After a trial, the jury found in favor of Demkowski and the City, awarding them $40,000 and $19,397. 21, respectively. In short, the instructions did not require the jury to segregate damages, and standing alone, they permit the jury to award Demkowski all of his damages and the City all of the benefits it paid to Demkowski, even though the combination of such awards would constitute a double recovery from Lee.
Note:	Jury verdict on civil subrogation case ambigous so judgment as to damages reversed.
Citation:	233 Cal.App.3d 1244
WCC Citation:	WCC 31511991 CA

Case Name:	Denny's Inc. vs. WCAB (BACHMAN)		01/17/2003
Summary:	In November 2001, the WCAB denied Denny's petition for reconsideration and adopted the WCJ's reasoning as its own. DISCUSSION Denny's contends the WCAB erred by dismissing CIGA as a party to the workers' compensation proceedings and requiring Denny's to pay the full amount of Bachman's disability award. The WCAB will hold the multiple employers or insurance carriers in the chain of causation jointly and severally liable for the entire award and allow them to apportion their relative liabilities in separate WCAB {Slip Opn. In summary, the WCAB concluded that Denny's and HIH America were jointly and severally liable for Bachman's disability award. The WCAB therefore properly dismissed CIGA as a party to the workers' compensation proceedings.
Note:	CIGA not liable for portion of CT where employer self-insured for other portion.
Citation:	104 Cal.App.4th1433
WCC Citation:	WCC 29072003 CA

