Case Name:	Hartsuiker v. WCAB		01/11/1993
Summary:	RUSSELL HARTSUIKER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HARTSUIKER & CO. et al. , Respondents. We now conclude that the WCAB does not have authority to reserve jurisdiction to make such an award more than five years after the date of injury. On December 15, 1991, the WCAB issued its opinion and order denying a petition for reconsideration. The WCAB continued: 'Ruffin also contends that jurisdiction should be reserved in his case to award further temporary disability indemnity. Also, as observed by the Court of Appeal, the WCAB did not reserve jurisdiction to award Nickelsberg further temporary total disability.
Note:	No WCAB continuing jurisdiction to award disability for hospitalization more than 5 years after injury.
Citation:	12 Cal.App.4th 209, 58 CCC 19
WCC Citation:	WCC 26671993 CA

Case Name:	Hastings vs. Dept of Corrections		07/22/2003
Summary:	WALTER W. HASTINGS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant and Respondent. 8 and alleged that he requested an accommodation for an alternate position with CDC to which he never received a formal response. (Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1001; Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 935, 951 (Prilliman). )B. Prima Facie Case under the FEHA The FEHA makes it "an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification . By its terms it is conditional: "Dear Correctional Officer Candidate: The California Department of Corrections is extending you a conditional offer of employment to Correctional Officer.
Note:	A government employee alleging discrimination on the basis of physical disability must comply with the civil service requirements for the position sought for accommodation.
Citation:	110 Cal.App. 4th 963
WCC Citation:	WCC 29522003 CA

Case Name:	Hawkins v. Amberwood Products		06/13/2007
Summary:	CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD En banc decision Case No. SAL 0107814 Valeri Hawkins, Applicant, vs. Amberwood Products and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendants Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration (En Banc) INTRODUCTION We granted defendant's petition for reconsideration of the September 5, 2006 Findings and Award to study the legal issue presented. It is admitted that applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury to her spine while employed by Amberwood Products during a period ending July 16, 2004. FACTS As shown by the minutes, the following facts were stipulated at the hearing on August 14, 2006: "(1) Applicant, born 2/21/57, sustained injury on a cumulative trauma basis ending 7/16/04 to her cervical spine while working for Amberwood Products, then insured for workers' compensation by State Compensation Insurance Fund. (People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 999, 1007 ("Leal") (internal quotations omitted); see also Nickelsberg v. Workers' Comp. The system is intended to automatically provide an injured worker with medical treatment and temporary disability indemnity without delay.
Note:	The limit of 104 compensable weeks within two years described in section 4656(c)(1) begins on the date temporary disability indemnity is first paid.
Citation:	72 CCC 807
WCC Citation:	WCC 32302007 CA

Case Name:	Hawkins v. Travelers Insurance, et al.		03/23/2011
Summary:	JOE PAT HAWKINS et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RIVERA, J. Joe Pat Hawkins (Hawkins) and Paula Hawkins, in propria persona, appeal from judgments of dismissal after orders sustaining demurrers to their first amended complaint. Along with Levitz, Hawkins named as defendants Travelers Insurance and Travelers Property Casualty Insurance (Travelers); Hanna, Brophy, McAlleer & Jensen, LLP (Hanna, Brophy); Francie Lehmer; Richard Foley; Richard Jacobsmeyer; James Vandersloot (Vandersloot); Vincent Scotto; and Scotto's legal assistant, Timothy Egan (Egan); the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)1; and DWC Judge Sauban-Chapla (Judge Chapla). For example, the claims against Vandersloot relate to his legal representation of Hawkins, which ended on June 7, 1995, when Hawkins fired him. The court properly designated Hawkins as a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(1).
Note:	The San Francisco City and County Superior Court was correct to name an applicant who sued numerous practitioners a vexatious litigant.
Citation:	A125526
WCC Citation:	WCC 37342011 CA

Case Name:	Healthsmart Pacific v. Kabateck		12/19/2016
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 ONE .             HEALTHSMART PACIFIC, INC. et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             BRIAN S. KABATECK et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B264300 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiffs Michael D. Drobot and Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. sued certain lawyers and their law firms for defamation and other causes of action arising from statements two of the lawyers made on television and radio programs about a pending lawsuit. Background; Drobot’s Plea Agreement .           Drobot owns and operates Healthsmart Pacific Inc. (Healthsmart), which owned and operated Pacific Hospital of Long Beach (Pacific Hospital) from approximately 1995 until October 2013. That appeal, Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. , et al. v. Golia, etc. , et al. , case No. B266311, is pending.
Note:
Citation:	B264300
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC566549

Case Name:	Healy Tibbitts Builders, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs		04/14/2006
Summary:	Healy Tibbitts subcontracted with John Mannering to build the main duct bank. The District Director of the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs ("OWCP") referred this case to an Administrative Law Judge, who conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 23, 2002. Healy Tibbitts and Mannering petitioned for review. ANALYSIS To qualify for benefits, an individual must be an "employee" as that term is defined in the Act. Instead, the controversy in this case centers on the terms "maritime employment" and "harbor worker," both of which the Act leaves undefined.
Note:	'Harbor worker' includes workers directly involved in the construction of a maritime facility.
Citation:	444 F.3d 1095
WCC Citation:	WCC 31522006 CA

