Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library

Case Name: Tapia v. Skill Master Staffing 09/17/2008
Summary: WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Case No. ADJ 4564224 (En Banc) (LBO 0322121) MARIA TAPIA, Applicant, vs. SKILL MASTER STAFFING; and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s), SB SURGERY CENTER, Lien Claimant. The new fee schedule for this procedure would be $1,770. 34. That would apply only to injuries on or after 1-1-04. Medicare ASC [Ambulatory Surgical Center], which was used in calculating the new fee schedule, would be $832. 49 for this procedure. A comparable procedure under the CHSWC study Level 5 (which was this procedure's level) would be an average of $2,196.
Note: [En Banc] (1) An outpatient surgery center lien claimant has burden of proving that charges are reasonable; (2) the outpatient surgery center lien claimant's billing, by itself, does not establish that claimed fee is 'reasonable'; and (3) any evidence relevant to reasonableness may be offered to support or rebut the lien.
Citation: 4564224
WCC Citation: WCC 34252008 CA
Case Name: Target Stores v. WCAB 01/18/2008
Summary: Filed 1/18/08 Target Stores v. WCAB (Sollars) CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS. -ooOoo- Target Stores (Target) petitions for a writ of review disputing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concluding that a 1994 stipulated award for further medical care contained a clerical error and that, regardless of the error, Target was estopped from terminating medical benefits it had been providing a former employee for over 11 years. Sollars stopped working for Target in June 1991 and began working as a receptionist with Sierra Medical Group. Target also argues the WCAB improperly considered Target's past payment for neck treatment an admission of liability and that it should not have relied upon Dr. Chittenden's medical reporting lacking substantial evidence. (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 784 (Robinson), Target contends there were no legal grounds for the WCAB to withdraw or set aside the 1994 stipulated award.
Note: [Unpublished] The WCAB may interpret and enforce a prior award.
Citation: F053581
WCC Citation: WCC 33032008 CA
Case Name: Tate v. IAC 10/19/1953
Summary: On rehearing it developed that the district manager of the employer not only knew that Tate was drinking, but participated with Tate in the drinking and purchased at least one round of drinks. The facts, in more detail, are as follows: Ernest Tate was employed as a janitor and supervising employee by the American Building Maintenance Company, a self-insured employer. The employer raised the affirmative defense that death was caused by the intoxication of Tate. Tate then made a telephone call and he and Deardorff left Allison's home for San Francisco at 2:30 a. m. Allison stated he did not believe that Tate was then drunk, or he would not have allowed him to leave. Allison also stated that Tate had worked for this same employer for seven or eight years; that about three or four months before the accident Tate had been warned about four to six times about drinking on the job.
Note: On rehearing, petitioner for rehearing may raise any point he could have raised in original hearing.
Citation: 120 Cal.App.2d 657
WCC Citation: WCC 26961953 CA
Case Name: Telles Transport v. WCAB (Zuniga) 10/16/2001
Summary: TELLES TRANSPORT, INC. et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LUIS ZUNIGA, Respondents. OPINION CORNELL, J. Telles Transport, Inc. (Telles) petitions this court by a writ of review challenging the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or Board). Although the documents were not offered into evidence, Telles apparently had its own copy of the relevant UMC records. The WCAB disagreed with the WCJ and found the WCJ had a duty to develop fully the record by admitting the relevant UMC records. 1 Zuniga maintains the WCAB acted within its authority in ordering the WCJ to admit the previously undisclosed UMC records.
Note: Where a party's own conduct caused or induced the error he is estopped from appealing the issue of that error.
Citation: 92 Cal.App.4th 1159
WCC Citation: WCC 28182001 CA
Case Name: Tenet/Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Rushing 05/18/2000
Summary: Dr. Glousman treated Rushing continuously beginning in August 1995, performing surgery twice on her right knee and conducting follow-up care. In the category of 'Treatment Recommendations,' Dr. Glousman wrote that Rushing 'will continue on a home exercise program. 'As Rushing was not represented at the time, the hospital followed the requirements of Labor Code section 4061, subdivision (d), and provided her with a three-physician panel. The WCJ effectively ruled that Dr. Stokes was the primary treating physician, rationalizing that Rushing was entitled to change treating physicians when future medical care is warranted. Rushing seeks an award of supplementary attorney fees predicated on the assertion there was no reasonable basis for this petition for review.
Note: When applicant P&S, must comply with 4061/4062 before obtaining new treating physician.
