Case Name:	Horizon Med. Group v. WCAB		06/27/1996
Summary:	Horizon Medical Group, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Constitution State Service Company, Target Stores, Respondents, (Aileen Angulo), Real Party in Interest. Still suffering pain and dissatisfied with her treatment at Foothill, Angulo contacted an attorney, who referred her to petitioner Horizon Medical Group (Horizon). Horizon continued to treat Angulo through November 16, 1992, then returned her to unrestricted duty. Constitution referred Horizon to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) if it disagreed with Constitution's position. Again, Constitution referred Horizon to the WCAB if it had any disagreement with Constitution's position.
Note:	Lien claimant denied due process when applicant fails to notify of medical objection; should be cured by amending pleadings.
Citation:	61 CCC 654
WCC Citation:	WCC 25251996 CA

Case Name:	Hotel Del Coronado, etc. v. WCAB		03/10/1998
Summary:	Hotel Del Coronado, PSI, Wear & Wood, Inc. (Third Party Administrator), Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Salvacion Managuit, Respondents. Applicant appealed and the WCJ found that the termination order was not supported by substantial evidence and, thus, it must be vacated. The WCAB denied reconsideration and Defendant petitioned for a writ of review, claiming: 1) that Defendant had complied with Code Sec. The findings and conclusions of the WCAB on questions of fact are conclusive and final and are not subject to review. Under these circumstances, the WCAB acted reasonably in deciding the worker was not required to respond to the offer of alternative work.
Note:	Failure/refusal to accept offer of alternative work during statutory time period does not terminate rights to benefits absent evidence on whether applicant could physically perform the job.
Citation:	63 CCC 1077
WCC Citation:	WCC 28011998 CA

Case Name:	Housing Authority v. WCAB		01/14/1998
Summary:	[60 Cal. App. 4th 1079] OPINION MASTERSON, J. - Petitioner Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (L. A. Housing Authority) challenges two findings made by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) in favor of Roger Chandler, the L. A. Housing Authority's Chief of Police: that the Appeals Board had jurisdiction to determine whether Chandler was an employee within the meaning of Labor Code section 4850 as part of Chandler's application for workers' compensation benefits, and that the L. A. Housing Authority was collaterally estopped from denying that Chandler was entitled to the benefits of Labor Code section 4850 because that issue had been resolved against the L. A. Housing Authority in a previous workers' compensation case. We find that the Appeals Board properly concluded that it had authority to determine the jurisdiction issue, and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the L. A. Housing Authority from denying section 4850 benefits in this case. The collateral estoppel issue emanated from the Appeals Board's opinion and order in Chappell v. Housing Authority, City of Los Angeles (1993) W. C. A. B. No. PAS 16292, which held that an L. A. Housing Authority police officer came within the definition of section 4850. Collateral Estoppel [3a] The Appeals Board found that the L. A. Housing Authority was estopped from asserting that Chandler was not entitled to the benefits of section 4850 as a result of the Appeals Board's opinion and order in Chappell v. Housing Authority, City of Los Angeles, supra, W. C. A. B. No. PAS 16292. 4 However, the L. A. Housing Authority has not offered, nor can we imagine, any reason why these distinctions should make a difference to the question of whether a peace officer employed by the L. A. Housing Authority is entitled to the benefits of section 4850.
Note:	WCAB had jurisdiction over whether housing authority's chief of police was an employee.
Citation:	60 Cal.App.4th 1076, 63 CCC 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 26801998 CA

Case Name:	Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc.		08/18/2011
Summary:	HOWELL v. HAMILTON MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC. REBECCA HOWELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HAMILTON MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Rebecca Howell was seriously injured in an automobile accident negligently caused by a driver for defendant Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (Hamilton). At trial, Hamilton conceded liability and the necessity of the medical treatment plaintiff had received, contesting only the amounts of plaintiff's economic and noneconomic damages. Hamilton moved in limine to exclude evidence of medical bills that neither plaintiff nor her health insurer, PacifiCare, had paid. Had Howell been uninsured, or had Howell's providers donated their services, Howell would be entitled to recover the reasonable cost of her medical care.
Note:	Personal injury plaintiffs may not collect the undiscounted portion of a provider's bill that was never paid for by the plaintiff or their health insurer, the Supreme Court of California ruled on Thursday.
Citation:	S179115
WCC Citation:	WCC 37912011 CA