Case Name:	Hegglin vs. WCAB		02/23/1971
Summary:	SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA L. A. No. 29804 February 23, 1971 JOSEPH C. HEGGLIN, PETITIONER, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, AIRPORT GARDENA HOTEL CORPORATION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS Kessler & Drasin, Lawrence Drasin and Roger J. Gleckman for Petitioner. Sullivan [4 Cal3d Page 165] Petitioner Joseph C. Hegglin seeks review and annulment of the opinion and decision after reconsideration of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (Board) which limited the rating for his permanent disability to 43 1/4 percent. Because of knee disability applicant should not walk on uneven terrain nor should he climb or descend stairs rapidly. On June 12, 1969, a supplemental hearing was held at which the rating specialist was cross-examined and petitioner testified in rebuttal. Petitioner also sought to call Dr. Field, an internist who had examined petitioner with regard to his hepatitis condition.
Note:	In cases involving multiple factors of disability caused by a single industrial accident the Board must, in any instructions it may direct to the rating bureau, fully describe each separate factor of disability.
Citation:	4 Cal. 3d 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 35941971 CA

Case Name:	Heiman v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		04/11/2007
Summary:	PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Neil P. Sullivan and Vincent Bausano for Respondent, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concluded that petitioner was the employer liable for workers' compensation. *fn 1* We conclude that petitioner and the unlicensed contractor were dual employers that are jointly and severally liable for workers' compensation. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) determined that Hruby was the employer of Aguilera and was liable for workers' compensation including 90 percent permanent disability.
Note:	Petitioner and an unlicensed contractor were dual employers that are jointly and severally liable for workers' compensation.
Citation:	149 Cal. App. 4th 724
WCC Citation:	WCC 32152007 CA

Case Name:	HELMAN v. ALCOA GLOBAL FASTENERS, INC.		03/14/2011
Summary:	James Paul Collins, John P. Kristensen, Terry O'Reilly, Nina Shapirshteyn, Gary Lynn Simms, O'Reilly Collins, San Mateo, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants. I. Appellants are the personal representatives and successors in interest to three United States Navy crewmen killed in a helicopter crash. The case was then removed to federal court by Appellees Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (collectively "Sikorsky"). The district court issued a ruling granting these motions, holding that DOHSA preempts Appellants' state law and general maritime causes of action for wrongful death. The action shall be for the exclusive benefit of the decedent's spouse, parent, child, or dependent relative. U. S. C. 30302 (2006).
Note:	The families of three United States Navy crewmen killed in a helicopter crash cannot file state law claims for wrongful death, because the Death on the High Seas Act preempted their state law claims, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Citation:	09-56501
WCC Citation:	WCC 37262011 CA

Case Name:	Henderson v. Adia Servs. Inc.		06/27/1986
Summary:	Danielson [182 CalApp3d Page 1070] Plaintiff and appellant Patricia M. Comstock Henderson appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, cross-complainant and respondent Adia Services, Inc. in an action [182 CalApp3d Page 1071] for damages for personal injuries. *fn1 Plaintiff was injured on November 19, 1981, when her vehicle was struck from the rear by a vehicle driven by Wrede. Following discovery, she amended the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474, substituting defendant in place of a Doe. Here, the trial court properly determined that the material facts were not in dispute, and properly entertained the motion for summary judgment. "If so, state whether a motor vehicle was necessary to be employed by Adia Services, Inc. " Wrede answered the interrogatory: "3.
Note:	"Coming and going" rule applicable to temp employees traveling from home to businesses that pay the temp agency.
Citation:	182 Cal. App. 3d 1069
WCC Citation:	WCC 30371986 CA

Case Name:	Henry v. Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin		12/09/2011
Summary:	HENRY v. RED HILL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF TUSTIN SARA HENRY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RED HILL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF TUSTIN, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Sara Henry sued Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin (sometimes the church) for wrongful termination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code,*fn1 § 12900 et seq. I FACTS The Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin was incorporated in California in 1957. Henry filed a complaint against the Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin (erroneously sued as the Red Hill Lutheran School) alleging in the first cause of action that the church terminated her employment based upon her marital status, in violation of the FEHA. As stated above, Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin operates its school as a part of its ministry.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a Lutheran school is not liable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for terminating a teacher for religious reasons, thanks to the ministerial exception.
Citation:	G044556
WCC Citation:	WCC 38322011 CA

Case Name:	Henry v. WCAB		12/18/1998
Summary:	JENNIFER HENRY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA et al. , Respondents. Jennifer Lee Henry (Henry) injured her back while employed as a seasonal ski instructor at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (Mammoth Mountain). Henry rejected the offer and petitioned for additional relief through the workers' compensation and judicial systems. Henry contended that the offer does not comply with section 4644, subdivision (a)(6)(B) which requires that the employer offer alternative work in a regular position lasting at least 12 months. Henry requested reconsideration by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) which also upheld the consultant's decision.
Note:	Seasonal employee is entitled to only 12 months of alternate seasonal work, not to 12 months of continuous work.
Citation:	68 Cal.App.4th 981, 63 CCC 1481
WCC Citation:	WCC 27901998 CA

Case Name:	Henstorf v. State Compensation Ins. Fund		09/04/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE JAN E. HENSTORF et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. In 2004, State Fund issued 51 percent of the workers' compensation insurance written in California. In early 2005, State Fund established a medical provider network of physicians to provide care to the worker's compensation patients of State Fund's insureds. State Fund now issues 36 percent of the worker's compensation insurance written in California. Respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund is awarded its costs on appeal.
Note:	[Unpublished] State Fund's conduct in combining with Blue Cross to form an efficient bargaining unit is expressly exempt from antitrust and unfair competition laws under Business and Professions Code section 16720, Health and Safety Code section 1342.6, and Insurance Code section 10133.6.
Citation:	B210943
WCC Citation:	WCC 35622009 CA

