Case Name:	Valdez v. Himmelfarb		11/20/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN No. B184281 November 20, 2006 ELIAS VALDEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. DOUGLAS HIMMELFARB ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Valdez filed a timely appeal from the judgment for defendants but no appeal was filed on behalf of Valdez or his attorneys from the sanction order. In May 2003 Valdez filed the present action for personal injury, unfair competition and declaratory relief alleging the Mission Club was a business operated by defendant Himmelfarb and others who "intentionally and without good cause . *fn6 The court reasoned defendants "conclusively established" Valdez knew no later than December 2001 defendants did not have workers' compensation insurance. But even if this was the date on which Valdez first discovered Himmelfarb was his uninsured employer the complaint was filed more than a year after this discovery.
Note:	Actions under Labor Code section 3706 are covered by the three-year statute of limitations in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Citation:	144 Cal. App. 4th 1261
WCC Citation:	WCC 31912006 CA

Case Name:	Valdez v. WCAB		05/29/2012
Summary:	VALDEZ v. WCAB ELAYNE VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WAREHOUSE DEMO SERVICES et al. Respondents. We therefore annul the decision of the WCAB and remand with directions for further proceedings that are consistent with this opinion. "*fn1 The WCAB found that the WCJ "relied on the non-MPN reports of Dr. Nario for this finding [temporary disability] and award of benefits. "'"*fn2 The WCAB concluded that reports from non-MPN physicians are inadmissible and may not be relied on to award compensation. In its second en banc opinion, the WCAB did not limit itself to holding that section 4616. 6 made Dr. Nario's report inadmissible.
Note:	California's Labor Code does not prohibit the admission of medical reports from doctors who are not a part of an employer's properly noticed and valid medical provider network.
Citation:	B237147
WCC Citation:	WCC 39002012 CA

Case Name:	Valdivia v. Del Monte Foods		12/09/2010
Summary:	ELIZABETH VALDIVIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION WISEMAN, Acting P. J. Elizabeth Valdivia, an employee of Del Monte Foods, Inc. , sued Del Monte and its plant manager, Jim Fullmer, for sexual harassment. Valdivia alleged five causes of action against Fullmer and Del Monte: sexual harassment; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; sexual battery; and negligent failure to supervise and train. If found that negligence by Del Monte in hiring or supervising Fullmer was not a factor in causing harm to Valdivia. Finally, it found that Valdivia did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Del Monte engaged in conduct against her with malice, oppression, or fraud.
Note:	A trial judge's warning that he might have to declare a mistrial in a worker's civil suit in order to hear other cases did not constitute a prejudicial error.
Citation:	F056866
WCC Citation:	WCC 36902010 CA

Case Name:	Valero v. Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees' Retirement Assoc.		05/01/2012
Summary:	VALERO v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF TULARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION JOE VALERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF TULARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OPINION FRANSON, J. Respondent Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees' Retirement Association (the Board) denied the application of appellant Joe Valero for a service-connected disability retirement. Valero was hired as an "Office Assistant II" by the County of Tulare Health and Human Services Agency (the County) in April of 1999. On July 9, 2008, the Board determined that Valero failed to meet his burden of establishing service connection, and instead granted Valero a non-service-connected disability retirement. (Dickey v. Retirement Board (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 745; County of Alameda v. Board of Retirement (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 902. )
Note:	A county office worker with a disabling psychiatric condition failed to prove his panic disorder was service-connected.
Citation:	F062601
WCC Citation:	WCC 38912012 CA

Case Name:	Van Voorhis vs. WCAB (Bethlehem Steel Corp.)		02/04/1974
Summary:	HERBERT D. VAN VOORHIS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Respondents (Opinion by Sims, Acting P. J. , with Elkington, J. , and Bray, J. , concurring. )3 and return having made, and the matter having been regularly submitted, it is concluded that the board erred. Its decision and award must therefore be vacated, and the matter returned for reinstatement of the award granted by the referee. No mention was made of his hearing loss, and he never lost any time or wages, or received medical treatment for that complaint. In September 1971, he was told that his hearing loss might have been due to his employment.
Note:	Compensation must be measured by the applicant's earning capacity as it existed at the time he incurred his compensable disability.
Citation:	37 CA3d 81
WCC Citation:	WCC 30291974 CA