Citation: 80 C.A.4th 1041, 65 CCC 477
WCC Citation: WCC 24052000 CA
Case Name: Tenet/Doctors Medical Center v. WCAB 03/24/2008
Summary: Filed 3/24/08 Tenet/Doctors Medical Center v. WCAB (Reddick) CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER, etc. , et al. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BONNIE REDDRICK, Respondent. BACKGROUND While employed as an admitting clerk by petitioner Tenet/Doctors Medical Center (Tenet), respondent Bonnie Reddrick injured her hand and wrist. Among other things, this legislation amended section 4660 to require the implementation of a new permanent disability rating schedule incorporating the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th ed. 'Permanent and stationary status' is the point when the employee has reached maximal medical improvement, meaning his or her condition is well stabilized, and unlikely to change substantially in the next year with or without medical treatment. "
Note: [Unpublished] A medical-legal report issued before January 1, 2005 need not state that that the claimant is permanent and stationary in order to trigger the old rating schedule. It is only necessary that a pre-2005 report indicate that the claimant has suffered a permanent impairment of earning capacity, a permanent impairment of the normal use of a body part, or a permanent competitive handicap in the open market. See Genlyte Group, Inc. v. WCAB, (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 705.
Citation: A118238
WCC Citation: WCC 33292008 CA
Case Name: Tensfeldt v. WCAB 08/20/1998
Summary: GARY TENSFELDT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondents. [66 Cal. App. 4th 119] OPINION PETERSON, P. J. - Petitioner Gary Tensfeldt (Tensfeldt) was convicted of insurance fraud under Insurance Code section 1871. 4, subdivision (a)(1), fn. Upon completion, Lynch drove Tensfeldt and another crew member to a City gymnasium where they joined other water department employees to play basketball. Upon learning that the investigation was complete, Tensfeldt met with the police on April 22, 1994, and revealed the true nature of the injury. In a two-to-one opinion the Board held that Tensfeldt was barred under section 1871. 5 from 'receiving or retaining any workers' compensation benefits. '
Note: Conviction of fraud bars applicant from receiving any compensation under 3207.
Citation: 66 Cal. App. 4th 116
WCC Citation: WCC 4021998 CA
Case Name: Terra Linda Farms, Inc., et al v. California Fair Employment and Housing Commission 01/19/2012
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT F059869 January 19, 2012 TERRA LINDA FARMS, INC. , ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS; MARIBEL RIVAS ET AL. , REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST AND RESPONDENTS. The Commission had found the companies violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. FACTS Terra Linda Farms, Inc. , Terra Linda Farms, a general partnership, and Terra Linda Packing (collectively, Terra Linda), filed this administrative mandamus proceeding. Terra Linda's writ petition named the Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the Department) as defendants. During the 1995 onion season, they worked directly for Terra Linda and their paychecks came from Terra Linda.
Note: Substantial evidence supported a Fair Employment and Housing Commission decision to award two female workers $96,575 in damages.
Citation: F059869
WCC Citation: WCC 38452012 CA
Case Name: Tevis v. Spare Time Part 1/2 10/16/2017
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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             KELLY TEVIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SPARE TIME, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             C074938 .             (Super. .           Six months after she was hired as an assistant marketing director at Spare Time’s Lodi facility, Spare Time promoted plaintiff to be a marketing director at the Natomas Racquet Club. .           We, therefore, will put a wider lens on the facts Spare Time characterize as undisputed and fatal to her claims. Tevis testified that she did not start to feel better until October or November 2010. ” .           “153.
Note: A California appellate court revived a worker’s disability discrimination claim after she allegedly suffered a psychological injury because of pervasive harassment by her supervisor.
Citation: C074938
WCC Citation: Super. Ct. No. 34201100116411CUWTGDS
Case Name: Tevis v. Spare Time Part 2/2 10/16/2017
Summary: .           Finally, Spare Time insists plaintiff admitted she never asked for any kind of accommodation, including separation from Rose. Whether it was explicit or implicit, Spare Time was certainly on notice that plaintiff perceived Rose as an ongoing threat and sought to be separated from him. Plaintiff presented sufficient circumstantial evidence that Spare Time’s asserted reason for discharging her was pretextual and that a trier of fact is needed to determine Spare Time’s true motives. According to plaintiff, in April Sierra had assured her Spare Time was conducting a thorough investigation of her charges. .         Plaintiff contends Spare Time has not established the lack of retaliatory animus as a matter of law.
Note: A California appellate court revived a worker’s disability discrimination claim after she allegedly suffered a psychological injury because of pervasive harassment by her supervisor.
Citation: C074938
WCC Citation: Super. Ct. No. 34201100116411CUWTGDS
1706 Results Page 154 of 171