Case Name:	Herek v. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association		10/30/2017
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 TWO .             MICHAEL HEREK, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. .             B275805 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Petitioner Michael Herek (petitioner) applied for a disability retirement from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (Department), and his application was denied. Application for Disability Retirement .           In February 2008, petitioner filed an application with respondent Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association’s Board of Retirement (the Board) for a disability retirement due to “[c]ardiovascular, high blood pressure, gastrointestinal, [and] back” injuries. .           ______________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           We concur: .           _________________________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           _________________________, J. CHAVEZ
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the denial of a former law enforcement officer’s claim for disability retirement benefits, finding substantial evidence supported a determination that he was not permanently incapacitated from duty.
Citation:	B275805
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS155097

Case Name:	Heritage Residential Care v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement		01/26/2011
Summary:	HERITAGE RESIDENTIAL CARE, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT et al. Division of Labor Standards, Department of Industrial Relations, Legal Section, Anne Hipshman, Attorney for Respondent. BACKGROUND The parties to this appeal are Heritage Residential Care, Inc. (appellant) and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (respondent, sometimes referred to herein as DLSE or Labor Commissioner). Mandamus Petition In February 2009, appellant filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Civil Penalties for Violation "When proven, Labor Code violations give rise to civil penalties. "
Note:	A misclassification statute's use of the word 'inadvertent' did not excuse a nursing home's $72,000 fine for its inadvertent misclassification of 16 health care workers.
Citation:	H034994
WCC Citation:	WCC 37072011 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. DeGroot & Sons		11/28/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. C. DEGROOT & SONS, Defendant and Appellant. Ct. No. CV017461) ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. C. DEGROOT & SONS, Defendant and Respondent. He and his wife Maria sued his employer's landlord, C. DeGroot & Sons, a general partnership (the Landlord). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Landlord, a general partnership of Jerry DeGroot (DeGroot) and his three brothers, owned a cheese making facility on 20 acres or so in Manteca. "If you decide, one, that C. DeGroot & Sons [(the Landlord)] violated this law and, two, that the violation was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, then you must find .
Note:	[Unpublished] Where there is a tenable claim of concurrent negligence, the consideration that an injured worker has workers' compensation coverage is no bar to recovery from the concurrent tortfeasor.
Citation:	C051254
WCC Citation:	WCC 32812007 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Gray Lift, Inc.		05/31/2012
Summary:	HERNANDEZ v. GRAY LIFT, INC. JOSE HERNANDEZ, JR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GRAY LIFT, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. In the FAC, plaintiffs Jose Hernandez, Jr. , Yunalesca Hernandez, and Noemi Hernandez sought damages under the wrongful death statute against defendants Gray Lift and Wells based upon the alleged negligent driving of Wells while in the scope of Wells's employment with Gray Lift, Inc. , resulting in the fatal accident that caused decedent's death. Plaintiffs further admit that CRS is a dba of Gray Lift, Inc. , yet they attempt to sue Gray Lift, Inc. as a separate entity. That is, defendants sought to prove that CRS was one and the same entity as Gray Lift, Inc. and therefore Gray Lift Inc. was decedent's employer. Gray Lift, Inc. , provided all tools used by Plaintiffs' decedent in his work for Gray Lift, Inc. doing business as [CRS].
Note:	A California corporation could assert workers' compensation exclusivity as an affirmative defense to a wrongful death claim filed by the family of a laborer who was killed while working for it, pursuant to a contract under the corporation's fictitious business name.
Citation:	F061759
WCC Citation:	WCC 39042012 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Henkel Loctite Corporation		03/22/2018
Summary:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             PEDRO HERNANDEZ, Applicant, .             v. .             HENKEL LOCTITE CORPORATION; ZURICH AMERICAN INS. .             Based on our review of the relevant statutes and case law, we hold that: .           1. .           (C) Has provided treatment authorized by the employer or claims administrator under Section 4610. .           The WCJ issued her Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision on December 29, 2017, and found, in pertinent part: .           2. .           WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD (EN BANC) .           /s/Katherine A. Zalewski____________________ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, Chairwoman .           /s/ Deidra E. Lowe_________________________ DEIDRA E. LOWE, Commissioner .           /s/ Marguerite Sweeney_____________________ MARGUERITE SWEENEY, Commissioner .           /s/ José H. Razo ____________________ JOSÉ H. RAZO, Commissioner .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           03/22/2018 En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and WCJs.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ6726149
WCC Citation:	ADJ6726149

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.		01/24/2017
Summary:	.             Plaintiff and appellant Yvonne Hernandez worked for defendant and respondent Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (Pacific Bell). .           In the years Hernandez was ineligible for leave under the FMLA/CFRA, Pacific Bell granted CIL to her. B. Pacific Bell moves for summary judgment .           Pacific Bell moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication. .           Hernandez submitted “me too” evidence (declarations from other fired Pacific Bell employees and their civil complaints) showing that Pacific Bell fired other disabled employees. D. Pacific Bell’s reply  .           In reply, Pacific Bell submitted additional deposition testimony from Ross and from Williams showing, for example, that Pacific Bell considered leave given to accommodate a disability as protected.
Note:
Citation:	B260109
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC507337

