Case Name:	Sunderland v. Lockheed Martin		06/09/2005
Summary:	KRISTI SUNDERLAND et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS SUPPORT COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add Mazloom's employer, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Support Company (LMASSC), as a defendant. On the date of the collision, LMASSC, a Lockheed Martin Corporation subsidiary, employed Mazloom as a field service representative. Headquartered in Marietta, Georgia, LMASSC provides after-market technical field support to government and military customers which own and operate aircraft manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendant Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Support Company.
Note:	The commercial traveler rule may not be incorporated into the respondeat superior doctrine.
Citation:	130 Cal.App.4th 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 31032005 CA

Case Name:	Sunwest Masonry & Concrete Inc. v. Zamora - unpublished		02/01/2021
Summary:	* * * After suffering injuries on the job, followed by a stroke two months later, construction worker Jose Zamora filed a workers compensation claim against his former employer, Sunwest Masonry & Concrete, Inc. (Sunwest). Zamora then sued Sunwest for wrongful termination, and Sunwest and a third party for negligence. Zamora eventually settled his workers compensation claim and the wrongful termination action; he then voluntarily dismissed Sunwest from the negligence action with prejudice. About a week later, Zamora failed to show up for a job, and Sunwest stopped calling him in to work. According to Smaili, Zamora had no further need to maintain the negligence action against Sunwest after he successfully settled his workers compensation claim.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld a decision to strike an employer’s malicious prosecution claim against a former employee and his attorney for having pursued an allegedly meritless negligence action.
Citation:	No. G058685
WCC Citation:	No. G058685

Case Name:	Supervalu v. Wexford Underwriting Managers		06/03/2009
Summary:	Filed 6/3/09 Supervalu v. Wexford Underwriting Managers CA2/2 (Editor's note: This decision was originally unpublished, but was granted published status on June 22, 2009. )IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SUPERVALU, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEXFORD UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The issue presented is the interpretation of the word "occurrence" in the excess workers' compensation policies provided to appellant Supervalu, Inc. doing business as Albertson's Inc. (Supervalu) by respondents TIG Insurance Company (TIG), Continental Casualty Company (Continental) and Wexford Underwriting Managers, Inc. (Wexford) (collectively respondents). As to Continental and Wexford, Supervalu also alleged causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith. In an evidentiary vacuum, Supervalu states that the policies impose "an important duty on Wexford to transmit notice from [Supervalu] to the excess carrier.
Note:	[Unpublished] Policy language is not inconsistent with the apportionment of benefits envisioned by the provisions of the Labor Code.
Citation:	B206501
WCC Citation:	WCC 35312009 CA

Case Name:	Sutter Memorial Hospital v. WCAB		11/10/2008
Summary:	[U] Sutter Memorial Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No. C058699 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 11/10/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C058699 November 10, 2008 SUTTER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND GREEN & AZEVEDO, RESPONDENTS. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Petitioner Sutter Memorial Hospital (Sutter) seeks reversal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denying reconsideration and restitution of attorney fees paid to respondent Green & Azevedo for its legal representation of the applicant Lucy Chaidez. The WCAB earlier reduced the applicant's permanent disability from 100 percent to 41 percent and ordered her to pay restitution to Sutter. In this proceeding, Sutter argues that the WCAB exceeded its powers in refusing to order Green & Azevedo to return $69,135 in attorney fees. In this case, the WCAB ordered the applicant to pay Sutter restitution in the sum of $60,092. 45 based on her misrepresentations to Dr. Kornblatt and the WCAB.
Note:	An employer is not entitled to restitution against attorneys who won $69,000 in attorney fees while unknowingly representing a fraudulent client.
Citation:	C058699
WCC Citation:	WCC 34602008 CA

Case Name:	Sutton v. WCAB		09/21/2007
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION THE COURT*fn1 Petitioner William R. Sutton asks this court to annul a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) in which the WCAB remanded the matter for further development of the medical record to determine whether Sutton is entitled to medical treatment arising out of a 1985 stipulated award providing that future medical care "may be" required. At some point thereafter, the Employer contested its liability to provide medical treatment, and Sutton responded by petitioning the WCAB for penalties and attorney fees against the Employer for failing to provide medical treatment. The Employer petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending Sutton never received an award for future medical care because the 1985 stipulation provided that additional medical care " `may be' " provided and then only " `upon reasonable demand. 'The WCAB found the precautionary award limited to the body areas specifically listed and upon Sutton making "a demand in advance of his need for treatment. "Although the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's findings ordering the Employer to provide six months of medical treatment, the WCAB has not yet issued a final determination whether medical evidence demonstrates Sutton requires continued medical treatment due to the 1983 injury and stipulated award.
Note:	[Unpublished] The ACOEM Guidelines presumptively establish reasonable medical treatment, regardless of the date of injury.
Citation:	F053104
WCC Citation:	WCC 32582007 CA