Case Name:	Dept of Rehab vs. WCAB (Lauher)		06/26/2003
Summary:	William A. Herreras and Susan Silberman for California Applicants' Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent Ronald Lauher. The WCJ denied a petition for reconsideration, as did the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or the Board). The WCJ thereafter denied a petition for reconsideration; the WCAB, over one dissent, affirmed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the WCAB, finding Lauher had not met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of discrimination under section 132a. In this way, society supports the program as a[n] integral element of commerce and industry, rather than through tax-supported plans. "
Note:	No TD for time off for post P&S treatment; not discrimination if require use of sick/vacation time.
Citation:	30 Cal. 4th 1281
WCC Citation:	WCC 29402003 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. WCAB		09/10/2008
Summary:	After considering this history, the WCAB here concluded that section 4663(e) was in effect as of the effective date of section 4663. Petitioner, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department), contends that the WCAB erred and section 4663(e) applies only prospectively from the date of its enactment. On September 25, 2007, Judge Robinson recommended in writing that the WCAB deny the petition. On October 4, 2007, WCAB Presiding Judge Cuneo issued an order and decision denying reconsideration and incorporating Judge Robinson's report and recommendation. Section 3212. 2, which applies to custodial, supervisory, and security officers and employees of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of Youth Authority, and Atascadero State Hospital, covers heart trouble.
Note:	Section 4663(e), when enacted, declared existing law. Section 4663 was not intended to repeal the non-attribution presumptions of sections 3212 through 3213.2 and did not do so by implication.
Citation:	C057410
WCC Citation:	WCC 34182008 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Corrections v. WCAB		02/01/1979
Summary:	The California Department of Corrections petitions for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (hereafter WCAB) awarding death benefits to respondent Deanna Antrim. This court must decide whether the WCAB had the authority to award death benefits under Labor Code section 4701 et seq. Further, the WCAB has been granted broad powers in Labor Code section 4704 to reassign or reapportion any death benefit 'in a just and equitable manner. 'A second claim for death benefits was filed with the WCAB by the deceased's minor daughter from a prior marriage, Deanna Antrim. Nevertheless, our inquiry does not end here since the Legislature also expressly granted the WCAB discretion in awarding death benefits.
Note:	PERS benefits provide additional compensation and are construed liberally due to hazards of public employment.
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 197
WCC Citation:	WCC 24661979 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Corrections v. WCAB		02/01/1979
Summary:	The California Department of Corrections petitions for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (hereafter WCAB) awarding death benefits to respondent Deanna Antrim. This court must decide whether the WCAB had the authority to award death benefits under Labor Code section 4701 et seq. Further, the WCAB has been granted broad powers in Labor Code section 4704 to reassign or reapportion any death benefit 'in a just and equitable manner. 'A second claim for death benefits was filed with the WCAB by the deceased's minor daughter from a prior marriage, Deanna Antrim. Nevertheless, our inquiry does not end here since the Legislature also expressly granted the WCAB discretion in awarding death benefits.
Note:	Death benefits may be awarded to dependents otherwise denied if
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 197, 44 CCC 114
WCC Citation:	WCC 3911979 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Education v. WCAB (Gill)		03/16/1993
Summary:	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DIVISION OF STATE SPECIAL SCHOOLS, CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and THELMA SWAIN GILL, Respondents. 4 work, expert vocational testimony that applicant was not feasible for vocational rehabilitation pursuant to LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. On November 5, 1991, the WCJ submitted to the Board his report on petition for reconsideration, recommending that the petition be denied. The Fuentes approach is used where apportionment is justified by the evidence, the Wilkinson one where it is not. Thus, when the WCAB in Harold found that Harold's 1971 injury and 1973 injury became permanent and stationary at the same time the WCAB was still properly exercising its continuing jurisdiction over the 1971 injury.
Note:	Method of converting PD rating to a number of weeks of workers' comp.
Citation:	14 Cal.App.4th 1348
WCC Citation:	WCC 25071993 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Highway Patrol v. WCAB		04/18/1995
Summary:	DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Petitioner, v. WORKERS'COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SUSAN R. BENSON, as Executor, etc. , et al. , Respondents. He had been employed for 25 years as a traffic officer, from September 1954, until his retirement on September 9, 1979, by defendant Department of the California Highway Patrol, insured by the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). Dr. Goldfarb expressed the opinion that Sills's employment with the highway patrol had been very stressful and had aggravated and accelerated Sills's heart conditions. There was slight improvement, and home care was then provided by licensed vocational nurses and by his fianc'e, Kathryn Compton. 2 Proceedings were held at the Board concerning Sills's workers' compensation claim; benefits accrued pursuant to that claim survived his death.
Note:	WCJ erred by using last date of work for dependency status of children rather than date of injury.
Citation:	33 Cal.App.4th 1828, 60 CCC 308
WCC Citation:	WCC 25311995 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Indus. Rel. v. WCAB (Tessler)		06/14/1979
Summary:	DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, JEREMY SHANNON TESSLER et al. , Respondents. Younger and George Deukmejian, Attorneys General, Robert L. Bergman, Assistant Attorney General, and B. Franklin Walker, Deputy Attorney General, for Petitioner. Tessler had resided with decedent for approximately three to four months at the time of his death. * California Administrative Code, title 8, section 10870, relating to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's procedures, provides: 'Approval of Compromise and Release. The petition of respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 8, 1979.
Note:	Balance of death benefit payable to state cannot be avoided by C&R.
Citation:	94 Cal.App.3d 721, 44 CCC 591
WCC Citation:	WCC 25981979 CA

Case Name:	Derrick v. WCAB		09/23/1984
Summary:	DEBORAH FAITH DERRICK, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents. After initial emergency hospital care, applicant was treated by several physicians, including one who referred her to Theodore Gray, D. C. , in February 1981 for chiropractic treatment. Dr. Jones submitted his first report to the Department in May 1981 and regularly submitted reports thereafter through March 1982. The Department paid Dr. Jones for applicant's treatment for a period in 1981 before terminating payments. The Department withdrew the issue of the lien and self-procured treatment and agreed, before decision, to satisfy the lien of Dr. Jones.
Note:	Change of doctor issue not properly before WCAB because 4603 procedure not followed.
Citation:	159 Cal.App.3D 451, 49 CCC 621
WCC Citation:	WCC 24341984 CA