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Target Corp.		02/19/2008
Summary:	INTRODUCTION While working for defendant and respondent Target Corporation (Target), plaintiff and appellant Martha Hernandez (plaintiff) injured her knee. *fn6 On or about March 12, 2004, plaintiff submitted to Target a doctor's note indicating that she could only work sitting. Plaintiff told several Target employees about her knee pain, including the "secretary," but was told to continue working in her Go-Backs position. Moreover, Garcia admitted that Target had a cashier who performed the essential job functions of that position in a wheelchair. As noted above, plaintiff's DFEH charge against Target alleged that Target illegally discriminated against her on May 11, 2004, when it fired her because of her disability.
Note:	[Unpublished] The trial court did not err in making the evidentiary rulings challenged by plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies in connection with certain of her claims under the FEHA.
Citation:	B195625
WCC Citation:	WCC 33192008 CA

Case Name:	Herrera v. CU Cooperative Systems		01/29/2013
Summary:	HERRERA v. CU COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. ROXANNE HERRERA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CU COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant, Roxanne Herrera, sued her former employer, defendant and respondent, CU Cooperative Systems, Inc. (CO-OP), alleging three violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq. Herrera Tells Freer She is Pregnant On July 15, 2008, Herrera told Freer she was pregnant. Herrera showed Freer a copy of her meal plan and asked him for permission to eat at her desk. On November 4, 2008, while Herrera was still on PDL, Monise contacted Herrera by telephone and terminated her effective November 5, 2008.
Note:	An employer defeated a pregnancy discrimination suit by showing that it had actually fired the plaintiff because she had coached a coworker on how to skip work
Citation:	E052869
WCC Citation:	WCC 39802013 CA

Case Name:	Herrera v. WCAB		06/18/1969
Summary:	DANIEL A. HERRERA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, GOLETA LEMON ASSOCIATION et al. , Respondents. Everett A. Corten, Edward A. Sarkisian, Rupert A. Pedrin, Nathan Mudge, T. Groezinger, Loton Wells and G. K. Bogue for Respondents. Thereafter, respondent employer and respondent insurance carrier jointly petitioned for reconsideration, which was granted. . . . ' It was further stated: 'Evidence Code Section 631 states 'Money delivered by one to another is presumed to have been due the latter. 'There was no agreement that any part of the wage payments made to petitioner by respondent employer constituted disability payments.
Note:	Board has discretion to credit wage payments after injury against disability benefits.
Citation:	71 Cal.2d 254, 34 CCC 382
WCC Citation:	WCC 24631969 CA

Case Name:	Hershman v. Eisenberg Medical		06/11/2002
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. PAS 0023953 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) LESTER HERSHMAN, Applicant, vs. JAMES EISENBERG MEDICAL GROUP; CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; and KEMPER EMPLOYERS CLAIMS SERVICE (Servicing Facility), Defendants. Applicant, Lester Hershman, sustained an industrial injury to various body parts on June 18, 1993, while employed as a physician by the James Eisenberg Medical Group ('employer'). [N3] The phrase "workers' compensation benefits under the workers' compensation law of this state" is broad enough to include penalties under section 5814. )[N4] Having concluded that section 5814 penalties are 'compensation' that, therefore, fall within the general definition of 'covered claims' (Ins. Labor Code Section 5814 Penalties Do Not Fall Within The Insurance Code Section 1063. 1(c)(8) Exclusion For 'Punitive Or Exemplary Damages. '
Note:	5814 penalties imposed on insolvent carrier are 'covered claims' for CIGA to pay.
Citation:	67 CCC 808 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28652002 CA

Case Name:	Hertz v. WCAB (Aguilar)		12/16/2008
Summary:	SJO226456, SJO228891, SJO235420) INTRODUCTION Respondent Manuel Aguilar sustained specific and cumulative injuries to both of his knees, shoulders and wrists, and to his right ankle while working as an auto washer for petitioner Hertz Corporation (Hertz). Therefore, we conclude that Hertz is not liable for that portion of Aguilar's permanent disability that is caused by pre-existing nonindustrial factors. In 1984 or 1985, he obtained employment with Hertz as an auto washer, regularly working 80 hours a week. [Aguilar] is not able to return to his full duties at Hertz and is a Qualified Injured Worker . [Hertz] is attempting to obtain apportionment to factors which are not disability.
Note:	An employer is not responsible for any portion of a worker's permanent disability that is caused by pre-existing non-industrial factors.
Citation:	H032438
WCC Citation:	WCC 35122008 CA

Case Name:	Hessong v. City and County of San Francisco		08/30/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR TIMOTHY HESSONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. 04-430971) In this employment discrimination action, the trial court granted respondent City and County of San Francisco's (city) motion for summary judgment on appellant Timothy Hessong's action for violation of the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). He worked for the city's Department of Public Health (department) as a pharmacy technician at San Francisco General Hospital. E. Hessong Files Lawsuit In April 2004, Hessong filed a complaint for damages in the trial court, alleging that the city had violated the FEHA. In opposition to summary judgment, Hessong offered evidence of the work that he could perform if reassigned back to San Francisco General Hospital.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because a reviewing court is necessarily limited to the claims alleged in the underlying complaint, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgement on the cause of action that was pled in the original complaint.
Citation:	A113744
WCC Citation:	WCC 32492007 CA