Case Name:	Sweeney v. WCAB		07/24/1968
Summary:	ROBERT D. SWEENEY, SR. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, FREDRICKSON & WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. , Respondents. The record herein includes seven reports made by Dr. Feldman at various times to and including July 28, 1965. On February 13, 1964, petitioner was examined by Dr. Loopesko, at the request of the insurance carrier. On July 16, 1965, Dr. Feldman performed a lumbar laminectomy on petitioner, from 'L-4 to S-1,' removing a herniated disc. The other medical reports indicated that the disability was less severe and that the applicant was not so narrowly limited occupationally.
Note:	Matter remanded after WCAB relied on improper physician's report.
Citation:	264 Cal.App.2d 296
WCC Citation:	WCC 25631968 CA

Case Name:	T and T Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Curtis Ray Hillman		06/01/2012
Summary:	T and T Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Curtis Ray Hillman, Deceased, No. C067171 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 06/01/2012) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT C067171 June 1, 2012 T AND T CONSTRUCTION, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND CURTIS RAY HILLMAN, DECEASED, ETC. , RESPONDENTS. Hillman's counsel filed a petition for serious and willful misconduct with the Board on August 20, 2009. We are not bound by the conclusions of the Board on questions of law, such as the interpretation of a statute. Petitioner's name appears throughout the record in many variations, including T&T Construction, TT Construction, and T and T Construction. We have elected to use the name as it appears on the order denying reconsideration, T and T Construction.
Note:	The act of filing a petition for workers' compensation benefits based on the alleged serious and willful misconduct of an employer is sufficient to 'commence' proceedings for purposes of the statute of limitations.
Citation:	C067171
WCC Citation:	WCC 39032012 CA

Case Name:	Tabaie v. Stockton Unified School Dist.		11/20/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- BIJAN TABAIE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. That Bijan Tabaie was an employee of the Stockton Unified School District. That the Stockton Unified School District knew or thought Bijan Tabaie had a physical condition that limited a major life activity; "4. That Bijan Tabaie's physical condition was a motivating reason for the discharge, or [¶] [t]hat the Stockton Unified School District's belief that Bijan Tabaie had a physical condition was a motivating reason for the discharge. That the Stockton Unified School District's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Bijan Tabaie's harm. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Special instruction wrongly required the jury to decide issues of law and to engage in a burden-shifting analysis that is not to be performed by a jury at trial.
Citation:	C056222
WCC Citation:	WCC 35802009 CA

Case Name:	Tanimura v. Antle		11/21/2007
Summary:	Tanimura & Antle and its insurer petitioned this court for writ of review, and we granted the petition. Nor does he show that before 2005, Tanimura & Antle was required to provide notice under Labor Code section 4061, subdivision (a). The agreed medical examiner found Lopez to be permanent and stationary on January 13, 2006, and Tanimura & Antle made its last temporary disability payment on March 8, 2006. Filed 12/18/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TANIMURA & ANTLE, et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and AVELINO LOPEZ, Respondents. Trial Court: Santa Clara County W. C. A. B. No. SAL 108539 Attorneys for Petitioners: Daniel H. Hunt Tanimura & Antle et al. Matovich & McLean Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Michael A.
Note:	It is the date of proof of permanent disability, not the date of injury that determines whether a disability rating falls under the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) or the prior 1997 schedule.
Citation:	157 Cal. App. 4th 1489; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 127
WCC Citation:	WCC 32802007 CA

Case Name:	Tapia et al., v. Dresden et al.		08/30/2010
Summary:	Filed 8/30/10 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District (Sacramento) C061925 (Superior Ct. No. 34200800024335CUPOGDS) Jorge Tapia et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Karl Dresden et al. , Defendants and Respondents. First, they asserted that because Jorges cause of action was precluded by the workers compensation exclusivity rule, Glorias cause of action was likewise precluded. The court concluded that the employee of an independent contractor may not sue the owner or hirer for injuries on the job. Also, while the Ungas did not have workers compensation coverage, workers compensation benefits were nonetheless available to Jorge. DISCUSSION I Standard Of Review The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint by raising questions of law.
Note:	Exclusive remedy did not bar an injured worker's suit against a property owner because the general contractor on the job did not have a valid license or workers' compensation coverage, California's 3rd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	C061925
WCC Citation:	WCC 36612010 CA