Case Name:	Victor Valley Transit Authority v. WCAB		09/26/2000
Summary:	VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JAMES SOPHY, Respondents. [83 Cal. App. 4th 1070] COUNSEL Hallett & McCormick and Bruce S. Emerick for Petitioner Victor Valley Transit Authority. FACTS OF THE CASE Victor Valley Transit Authority ('VVTA') is a joint powers agency created pursuant to Government Code section 6500 et seq. The members of VVTA are the County of San Bernardino and the Cities of Victorville, Adelanto, Hesperia, and Apple Valley. The joint powers agreement names the authority the 'Victor Valley Transit Services Authority. '
Note:	No WCAB jurisdiction over 'contribution' issues in joint venture; not appropriate for arbitration.
Citation:	83 Cal.App.4th 1068
WCC Citation:	WCC 25402000 CA

Case Name:	Vierra v. WCAB		08/31/2007
Summary:	Petitioner Fred Vierra seeks relief from an order denying reconsideration of a decision by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), upholding an administrative law judge's finding that a written attorney fee agreement Vierra entered into with his attorney was not binding. On October 24, 2005, Vierra entered into a written "Agreement for Attorneys Fees" (the agreement) retaining Attorney Tom Johnson of Anderson & Johnson, LLP, to represent him in the WCAB proceedings. On July 20, 2006, the WCJ issued an order stating that the attorney fee agreement between Johnson and Vierra was not binding on Vierra. On August 3, 2006, Vierra petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration of the WCJ's order, contending the fee arrangement was appropriate and should have been allowed. The WCAB denied reconsideration reasoning that, since there was an available source of funds from which to petition for fees, Vierra was not yet aggrieved by the WCJ's order.
Note:	Because the WCAB unquestionably has the ultimate authority over attorney compensation (see Reich, supra, 99 Cal.App.3d at p. 234), the WCJ's order that a fee agreement is not binding is free from error.
Citation:	154 Cal. App. 4th 1142; 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423
WCC Citation:	WCC 32502007 CA

Case Name:	Vilkitis v. WCAB		06/18/2009
Summary:	Filed 6/18/09 Vilkitis v. WCAB CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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). Dr. Vilkitis would receive $68,057. 50 if the awards are rated separately, but $100,165 plus a life pension if they are rated together. After we denied his petition, Dr. Vilkitis petitioned our Supreme Court for review. Dr. Vilkitis filed separate applications for workers' compensation benefits for each of these injuries. As in Benson, Dr. Vilkitis sustained both a specific industrial injury and an industrial CT. (See Benson, supra, at p.
Note:	[Unpublished] Current sections 4663 and 4664 require physicians to consider each industrial injury sustained, and apportion the injured worker's disability for cause.
Citation:	B209235
WCC Citation:	WCC 35342009 CA

Case Name:	Villa v. WCAB		05/24/1984
Summary:	ERNESTO VILLA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MISSION LINEN SUPPLY, Respondents. Zonni, Ginocchio & Taylor, Clair S. Huffman, Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe and Alvin R. Barrett for Respondents. OPINION STONE, P. J. Petitioner Ernesto Villa seeks review of the July 1, 1983, order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration of the workers' compensation judge's finding that applicant sustained no industrial injury to his eyes. [1] Villa's petition for writ of review was filed in this court on August 16, 1983, 46 days after the Board's order denying reconsideration. 1 provides that a petition for writ of review 'must be made within 45 days after a petition for reconsideration is denied. '
Note:	45 day time limit for filing petition for writ of review is extended when order served by mail.
Citation:	156 Cal.App.3d 1076
WCC Citation:	WCC 27791984 CA

Case Name:	Vine vs. Bear Valley Ski Co.		05/11/2004
Summary:	CHARLENE VINE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BEAR VALLEY SKI COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. BACKGROUND Charlene Vine suffered a broken back, resulting in paraplegia, when she fell while attempting a snowboard jump at an employee party hosted by her employer, Bear Valley Ski Company (Bear Valley) after the end of the public ski season. Bear Valley contends that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court failed to give an instruction that Bear Valley never proposed. Bear Valley also challenges the court's failure to give a proposed instruction on what Bear Valley terms the "obvious hazard doctrine. "The dissent accuses Bear Valley of faulting the court for not giving an instruction Bear Valley never proposed.
Note:	Employee cannot escape assumption of risk doctrine for injury not covered by work comp.
Citation:	118 Cal.App.4th 577
WCC Citation:	WCC 29852004 CA