Case Name:	Hestehauge v. Charkins		09/23/2005
Summary:	In relevant part, that decision found that applicant, Paul Hestehauge (Mr. Hestehauge), sustained industrial injury to his head, entire body, brain and left wrist in a fall on November 15, 2000, while employed as a painter by homeowners, Wayne Charkins (Mr. Charkins) and Laurie Charkins (Mrs. Charkins), the insureds of defendant. At some point, Mr. Hestehauge agreed with Mr. and Mrs. Charkins to do some painting at their house. Although Mr. Charkins is a California-licensed glazing contractor and was aware that people doing contractor's work in California had to be licensed, neither he nor Mrs. Charkins ever asked Mr. Hestehauge if he had a license. After the accident, Mr. and Mrs. Charkins had others complete the painting work that Mr. Hestehauge was going to perform. Although section 2750. 5 mandates that Mr. Hestehauge be deemed an employee of Mr. and Mrs. Charkins, the existence of an employment relationship under section 2750. 5 does not necessarily mean that Mr. Hestehauge is entitled to workers' compensation benefits.
Note:	Household employees under LC 3351, 3352 and 3715.
Citation:	70 CCC 1294
WCC Citation:	WCC 31212005 CA

Case Name:	Heywood v. Casa Cabinets, Inc.		12/21/2017
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO   .             JACOB HEYWOOD, Plaintiff and Respondent. .             v. .             CASA CABINETS, INC. , Defendant and Appellant, .             E066122 .             (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1603934) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. I INTRODUCTION .           Defendant Casa Cabinets, Inc. appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Jacob Heywood’s wrongful termination action. .           Plaintiff alleged in his verified complaint that he was employed as an hourly worker at Casa Cabinets, Inc. (defendant) from January 2014 to August 17, 2015. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS .           CODRINGTON J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an injured worker could not be compelled to arbitrate his discrimination and retaliation claims against his former employer, since the arbitration agreement he had signed was unconscionable.
Citation:	E066122
WCC Citation:	Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1603934

Case Name:	Hikida v. WCAB (Costco Wholesale Corporation)		06/22/2017
Summary:	Filed 6/22/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             MAUREEN HIKIDA, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. .             B279412 .             (W. C. A. B. No. ADJ7721810) .             PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. .             Law Firm of Rowen, Gurvey & Win and Alan Z. Gurvey for Petitioner. .             Mullen & Filippi, Jay S. Cohen and Daniel Nachison; Seyfarth & Shaw and Kiran A. Seldon for Respondents Costco Wholesale Corporation and Helmsman Management Services. .           Section 5950 provides that “[a]ny person affected by an order, decision, or award of the [Board] may .
Note:
Citation:	B279412
WCC Citation:	W.C.A.B. No. ADJ7721810

Case Name:	Hinkle v. WCAB		12/12/1985
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO No. E002195 December 12, 1985 JOSEPH HINKLE, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, KIRK MAYER, INC. , ET AL. , RESPONDENTS Elliot S. Berkowitz and John J. "Applicant worked as an electrical mechanical design engineer for Kirk Mayer, Inc. , a consulting firm which contracts out its employees to others. [175 CalApp3d Page 590] Those who are contracted out remain on the Kirk Mayer payroll and are paid by it. "Kirk Mayer's payment policy for its 'farmed out' employees is to mail the weekly paycheck to wherever the employee desires. However, on Fridays, it was Mattel's policy to add an extra one-half hour to its employees' lunch break.
Note:	Injury not compensable where employee injured while picking up paycheck at place/ time within employee's discretion
Citation:	175 Cal. App. 3d 587
WCC Citation:	WCC 30521985 CA

Case Name:	Hinojosa vs. WCAB		10/18/1972
Summary:	MIGUEL HINOJOSA, a Minor, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, W. W. WIEST et al. , Respondents In Bank. Petitioner's employer, W. W. Wiest, an operator of seven or eight non-contiguous ranches, employed Miguel Hinojosa as a farm laborer, for thinning and picking peaches, plums, and apricots on his ranches. Hinojosa worked at this job nine to nine and one-half hours per day, six days a week, and received in payment $1. 75 per hour. Thus the working conditions imposed by the employer required that Hinojosa provide himself with some form of automotive transportation. In return, Hinojosa paid Rodriguez $3 per week to share the operating costs of the automobile.
Note:	Requirement that employee provide own transportation between 'fields' on the job creates compensable injury.
Citation:	8 Cal 3d 150
WCC Citation:	WCC 29921972 CA

Case Name:	Hinson vs. WCAB		10/02/1974
Summary:	BILLY GENE HINSON, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, GIFFEN, INC. , et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Franson, J. , with Brown (G. Hinson was injured on January 5, 1973, when his pickup collided with another vehicle on Highway 33 as he was driving to work. However, at times, Hinson and the other drivers would use their own cars to get to the fields if they had driven them to work. Hinson testified that the foreman would "rather" that the employees take their own cars to the tractors, thus avoiding the necessity of his having to take them to and from the fields. Hinson took the tools home each night in his car to keep them from being stolen.
Note:	No 'Going & Coming' if personal transportation on job not a requirement.
Citation:	42 CA3d 246
WCC Citation:	WCC 29931974 CA