Case Name:	Vanderheiden v. City of Alameda		06/02/2009
Summary:	The City claims Vanderheiden called a station meeting in which he put other employees "on notice" that they should leave him alone. The City insisted that Vanderheiden receive psychological counseling through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) before he could return to work. The City moved for summary judgment on grounds that (1) Vanderheiden could not prove the City "regarded him" as mentally disabled under the FEHA; (2) the City had engaged in good faith in any interactive process required of it; (3) the City had offered Vanderheiden a reasonable accommodation; and (4) Vanderheiden could not perform the essential duties of a firefighter. Although the court found it "likely" the City did regard Vanderheiden as mentally disabled, it granted summary judgment to the City because Vanderheiden had presented insufficient evidence that he could perform the essential functions of the job. Dr. Everstine originally produced no records underlying her opinion to either the City or Vanderheiden, as Vanderheiden had refused to sign a release.
Note:	[Unpublished] There are genuine issues of fact regarding plaintiff's psychological health and his ability to perform his job.
Citation:	A120169
WCC Citation:	WCC 35302009 CA

Case Name:	Vargas v. WCAB		10/15/1986
Summary:	William Vargas, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California; Tom and Bob's Auto; and Great American Insurance Company, Respondents. The parties filed stipulations with request for award, which was approved by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (board). The Tow Company also filed a petition to dismiss the petition to reopen based on the same facts. On April 12, WCJ Davidson filed an order setting aside the dismissals in all three of applicant's cases based upon the amended objection. Thus, unless Vargas timely objected to the dismissal order or filed a petition for reconsideration, the dismissal order was a final adjudication of his petition to reopen.
Note:	WCJ has no jurisdiction to permit rescission of order of dismissal absent timely objection.
Citation:	51 CCC 480
WCC Citation:	WCC 27211986 CA

Case Name:	Vargas vs. Atascadero State Hospital		04/11/2006
Summary:	Myrtle Vargas, Applicant v. Atascadero State Hospital, Legally Uninsured, State Compensation Insurance Fund (Adjusting Agent), Defendants W. C. A. B. No. GRO 0016640 WCJ Bruce M. Lang (GRO) WCAB En Banc: Chairman Miller, Commissioners O'Brien, Cuneo, Murray, Brass, Rabine (concurring), Caplane (concurring) Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (en banc) Opinion Filed April 11, 2006 Disposition: Applicant's Petition for Removal is denied. Thus, the recommended rating of 71% was based on the neck and left upper extremity disability. Applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR), and the petition to reopen proceeded to hearing on March 2, 2004. On April 15, the District Office served notice of hearing for cross-examination of the rater set for May 20, 2004. Defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), then filed a response.
Note:	SB 899 apportionment rules apply to reopened cases seeking increased permanent disability regardless of date of injury.
Citation:	71 CCC 500 (2006)
WCC Citation:	WCC 31552006 CA

Case Name:	Varisco v. Gateway Science and Engineering, Inc.		09/15/2008
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION Appellant Al Varisco sued respondent Gateway Science and Engineering for wrongful termination of employment and similar causes of action, all of which depended on the allegation that he had been Gateway's employee. Gateway moved for summary judgment on the ground that Varisco was not an employee, but an independent contractor. Gateway responded to Varisco's call, and on January 30, 2004, Varisco and Gateway signed a letter agreement in which Varisco agreed to provide "DSA Inspection Services to the Los Angeles Unified School District (Client)" and Gateway agreed to pay him an hourly rate. Gateway moved for summary judgment, contending that Varisco was an independent contractor, not an employee. On appeal, Varisco concedes that the causes of action are viable only if he was an employee, not an independent contractor.
Note:	All the undisputed facts add up to an independent contractor relationship.
Citation:	B200339
WCC Citation:	WCC 34242008 CA

Case Name:	Vasquez v. Del Rio Sanitarium, Inc.		03/05/2012
Summary:	Vasquez resigned her Target job when Del Rio began scheduling Vasquez for weekend work that conflicted with her schedule at Target. However, Maxwell testified at trial that the document was generated after Del Rio received notice that Vasquez filed for unemployment benefits. Gardiner told her to call Vasquez, so she called Vasquez from Del Rio on January 12, 2009. Del Rio did not distribute an employee handbook or other notice to employees stating that Del Rio required medical certification. When Del Rio learned of Vasquez's need for accommodation, Del Rio did not provide her with any paperwork requesting medical certification.
Note:	A nursing assistant was awarded $196,760 in a Fair Employment and Housing claim, based on her former employer's failure to accommodate her medical restrictions during the early stages of her pregnancy.
Citation:	B231327
WCC Citation:	WCC 38662012 CA