Case Name:	HSR Inc. v. WCAB		09/24/2007
Summary:	On September 6, 2006, HSR Inc. filed a petition for reconsideration with the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board (hereafter WCAB). In denying reconsideration, the WCAB concurred with the WCJ's reasons for her findings and award and adopted and incorporated her report. HSR Inc. now petitions this court to annul, vacate and set aside the WCAB opinion and order denying reconsideration. We shall annul the order and direct WCAB to issue a new decision consistent with this opinion. )*fn3 WCJs hear and decide compensation claims as trial judges, and the WCAB functions as an appellate body.
Note:	[Unpublished] A medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on an inadequate history, speculation or guess.
Citation:	H030998, SJO 0250601
WCC Citation:	WCC 32592007 CA

Case Name:	Huange vs. L.A. Haute		02/14/2003
Summary:	Filed 2/14/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT AI ZHEN HUANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. L. A. HAUTE et al. , Defendants and Respondents. On August 9, 2000, Huang filed this negligence action against Hunter and L. A. Haute (hereafter, Hunter). The next day, Hunter told Huang to damp-mop the grout from new limestone floors after the construction crew left. Instead, she brought a hose into the house to fill the pail and overfilled it, covering the floor with water. After Huang and Hunter got the water out of the newly paved rooms at around 11:30 p. m. , Hunter fired Huang.
Note:	Presumption of negligence in LC 3708 does not extend to presumption of injury AOE/COE.
Citation:	106 Cal.App.4th 284
WCC Citation:	WCC 29182003 CA

Case Name:	Huantes v. Built Right Construction, Inc.		03/07/2012
Summary:	HUANTES, an Incompetent Person, etc. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BUILT RIGHT CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Oscar Huantes (hereafter plaintiff) suffered a workplace injury which left him disabled and mentally incompetent. On March 18, 2005, he was working on a theater room in one of the homes of the development, when a two-by-four joist or scaffolding member, constructed by defendant Built Right Construction, Inc. , gave way. SCIF also waived its right to reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits already paid. As a result of counsel's extensive development of facts, O'Neill was willing to provide testimony in support of liability against defendant Built Right Construction, Inc. , the framer which had constructed the facility that gave way.
Note:	An attorney was entitled to nearly half of his client's recovery in a workers' compensation case as his contingency fee.
Citation:	E053259
WCC Citation:	WCC 38682012 CA

Case Name:	Hubbard v. WCAB		11/03/1993
Summary:	Cyril Hubbard, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Southern California Rapid Transit District, Respondents. OPINION: Applicant, Cyril Hubbard, petitioned this court for a writ of review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) deeming applicant's petition for reconsideration denied by operation of law after applicants case file was lost at the Board. On May 5, 1992, the Board stated that applicant's petition for reconsideration was deemed denied by operation of law. In the present case, applicant's petition was not brought to the Board's attention within the prescribed sixty[-]day period. Accordingly, the present petition must be deemed to have been denied by operation of law pursuant to Labor Code section 5909.
Note:	No automatic denial upon expiration of statutory period when claim file is lost by Board through no fault of applicant.
Citation:	58 CCC 739
WCC Citation:	WCC 27851993 CA

Case Name:	Huffman vs. City of Poway		11/13/2000
Summary:	DAVID W. HUFFMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF POWAY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Foundation (AAF), was injured while rehearsing the play at a facility owned and operated by respondent City of Poway (City). Second, the trial court ruled City was not liable under Government Code section 835 because Huffman was injured on property that City did not own or control. The Workers' Compensation Claim Within weeks following the accident, Huffman filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits with City, claiming he was an employee of City. There Is Substantial Evidence City Owned or Controlled the Property City argued, and the trial court found, that City did not own or control the property that caused Huffman's injury.
Note:	Failure to secure compensation will defeat exclusive remedy doctrine.
Citation:	84 Cal.App.4th 975, 65 CCC 1280
WCC Citation:	WCC 3612000 CA