Case Name:	Hobbs v. Marin county Employees Retirement Assn.		09/30/2008
Summary:	Filed 9/30/08 Hobbs v. Marin county Employees Retirement Assn. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR DONALD HOBBS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. That petition sought review of the administrative decision of respondent Marin County Employees' Retirement Association (County) denying his application for service-connected disability retirement benefits. (See Singh v. Board of Retirement (1996) 41 Cal. App. 4th 1180, 1185; Heaton v. Marin County Employees Retirement Bd. While the County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 and the Workers' Compensation Act "are related in subject matter and harmonious in purpose" (Kuntz v. Kern County Employees' Retirement Assn.
Note:	[Unpublished] Courts have rejected the claim that the class of employees to which the heart trouble presumption applies should be expanded and accordingly, the court did not err by failing to 'impute' the legislative intent plaintiff claims is behind the heart trouble presumptions in workers' compensation law...to the service-related disability retirement of all county employees.
Citation:	A120222
WCC Citation:	WCC 34332008 CA

Case Name:	Hodge v. Aon Insurance Services et al.		02/02/2011
Summary:	KENNETH HODGE et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AON INSURANCE SERVICES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTS As a TPA, Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. *fn3 contracts with self-insured businesses, governmental agencies, and insurance companies to adjust claims involving those entities. In the context of its contracts with insurance companies or the California Insurance Guarantee Association or "CIGA" (which takes over policies from insolvent insurers), Cambridge adjusts claims made under the insurance policies issued by those entities. *fn5 Hodge thereafter dismissed all of his causes of action except his cause of action alleging a violation of the UCL. Our references to Cambridge include AON Insurance Services, AON Corporation and AON Service Corporation, which, according to the operative complaint, own and operate one or more "Cambridge locations" in California.
Note:	Cambridge Integrated Services did not violate overtime regulations because it designated its claims adjusters as exempt administrative employees, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in a class action suit on Wednesday.
Citation:	B217156
WCC Citation:	WCC 37122011 CA

Case Name:	Hodge v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County		11/29/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT No. B189941 November 29, 2006 KENNETH HODGE ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, RESPONDENT; AON INSURANCE SERVICES ET AL. , REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. The trial court ruled the defendants were entitled to a jury trial on the section 17200 claim. Transportation Co. v. Superior Court (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 433, 435 [granting writ relief where party challenged grant of jury trial]. )In Wisden v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 750, 754, we identified the basic principles governing jury trials. (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 163, 179 (Cel-Tech); see also § 17203. )
Note:	Even though the contractual duties of the employer implicitly include performance of mandatory statutory duties, such as the payment of overtime wages, and even though the application of the statutory requirements includes factual determinations, defendent is not entitled to a jury trial.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 278
WCC Citation:	WCC 31962006 CA

Case Name:	Hodges v. WCAB		07/18/1978
Summary:	WILLIAM G. HODGES, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ELMORE MOTORS-TOYOTA, Respondents. Mr. Casillas said in a loud voice to the applicant, 'I didn't know you were a boxer. 'Applicant traveled some 50 feet from the service department to where Casillas and Rofoli were standing outside the back door. At that point Casillas put up his hands in an open-hand position and came toward the applicant. The judge concluded that applicant's injury resulted from his participation in horseplay and was therefore not compensable.
Note:	WCJ's statement that he had difficulty concluding employer would condone horseplay was a
Citation:	82 Cal.App.3d 894, 43 CCC 870
WCC Citation:	WCC 26481978 CA

Case Name:	Hodgman v. WCAB		09/12/2007
Summary:	Filed 9/12/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE JOHN PERRY HODGMAN, an Incompetent Person, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, INC. , et al. , Respondents. BACKGROUND On October 28, 1988, John Perry Hodgman (John) sustained a catastrophic industrial injury in a motorcycle-versus-automobile collision while employed by Community Care Center. "The WCAB may ask the appointee to give a bond of the kind required by the superior court for the guardians it appoints. To be discharged from liability, the guardian or trustee must file an accounting with the WCAB or superior court. Fees of the guardian or trustee are fixed by either the WCAB or the superior court.
Note:	The Board has no basis for restricting compensation to nonduplicative care because the parties agreed in a compromise and release agreement (C&R) that the guardian was entitled to compensation for duplicative care and the employer, not the estate of the injured worker, should bear the expense.
Citation:	155 Cal. App. 4th 44; 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 687
WCC Citation:	WCC 32542007 CA

Case Name:	Hoffman v. Andrews		03/15/1945
Summary:	ISADORE M. HOFFMAN, Respondent, v. WILLEDD ANDREWS et. COUNSEL Willedd Andrews, in pro. Nor, indeed, do the provisions of section 21 of article XX of the Constitution authorize such legislation. The validity of an action in equity such as the one here considered, in effect, has been upheld. That the superior court had power to issue the order complained of, there can be no question.
Note:	Superior court has equity jurisdiction, has power to enjoin action to satisfy a judgment.
Citation:	68 Cal.App.2d 421, 10 CCC 67
WCC Citation:	WCC 26101945 CA

Case Name:	Hoffman v. The Superior Court of Orange County		11/07/2017
Summary:	Filed 11/7/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             SIM CARLISLE HOFFMAN, Petitioner, .             v. .             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; .             THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. .             G054414 .             (Super. Ct. No. 14CF0243) .             O P I N I O N .             Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. .             Moss Law Group, Richard A. Moss, and William C. Fleming, Jr. , for Petitioner. .           WE CONCUR: .           MOORE, ACTING P. J.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal on Tuesday ruled that the information filed against an Orange County doctor accused of running a bill-mill operation was procedurally appropriate, even though it lumped multiple allegations of illegal activity into a single count of fraud.
Citation:	G054414
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 14CF0243