Case Name:	Virginia Surety Co. v. WCAB (Echelard)		08/22/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JASON ECHELARD, Respondents. -ooOoo- Before Ardaiz, P. J. , Cornell, J. , and Kane, J. Virginia Surety Company (Virginia Surety) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) contending the WCAB applied the incorrect Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities (PDRS -- *fn1). California Quality Interiors's insurer for workers' compensation purposes, Virginia Surety, admitted the accident arose out of and in the course of Echelard's employment causing injury to his thoracic spine, right wrist, and right elbow. Virginia Surety petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration contending Echelard's disability should have been rated under the 2005 PDRS because there was no medical determination before 2005 finding Echelard permanent and stationary. Virginia Surety, however, offers no legal support for its proposition that a pre-2005 medical report may only be considered within its four corners.
Note:	Under the WCAB's reasoning and Dr. Thomas's medical reporting, we agree the record supports an indication of permanent disability permitting the use of the 1997 PDRS. Accordingly, we will not disturb the WCAB's decision.
Citation:	F055253
WCC Citation:	WCC 34142008 CA

Case Name:	Virginia Surety, Inc. v. WCAB		01/31/2008
Summary:	Virginia Surety, Inc. petitions for a writ of review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) affirming an award to respondent Larry Wragg. Virginia Surety contends the award was improperly calculated using the 1997 schedule for rating permanent disabilities, instead of the schedule that went into effect on January 1, 2005. Virginia Surety petitioned for reconsideration on the ground the WCJ should have adopted a permanent disability rating under the 2005 schedule. Virginia Surety petitioned this court for writ of review. Virginia Surety petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of review.
Note:	[Unpublished] The 1997 schedule applies in the present case, based on the statutory reading of section 4660, subdivision (d)(2) as established under Genlyte Group, LLC, etc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., B198100, Jan. 3, 2008.
Citation:	B197490
WCC Citation:	WCC 33112008 CA

Case Name:	Visalia School District v. WCAB (Hernandez)		12/07/1995
Summary:	Visalia School District, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Lupe Hernandez, Respondents. Respondent/applicant Lupe Hernandez telephoned the claims administrator of petitioner/employer Visalia School District and requested vocational rehabilitation benefits. Rehabilitation. 'Dr. Wells also stated:Mr. Hernandez does not meet the criteria of being a Qualified Injured Worker under DIA guidelines. If employment in the maintenance and janitorial field in an appropriate setting could be found, this would be ideal.
Note:	Written request for rehab. benefits not required; phone call to employer's claims administrator suffices.
Citation:	60 CCC 1158
WCC Citation:	WCC 28021995 CA

Case Name:	Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental		04/22/2008
Summary:	Filed 4/22/08 Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental CA4/1 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). Plaintiff Douglas Von Arx (Plaintiff) was injured in a workplace accident involving a trenching attachment (trencher) for a ride-upon trenching machine, manufactured by defendant Charles Machine Works, Inc. (Charles), and rented to his employer by Max Equipment Rental, LLC (Max). The rental contract stated that the customer acknowledged examining the equipment upon delivery, and usage of it would constitute acknowledgment that the equipment was in good mechanical condition at the time. Max is in the business of renting construction equipment, and rented this trencher to Western on August 18, 2003. Plaintiff had conducted safety meetings about using the equipment and had checked the equipment for loose bolts or nuts and would normally tighten them.
Note:	[Unpublished] Insufficient evidence to justify the necessary, reasonable or logical inferences of causation from employer's actions or inactions,' so nonsuit ruling was proper.
Citation:	D048759
WCC Citation:	WCC 33472008 CA

Case Name:	Voortman v. Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Assn.		04/05/2012
Summary:	Arthur Voortman v. Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Association No. F062610 (Cal. App. Dist. 5 04/05/2012) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT F062610 April 5, 2012 ARTHUR VOORTMAN, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. STANISLAUS COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. The judgment set aside a decision of appellant Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Association (hereafter, the association) that denied respondent's application for disability retirement. In light of these considerations, on October 23, 2007, respondent applied for service retirement (i. e. , "regular" retirement based on age and length of service) and attempted to apply simultaneously for service-connected disability retirement. The trial court found that there was no prohibition on simultaneous filing of applications for service retirement and disability retirement. *fn3 A county employee covered by a CERL retirement plan is a member of the association and, upon reaching retirement age, may apply for service retirement based on the employee's age and length of service.
Note:	A former police chief was not entitled to have the administrative denial of his disability retirement application set aside based on the two-year delay in its processing because he had elected to take service retirement while his disability retirement application remained pending.
Citation:	F062610
WCC Citation:	WCC 38832012 CA