Case Name:	Hughes v. Argonaut Insurance Co.		04/16/2001
Summary:	The third amended complaint of appellant Michelle Hughes reveals the following: Hughes was an employee of Southern Auto Supply. Respondent Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut) provided workers' compensation insurance to the employer. The parties settled for the sum of $12,104. 75. Argonaut asserted a lien against the settlement; the settlement check was endorsed to Hughes, Argonaut and Hughes's attorney. Hughes tendered $3,549. 38 to Argonaut, representing the full value of the insurer's workers' compensation lien ($5,324. 07) reduced by one-third withheld for attorney fees. D. Argonaut is Not Estopped From Asserting the WCAB's Jurisdiction Hughes also maintains that Argonaut is estopped from asserting the WCAB's jurisdiction.
Note:	Carrier cannot be sued by injured worker for mishandling of its lien on the claimant's settlement with a third party tortfeasor.
Citation:	88 Cal.App.4th 517, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 877
WCC Citation:	WCC 31232001 CA

Case Name:	Hughes v. WCAB		03/27/1989
Summary:	In the waiver, applicant asserted she was not then interested in pursuing vocational rehabilitation and her attorney had advised her regarding rehabilitation. Applicant stated she was temporarily waiving all rights to vocational rehabilitation until she would notify Travelers she wanted rehabilitation. The WCJ concluded the Board had jurisdiction to consider whether applicant is entitled to rehabilitation benefits. After this court summarily denied applicant's petition for a writ of review, applicant filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court. The rehabilitation waiver reads as follows: 'Colleen Hughes, employee hereby represents that she is not presently interested in pursuing possible vocational rehabilitation benefits.
Note:	Employer's breach of duty to file disability status report does not toll filing time limits.
Citation:	54 CCC 115
WCC Citation:	WCC 27431989 CA

Case Name:	Huhamaki Americas v. WCAB		11/04/2008
Summary:	Filed 11/4/08 Huhamaki Americas v. WCAB (Madhaw) CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) HUHTAMAKI AMERICAS, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, and BIMLA MADHAW et al. , Respondents. "*fn1 Thereafter, Huhtamaki determined that it had paid Madhaw an additional $5,278 in PDAs not reflected in the C&R. In his report and recommendation on reconsideration, the WCJ stated: "The language in [the C&R] is clear. Huhtamaki also relies on Vons Companies, Inc. v. WCAB (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 276 to support this point, but it is a Court of Appeal opinion not published in the California Official Reports.
Note:	[Unpublished] The C&R controls, not Injured worker's unstated intention.
Citation:	C057199
WCC Citation:	WCC 34582008 CA

Case Name:	Hulbert v. WCAB		04/29/1975
Summary:	On the petition of Raymond S. Hulbert, we review a partial permanent disability award granted him by the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board. In the proceedings the board received in evidence reports of five medical examiners, three of whom appear to have been engaged by the self-insured employer and two by Hulbert. The board, however, caused a doctor from its own medical bureau to examine Hulbert. This occasional pain, traceable to the 1951 incident, the witness opined, caused Hulbert a 25 percent permanent disability, even before his 1971 injury. The record fairly discloses that Hulbert had long since been rehabilitated with respect to the disability attending his 1951 laminectomy.
Note:	If there's a dispute of facts, WCAB's award must stand; if none, court may set aside.
Citation:	47 Cal.App.3d 634, 40 CCC 823
WCC Citation:	WCC 27381975 CA