Case Name:	Hofmeister v. WCAB		06/01/1984
Summary:	CARL F. HOFMEISTER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY et al. , Respondents. OPINION GILBERT, J. Petitioner Carl F. Hofmeister seeks review and annulment of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's determination as to the rate of awarding temporary disability benefits pursuant to Labor Code section 4661. 5. fn. Facts On September 20, 1979, Hofmeister, a reserve firefighter and bulldozer operator engaged in the suppression of a major fire, sustained injuries from burns to his body, arms, back, head and legs. Respondent county denied benefits on the ground that Hofmeister was not a county employee. [4] Inasmuch as Hofmeister was injured on September 20, 1979, section 4661. 5, as amended, is controlling.
Note:	4661.5 applicable to county reserve firefighter.
Citation:	156 Cal.App.3d 848, 49 CCC 438
WCC Citation:	WCC 25441984 CA

Case Name:	Holland v. WCAB		06/29/1993
Summary:	James Holland, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Teichert & Sons, Inc. , et al. , Respondents. Thompson fell behind in his payments to petitioner and in February 1991, he filed a petition for bankruptcy. n2 They further argued that Labor Code section 4900 prohibited the transfer of Thompson's lien to petitioner. On the other hand, if it was curing or relieving from [sic ] the effects of her industrial injuries, then . . . Section 4600 would allow her to seek and obtain it and would require the defense to pay for it.
Note:	Valid medical lien can be assigned by one provider to another.
Citation:	58 CCC 390
WCC Citation:	WCC 25051993 CA

Case Name:	Holley v. Waddington North America et al.		03/15/2012
Summary:	WILLIE HOLLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WADDINGTON NORTH AMERICA, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Holley sued for violations of the CFRA, disability discrimination and related causes of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (§ 12940 et seq. )Holley recalls that during the meeting, a company representative told him that his "regular job duties do not exist. "Holley told a company representative that he would have no medical restrictions when he reported to work on the following day. Holley, however, did not report to work on February 20, 2008. e. Holley is "Totally Incapacitated" On February 25, 2008, Holley submitted a doctor's note to the company stating he was "`totally incapacitated'" until April 21, 2008.
Note:	A California company was not liable for terminating a warehouse supervisor who failed to return to work after 14 months of medical leave, and produced a note from his doctor at that time saying he was completely unable to work.
Citation:	B225623
WCC Citation:	WCC 38732012 CA

Case Name:	Holmes Eureka Lumber Co. v. IAC		10/11/1940
Summary:	HOLMES EUREKA LUMBER COMPANY (a Corporation) et al. , Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and OLEY J. HANSON, Respondents. By means of a writ of certiorari the petitioners seek to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission, denying their application for rehearing after a final award of compensation was made in favor of Oley J. Hanson, an employee of the Holmes Eureka Lumber Company. [41 Cal. App. 2d 152] [1] The claimant, Oley J. Hanson, was injured August 23, 1935, in the course of his employment, while he was hauling logs for the Holmes Eureka Lumber Company. The Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company was the insurer of the lumber company. The hearing on that petition was held at Eureka on April 18, 1940.
Note:	Award annulled b/c physicians' reports received in evidence after hearing.
Citation:	41 Cal.App.2d 150, 5 CCC 230
WCC Citation:	WCC 25821940 CA

Case Name:	Holsome v. Exel, Inc.		09/17/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO KEVIN HOLSOME, et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EXEL, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Law Offices of Mark Peacock and Mark J. Peacock for Plaintiff and Appellant Kevin Holsome. Arkin & Glovsky and Sharon J. Arkin for Plaintiffs and Appellants Kevin Holsome and Fressy Holsome. Law Offices of Christopher A. Kall and Christopher A. Kall for Plaintiff and Appellant Fressy Holsome. INTRODUCTION On June 21, 2004, Kevin and Fressy Holsome (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for damages resulting from the negligent conduct of Michael Thomas Brown (Brown).
Note:	[Unpublished] Because there is a material issue of fact in dispute between the parties, summary judgement cannot be granted for either side.
Citation:	E040658
WCC Citation:	WCC 32552007 CA

Case Name:	Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. v. Lundy		01/28/2013
Summary:	HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. v. LUNDY HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WILLIAM LUNDY, Defendant and Appellant. SSA Terminals LLC, SSA Terminals (Long Beach) LLC, and SSA Pacific, Inc. are employers of longshoreman and are insured for worker's compensation benefit claims through Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. (Homeport). Homeport prepared a separate written settlement agreement for Lundy's worker's compensation claim, which was signed by both Lundy and his worker's compensation attorney. Following entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining Lundy from working for SSA, Lundy filed an appeal challenging the enforceability of the "no reemployment" provision. (Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. , et al. v. Lundy (Nov. 5, 2012, B236276 [nonpub.
Note:	An employer who successfully sought enforcement of a provision in a settlement agreement for a longshoreman's workers' compensation and personal injury claims which barred him from ever seeking reemployment with any company covered by his employer's insurance carrier was entitled to an award of attorney fees.
Citation:	B238296
WCC Citation:	WCC 39772013 CA

Case Name:	Homeport Insurance Services, Inc., v. Lundy		11/05/2012
Summary:	HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. v. LUNDY HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WILLIAM LUNDY, Defendant and Appellant. Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. (Homeport) provides insurance for SSA, including workers' compensation insurance under the LHWCA. Following entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining Lundy from working for SSA, Lundy filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION On appeal, Lundy challenges the trial court's order granting summary judgment for SSA and denying summary judgment for Lundy. Homeport thereafter dismissed its complaint against Lundy without prejudice, and is no longer a party to this action.
Note:	A provision in a settlement agreement for a longshoreman's workers' compensation and personal injury claims which barred him from ever seeking reemployment with his employer was enforceable as a matter of law.
Citation:	B236276
WCC Citation:	WCC 39502012 CA

