Case Name:	Thomas v. Duggins Construction Company		05/25/2006
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA No. D044470 May 25, 2006 WILLIAM THOMAS ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. DUGGINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. , ET AL. William Thomas and Woodrow C. Taylor (the plaintiffs) sued Duggins Construction Company, Inc. (Duggins) and certain of its employees for injuries they sustained when the scissor lift it sold to their employer collapsed on a construction job site. Thereafter, the court rejected Duggins' arguments that its liability for the plaintiffs' non-economic damages was subject to apportionment in accordance with Proposition 51 and entered a judgment against Duggins for the entirety of the plaintiffs' damages. After Duggins answered, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to name as defendants Duggins employees or agents James Duggins, Russel Roben, Scott Dhalliwal and Doug Calhoun and to add claims for fraud, deceit, willful misconduct and punitive damages. Duggins did not accept either of the offers, which made no reference to the plaintiffs' claims against Duggins' employees or Fremont's claim for reimbursement of worker's compensation payments.
Note:	Intentional tortfeasor is not entitled to apporionment of non-economic damages under Prop 51.
Citation:	139 Cal.App.4th 1105
WCC Citation:	WCC 31592006 CA

Case Name:	Thomas v. Sports Chalet, Inc. (En Banc)		08/17/1977
Summary:	This section created a rehabilitation program which was purely voluntary and could only be initiated by the employer or the insurance carrier. An injured worker had no right to rehabilitation unless one was conferred upon him by his employer or insurance carrier. '(2) To adopt rules and regulations which would expedite and facilitate the identification, notification, and referral of industrially injured employees to rehabilitation services. '(b) The salaries of the personnel of the rehabilitation unit shall be fixed by the State Personnel Board. As a result of the amendment a qualified injured worker is now entitled to vocational rehabilitation as a matter of right.
Note:	Settlement of rehab. prohibited absent good faith dispute re. liability.
Citation:	42 CCC 625
WCC Citation:	WCC 26201977 CA

Case Name:	Thompson v. City of Los Angeles		06/22/2010
Summary:	JUDITH THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Richard M. Brown, General Counsel for Department of Water and Power, Wendy K. Genz, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. Appellant concedes the trial court's ruling "essentially foreclosed [her] opportunity to refute the facts submitted in [DWP's] summary judgment motion. "In January 2001, DWP attempted to dock her two hours' pay for reporting sick to the medical department. (See Risam v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 412, 416-417, 421 [findings of civil service hearing officer binding if not challenged by writ of mandamus]; Bowman v. Bd.
Note:	The appellate court noted that a timely FEHA complaint requires an employee to file an administrative charge with the Department of Fair Employment and housing within a year of the last alleged violation. The appeals court examined Thompson's allegations, determined that no acts of retaliation occurred within a year, and affirmed the trial court's decision to grant DWP's motion for summary judgment.
Citation:	B213601
WCC Citation:	WCC 36412010 CA

Case Name:	Thompson v. WCAB		06/21/1994
Summary:	Petitioner Janet Thompson is the widow of the decedent Jack Thompson. In 1987, when Thompson underwent a brief hospitalization for a broken arm, it was discovered that he suffered from hypertension. This resulted in a minor traffic accident and Thompson was taken to a hospital where he died three days later. Dr. John B. O'Brien, in reporting on the death of Thompson to the City's claims supervisor, agreed that the automobile accident played no part in the stroke that killed Thompson. There was no evidence that Mr. Thompson received any advice about his diet, smoking or stress except for salt reduction and, as to that, there is no evidence that Mr. Thompson did not reduce his salt intake.
Note:	Avoidable consequences doctrine does not apply to workers comp. claims.
Citation:	25 Cal.App.4th 1781
WCC Citation:	WCC 24041994 CA

Case Name:	Thrifty Drug Stores Inc. v. WCAB (Kaye)		08/10/1979
Summary:	THRIFTY DRUG STORES, INC. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RUFINA KAYE, Respondents. On the date of injury, Kaye's earnings were $131. 20 per week, which would result in a temporary disability rate of $81. 02. 1 These figures are computed on the basis of statutory formula derived by application of Labor Code sections 4453 and 4653. fn. Com. , 79 Cal. App. 2d 711, at page 722 [180 P. 2d 972], "By 'Average Earnings' nothing more is meant than earning capacity. Dole involved an injured who was a part-time worker at the time of injury and later obtained steady full-time employment.
Note:	TD rate to be adjusted up for post injury salary increase per collective bargain agreement.
Citation:	95 C.A.3d 937, 44 CCC 809
WCC Citation:	WCC 28881979 CA