Case Name:	Hulse v. WCAB		10/29/1976
Summary:	PHILLIP D. HULSE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Respondents (Opinion by Rattigan, Acting P. J. , with Christian, J. , and Emerson, J. , concurring. )The petition was opposed by respondent insurer, [63 Cal. App. 3d 225] which is the carrier obligated to pay the award. His income is $905. 00 a month from other sources and his wife has an income of approximately $1,400. 00 a month. The referee [63 Cal. App. 3d 226] also received evidence of the financial return to be anticipated from the lump-sum deposit proposed in the petition. 4 The referee denied the petition for reasons which he stated in a report made to the board upon applicant's petition for reconsideration.
Note:	Board's power to commute award into lump sum must be exercised reasonably, not arbitrarily.
Citation:	63 Cal.App.3d 221, 41 CCC 691
WCC Citation:	WCC 26171976 CA

Case Name:	Hunt v. El Camino Community College		03/21/2013
Summary:	HUNT v. EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE CARMEN HUNT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant and Respondent. Hunt assigns as error the trial court's ruling in limine precluding evidence that Hunt was raped by a professor at El Camino College in 1982 (Evid. Hunt and Dr. de Fuentes "figured out pretty early on that [Hunt] could work, [she] just couldn't work at El Camino. "Hunt never applied to transfer from El Camino College to another community college in the Los Angeles area. The jury returned a verdict in favor of El Camino College and against Hunt on all causes of action.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected a challenge by a community college professor to a jury verdict that her employer had not discriminated against her on the basis of her post traumatic stress disorder from an alleged rape on campus over 30 years ago.
Citation:	B235293
WCC Citation:	WCC 39942013 CA

Case Name:	Hurley v. California Department of Parks and Recreation Part 1/2		02/21/2018
Summary:	.             DELANE HURLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION et al. , Defendants and Appellants. .             D070098 .             (Super. .             Stewart and Musell, Wendy E. Musell, and Elisa J. Stewart for Plaintiff and Appellant. .             Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Celine M. Cooper, Christine B. Mersten, and Jodi L. Cleesattle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant California Department of Parks and Recreation. .           During a four-week trial, 26 witnesses testified, including Hurley, Seals, and Dolinar, and 71 exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Note:
Citation:	D070098
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00050757-CU-OE-NC

Case Name:	Hurley v. California Department of Parks and Recreation Part 2/2		02/22/2018
Summary:	Seals disclosed records containing personal information about Ms. Hurley in a manner that would link the information disclosed to Ms. Hurley. "  .           Seals's counsel did not object to that instruction or request any additional or clarifying instructions. The first amended complaint did not specify the particular statute of the IPA under which Hurley sought to impose liability on Seals. That the harm sustained by [Hurley] arose from the normal part of the employment relationship between [Hurley] and [DPR];  .         "2. As noted above, Hurley remained on leave until August 2012, when she accepted an SSA position at DPR's Monterey location.
Note:
Citation:	D070098
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00050757-CU-OE-NC

Case Name:	Husain v. 3M Companies		11/16/2016
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD  STATE OF CALIFORNIA  .             SYED HUSAIN, Applicant, .             v. .             3M COMPANIES; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendants. .             Case No. ADJ7941062 (Anaheim District Office) .             OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION .             We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. .             For the foregoing reasons, .             IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           DC I ORA E. LOVvE .           !CONCUR, .           JOSE H. RAZO .           DEPUTY CRISTINE E. GONDAK .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           NOV l 7 2016 .           STATE OF CALIFORNIA .           Division of Workers' Compensation Workers' Compensation Appeals Board .           ANAHEIM DISTRICT OFFICE .           CASE NO(s). ADJ7552459; ADJ7941062 .           SYED HUSAIN .           vs. .           3M COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION JUDGE: HOWARD LEMBERG .           DATE: October 10, 2016 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON RECONSIDERATION  I  INTRODUCTION  .           Applicant, in propria persona, has filed timely and verified Petitions for Reconsideration wherein he disputes the Findings, Awards and Orders dated 09/01/2016 finding that he did not sustain injury to eyes, fingers except right middle finger, psyche, neurological system, digestive system and head in case number ADJ7552459 and that he did not sustain injury A OE/COE in case number ADJ794 l 062.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ7941062
WCC Citation:	ADJ7941062