Case Name:	Honeywell vs. WCAB (Wagner)		12/20/2002
Summary:	Page 2} OPINION CROSKEY, J. - The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that petitioner, Honeywell, formerly known as Allied Signal Aerospace Company (Honeywell), was "reasonably certain" in 1998 that its employee, respondent William Wagner, was psychiatrically injured or was claiming psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 5402. fn. 1 The WCAB therefore determined that Honeywell had a duty to provide a claim form under section 5401, fn. In this case, Honeywell filed for reconsideration with the WCAB. The WCAB also remanded for the record to be further developed, if needed, to determine whether the employees involved had sufficient authority to impute notice or knowledge to Honeywell. Honeywell also asserts that Wagner was not a final adjudication requiring appeal, because the WCAB remanded to the WCJ for a new decision whether Honeywell was "reasonably certain" and the alleged injury should be presumed compensable.
Note:	Employer must have actual notice of knowledge of an injury before duty to provide claim form arises.
Citation:	104 Cal.App.4th 829
WCC Citation:	WCC 29002002 CA

Case Name:	Honeywell vs. WCAB (Wagner) (Cal Sup Crt)		02/10/2005
Summary:	Honeywell obtained a rebuttal medical opinion from psychologist Mory Framer, who concluded Wagner's psychiatric condition was caused by nonindustrial factors or by good faith personnel actions. The WCAB granted Honeywell's petition for reconsideration and issued an en banc decision. On remand, Nyssa Hawkins, the Honeywell disability coordinator, testified she was reasonably certain that Linda Wagner was reporting a work injury in October 1998. At this point, Honeywell "reasonably should have known" an emotional injury arising from events at work was being claimed. [FN 9] We briefly address the estoppel issue to provide guidance to the WCAB on remand and in future cases.
Note:	Injured worker must actually deliver the Claim Form to the employer before the 90 day limitation on investigations in LC 5402 starts to run.
Citation:	35 Cal. 4th 24
WCC Citation:	WCC 30802005 CA

Case Name:	Hong v. Creed Consulting Inc.		12/28/2012
Summary:	HONG v. CREED CONSULTING INC. SOOBOK L. HONG, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CREED CONSULTING INC. , Defendant and Appellant. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION O'LEARY, P. J. Soobok L. Hong hired Creed Consulting Inc. (Creed) to remodel her house. Despite alerting Creed to defects and shoddy workmanship, on December 21, 2010, Creed wrote to Hong the job was finished and demanded she pay the remaining contract balance of $11,430 immediately. Hong subsequently dismissed her remaining causes of action with prejudice, and Creed dismissed its cross-complaint with prejudice, and a judgment for Hong was entered. Creed argues the trial court also erred by allowing Hong to rely upon statements in the written contract and in Creed's unverified cross-complaint to establish as undisputed facts that: Creed and Hong entered into a contract; Creed agreed all work would be performed by properly licensed persons; the contract period was September 1, 2010, to October 31, 2010; and Hong paid Creed $85,000.
Note:	A contractor which allegedly lost its license due to its failure to carry workers' compensation coverage is getting a second chance to defend its entitlement to payment for work it performed on a homeowner's property.
Citation:	G046954
WCC Citation:	WCC 39692012 CA

Case Name:	Hooker v. Department of Transportation		01/31/2002
Summary:	ROSEANNE HOOKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Respondent. He was employed by a general contractor hired by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to construct an overpass. Shortly before the fatal accident, Hooker retracted the outriggers and left the crane. When Hooker returned, he attempted, without first reextending the outriggers, to swing the boom. The evidence produced on summary judgment showed that California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) employees had permitted construction traffic on the overpass where plaintiff's decedent was working, and had driven Caltrans's own vehicles on the overpass.
Note:	A hirer of an independent contractor is not liable to an employee of the contractor merely because the hirer retained control over safety conditions at a worksite, but that a hirer is liable to an employee of a contractor insofar as a hirer's exercise of retained control affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries.
Citation:	27 Cal.4th 198
WCC Citation:	WCC 31042002 CA

Case Name:	Horangic v. Ebara Technologies Inc.		10/26/2007
Summary:	Plaintiff, Craig Horangic, appeals from a judgment of dismissal following an order granting summary judgment to defendants Ebara Technologies Incorporated (Ebara) and Raymond Campbell (Campbell). On April 18, 2003, plaintiff met with Moyle and Michael Kelly, another Ebara attorney, regarding an April 17 memorandum he had prepared. Kelly indicated "Ebara was making an illegal decision, that other companies were being fined regularly for not paying overtime, and that this issue would expose Ebara to a great deal of liability. "Two weeks after plaintiff's meeting with Ebara's counsel, Ebara contacted Speer Associates, an employment law and employment relations counseling firm. Speer was also engaged to "provide information that could help Ebara take steps to improve problems affecting the Human Resources Department. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Whether a termination in violation of public policy is sufficiently outrageous to support an intentional infliction claim is a material issue of fact for remand and therefore, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgement.
Citation:	C053199
WCC Citation:	WCC 32722007 CA