Case Name:	Tidgewell v. Gentry, APC et al.		02/29/2012
Summary:	TIDGEWELL v. DAVID E. GENTRY, APC JANET A. TIDGEWELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVID E. GENTRY, APC et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Janet A. Tidgewell appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of her former attorneys, defendants Hollins Schechter, APC, and David E. Gentry, APC, in this legal malpractice action. When Tidgewell later filed her age discrimination lawsuit, however, Becton asserted the Compromise and Release as an affirmative defense, arguing Tidgewell waived her age discrimination claims by signing the form. In September 2005, Tidgewell, represented by Hollins Schechter, filed a workers' compensation claim against Becton based on her wrist injuries. Tidgewell moved for a new trial based on alleged errors in the trial court's decision granting the two summary judgment motions.
Note:	A grant of summary judgment was upheld in favor of two law firms being sued by a former client for malpractice for having allegedly undermined her age-discrimination action against her employer in settling her workers' compensation claims.
Citation:	G044710
WCC Citation:	WCC 38652012 CA

Case Name:	Tiffany v. Smith		08/31/2012
Summary:	TIFFANY v. SMITH BARBARA TIFFANY, as Executor, etc. , Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID JAMES SMITH et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Smith called Tiffany the day after Tiffany's surgery and asked whether Tiffany would be able to return to work that week. Thereafter, Smith called Tiffany and inquired as to whether he was available to fill in for a few days while Smith was on vacation. The fact that Tiffany could return to work after his injury (and termination) in 2008 was further supported by evidence that Smith asked Tiffany to fill in while Smith was on vacation and considered offering Tiffany part-time employment. Hamwey felt that Smith was discriminating against Tiffany because of the "circumstances that [Tiffany] had with his health event. "
Note:	Sufficient evidence supported a jury's determination that an affluent San Diego doctor had discriminated against a physician with a broken arm by terminating him and then claiming this was done for financial purposes.
Citation:	D058510
WCC Citation:	WCC 39292012 CA

Case Name:	Tiffin v. WCAB (New Idria Mining)		12/15/1972
Summary:	IRA M. TIFFIN, JR. , Petitioner v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NEW IDRIA MINING & CHEMICAL CO. , PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INS. Labor Code section 5500. 5 sets forth the statutory procedure for claims for occupational diseases arising from more than one employment. The compromise and release were approved by the referee two days later at a proceeding in which no testimony was taken. The referee extensively reviewed the numerous assertions made by petitioner and recommended that the petition for reconsideration be denied. We find that the record does not support petitioner's assertion that the procedure set forth in section 5500. 5 is oppressive and causes employee settlements.
Note:	Requirement on WCAB to make proper service may be waived by applicant.
Citation:	38 CCC 53
WCC Citation:	WCC 27831972 CA

Case Name:	Tilbury Constructors, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund		03/07/2006
Summary:	Tilbury alleged that State Fund failed to take any steps to determine that the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board had deleted the accident-related determination in the citation issued against Tilbury. Tilbury alleges that State Fund has sought to obtain a credit against its obligations to pay Alfrey's benefits based on the $1. 2 million settlement. In that application for credit, State Fund has taken the position that there was no finding that Tilbury had any fault in the accident. Tilbury further alleges that State Fund failed to provide it with documentation of its subrogation handling for three months after Tilbury's request. *fn2 First, and most importantly, State Fund has not denied Tilbury any benefits due to Tilbury under the insurance policy.
Note:	Insurer's decision not to pursue its subrogation rights does not constitute a breach of contract or a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Citation:	137 Cal. App. 4th 466
WCC Citation:	WCC 31462006 CA

Case Name:	Tilley v. CZ Master Ass'n		07/26/2005
Summary:	Tilley obtained worker's compensation benefits from BonaFide on account of his injuries, and sued CZ, along with several other individuals and entities he alleged were responsible for the incident. 4 He resolved his claims against all named defendants other than CZ. In a word, CZ Master Association originally retained BonaFide to man the gates and provide courtesy patrols, not perform law enforcement functions. "IV In addition to determining CZ had no liability to Tilley under the peculiar risk doctrine, we also conclude CZ owed Tilley no independent duty to restrict the parties thrown by its homeowners, or to control the number of non-residents allowed to attend those parties. While Tilley argues that CZ could have regulated parties through use of the CC&R provision prohibiting nuisance, that would not have been effective. Rather than disputing the evidence, Tilley incorrectly asserts the evidence "pre-date[s] the 1997 and 1998 assaults on Mr. Tilley at the [S. ] residence. "
Note:	Party not liable for injuries of independent contractor if its authority does not affirmatively contribute to the injuries.
Citation:	131 Cal.App.4th 464
WCC Citation:	WCC 31102005 CA