Case Name:	Hustedt v. WCAB		12/07/1981
Summary:	I. Petitioner, Edward F. Hustedt, was admitted to the practice of law in this state on January 5, 1966. In 1978, Hustedt was retained to represent a defendant employer in a compensation case pending before the Board. The next day, Hustedt called the judge and informed him that he could not appear until the afternoon. After some discussion, [30 Cal. 3d 334] the judge told Hustedt that if someone from his firm were not present at 9 a. m. , contempt proceedings would be initiated against Hustedt. As a result of the judge's recommendation, concurrent contempt and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Hustedt in July 1979.
Note:	WCAB can punish contempt, but cannot prohibit atty. from practicing before the board.
Citation:	30 Cal.3d 329, 46 CCC 1284
WCC Citation:	WCC 25661981 CA

Case Name:	Hustedt v. WCAB (Sup. Ct. En Banc)		12/07/1981
Summary:	I. Petitioner, Edward F. Hustedt, was admitted to the practice of law in this state on January 5, 1966. In 1978, Hustedt was retained to represent a defendant employer in a compensation case pending before the Board. The next day, Hustedt called the judge and informed him that he could not appear until the afternoon. After some discussion, [30 Cal. 3d 334] the judge told Hustedt that if someone from his firm were not present at 9 a. m. , contempt proceedings would be initiated against Hustedt. As a result of the judge's recommendation, concurrent contempt and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Hustedt in July 1979.
Note:	WCAB has power to punish attorneys for contempt, but cannot prohibit practice before Board.
Citation:	30 Cal.3d 329, 46 CCC 1284
WCC Citation:	WCC 3701981 CA

Case Name:	Huston v. WCAB		09/07/1979
Summary:	Morris H. Rivers, M. D. , one of the treating physicians, in his report of March 9, 1977, indicated that he had last seen Huston on December 28, 1976, advised Huston to continue with physical therapy and told Huston to return for 'recheck' examinations but Huston had not kept his appointments. 5 Dr. Rivers reported on November 9, 1977, that he had last seen Huston when Huston had planned to return 'to his job in Venezuela. 'Huston also stated that he was last examined by Dr. Rivers in March 1977 and he did not return to see Dr. Rivers as it 'was like a release' the last time Huston saw Dr. Rivers. 19 and WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (WCAB Rules), sections 10462 fn. Further, while Dr. Reiswig says he 'presently' views Huston as permanent and stationary, he offers no opinion on whether Huston was permanent and stationary before then.
Note:	Comp. carrier had burden to prove TD before return to work, worker's burden after.
Citation:	95 Cal.App.3d 856, 44 CCC 798
WCC Citation:	WCC 24861979 CA

Case Name:	Hutchinson vs. WCAB, Sunbank Electronics		04/05/1989
Summary:	CHARLES ROY HUTCHINSON, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SUNBANK ELECTRONICS et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Abbg, J. , with Stone (S. J. ), P. J. , and Gilbert, J. , concurring. )[1a] The Board erred in concluding transportation expenses to obtain prescription medication are not compensable under Labor Code section 4600. fn. [209 Cal. App. 3d 375] [2] Based on the stipulated facts, the WCJ reluctantly denied applicant's claim. The WCJ properly concluded he was required to follow the opinion of the Board in the denial of a writ opinion in Rocha v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. , supra, 47 Cal. Comp. Cases 896, the Board has construed section 4600 as precluding reimbursement for transportation expenses in obtaining prescription medication.
Note:	Travel mileage for prescriptive medication is reimbursable.
Citation:	209 Cal.App.3d 372, 54 CCC 124
WCC Citation:	WCC 28291989 CA

Case Name:	Ike v. Los Angeles County Office Of Education		02/16/2012
Summary:	IKE v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION EDMUND C. IKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Respondent. Los Angeles County Office of Education, Vibiana M. Andrade and Sung Yon Lee for Defendant and Respondent. The complaint and demurrer Ike was hired in late October 2007 by defendant and respondent Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE). Ike was employed as a probationary employee and paraeducator for a nonspecific term and worked with special education students. Los Angeles County Office of Education is awarded its costs of appeal.
Note:	A former Los Angeles County teacher failed to show that his lawsuit was not subject to the requirements of the Tort Claims Act.
Citation:	B230357
WCC Citation:	WCC 38582012 CA

Case Name:	In re Alleged Contempt of Albert H. Corliss		01/01/2001
Summary:	In re Alleged Contempt of Albert H. Corliss, Esq. , Respondent W. C. A. B. No. SFO 336999 CCC 132 COUNSEL: For respondent--Albert H. Corliss, Esq. He argued that the contempt citation should be dismissed because the Board did not have jurisdiction over the case when the alleged acts of contempt occurred. (6) State Compensation Insurance Fund issued checks payable to Yvonne Fisher, c/o Albert Corliss, Esq. which were endorsed by Albert Corliss, who also signed the name Yvonne Fisher. Finally, the documentary evidence along with applicant's testimony proves respondent guilty of each and every element of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt as alleged in Counts I and II of the contempt citation.
Note:	Atty. who requests/accepts fee based on contingency arrgt. w/ applicant w/o Bd. approval is subject to contempt.
Citation:	56 CCC 132
WCC Citation:	WCC 27182001 CA

Case Name:	In re Alleged Contempt of Irwin Lee, Esq.		10/30/1987
Summary:	In Re Alleged Contempt of Irwin Lee, Esq. , Respondent. should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with § 10414 of the Appeals Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Based upon the transcript in your Declaration of Readiness to Proceed signed February 25, 1986 and filed February 26, 1986, the Board issued its contempt citation. Cases 556; In Re Alleged Contempt of McDonnell Douglas Corp. ; Industrial Indemnity and Frank Keeny (1979), 44 Cal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for this count of contempt Irwin Lee, Esq.
Note:	Contempt sanction for filing Declaration of Readiness for improper purpose.
Citation:	52 CCC 492
WCC Citation:	WCC 27601987 CA

Case Name:	In Re Alleged Contempt of Maxim N. Bach, Esq.		11/10/1988
Summary:	should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with § 10414 of the Appeals Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Based upon the transcript in your Declaration of Readiness to Proceed signed February 25, 1986 and filed February 26, 1986, the Board issued its contempt citation. was retained by the applicant George Nicholas to pursue his workers' compensation cases 85 SD 95054 and 85 SD 95055. 895, In Re Alleged Contempt of Southern California Rapid Transit District (1979), 44 Cal. Cases 556; In Re Alleged Contempt of McDonnell Douglas Corp. ; Industrial Indemnity and Frank Keeny (1979), 44 Cal.
Note:	Contempt sanction for attorney interfering with WCAB subpoena on release of applicant's medical records.
Citation:	53 CCC 474
WCC Citation:	WCC 27891988 CA

Case Name:	In Re Alleged Contempt of, Respondent		01/07/1983
Summary:	In Re Alleged Contempt of , Respondent. W. C. A. B. Misc. The Order to Show Cause alleged that on March 17, 1982 the case had been noticed and set for hearing for May 17, 1982 before Workers' Compensation Judge Harvey Stark. The contempt citation alleged that on April 15, 1982 respondent obtained the case file from Judge Stark's secretary and took it to Judge Robert Licker for approval without having the case reassigned or transferred by the presiding judge, in violation of Rule 10346. Respondent appeared on October 1, 1982 for the contempt hearing before Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Commissioner Gordon R. Gaines, waived his right to a speedy trial and requested a continuance. To the extent practicable and fair, supplemental proceedings shall be assigned to the workers' compensation judge who heard the original proceedings. '
Note:	Attorney falsely represented that case was reassigned to approve a C&R. .
Citation:	48 CCC 4
WCC Citation:	WCC 27991983 CA

Case Name:	In re Interstate Indem. Co.,		09/06/1963
Summary:	The group of insurance companies entered into such reinsurance and assumption agreement with the Commissioner in his capacities both as Commissioner and as conservator of Interstate Indemnity Company. They pointed to the finding of the Commissioner that the amount of the bond required of Interstate was $363,272 and asserted that Interstate, or its successors, the conservator, or liquidator, were obligated under Insurance Code sections 11699 et seq. The court approved the report and account and authorized payment of the dividend to the general creditors of Interstate as prayed. In doing so, however, he could not relieve the assets of Interstate from being impressed with the preferred liens of such claimants. [7] The conservator and liquidator, as successor to the obligations of Interstate, remained obligated to the workmen's compensation claimants under the compensation policies issued by Interstate, and any funds accruing to the accounts [219 Cal. App. 2d 816] of Interstate were chargeable with such preferred claims.
Note:	Appointed reinsurers have preference to assets of insolvent insurer over general creditors.
Citation:	219 Cal.App.2d 809, 28 CCC 288
WCC Citation:	WCC 25671963 CA

Case Name:	In re Lockheed Litigation Cases		01/31/2005
Summary:	Prior Proceedings in These Coordinated Actions Former and current employees of Lockheed Corporation (Lockheed) sued Lockheed and manufacturers and suppliers of chemicals, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by occupational exposure to chemicals. The actions were coordinated in Lockheed Litigation Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2967. (Lockheed Litigation Cases (2004) 115 Cal. App. 4th 558. )As we also stated in Lockheed Litigation Cases, supra, 115 Cal. App. 4th at page 564, "An expert opinion has no value if its basis is unsound. (b); Lockheed Litigation Cases, supra, 115 Cal. App. 4th at p.
Note:	A court cannot exclude an epidemiological study from consideration solely because the study shows a relative risk of less than 2.0.
Citation:	126 Cal.App.4th 271
WCC Citation:	WCC 30772005 CA

Case Name:	In re Matter of Pellicer		07/09/2008
Summary:	*fn1 In his petition, Mr. Pellicer states, in pertinent part: "[he] was placed on INACTIVE STATUS WITH CHARGES PENDING FOLLOWING A DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN TRIAL BEFORE THE STATE BAR COURT SCHEDULED LAST JANUARY 28, 2008. "* * * * "Started career as a WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADJUSTER IN 1986 with the AETNA CASUALTY AND INSURANCE COMPANY in Santa Ana, CA. Before trial and in chambers before the Judge, she was advised to take the offer from the insurance despite being a denied case. "The Court based its determination on the State Bar Act's differentiation between a true layperson and a 'defrocked' attorney. In the Appeals Board's Significant Panel Decision of In The Matter of John H. Hoffman Jr. (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 609, Misc.
Note:	A 'defrocked' attorney cannot be permitted to appear in workers' compensation proceedings.
Citation:	MISC. 251
WCC Citation:	WCC 33942008 CA

Case Name:	In the Matter of John H. Hoffman, Jr.		05/17/2006
Summary:	On October 26, 2005, we granted reconsideration in order to further study this matter. This appearance occurred after a WCJ's August 20, 2004 order approving a compromise and release resolved the applicant's underlying claim in the matter. This appearance occurred after a WCJ's February 21, 2003 order approving a compromise and release that had settled the applicant's claim in the matter. Although the notice of representation purported to bear Hoffman's signature, he asserted at trial that the signature was not his. As a general rule, a person who is not licensed to practice law is allowed to practice before the WCAB.
Note:	Rule 10779 and the State Bar Act preclude any non-reinstated former attorney who has been disbarred or suspended by the Supreme Court from appearing as a representative of any party before the WCAB.
Citation:	70 CCC 609
WCC Citation:	WCC 31602006 CA

Case Name:	Industrial Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		12/29/1997
Summary:	INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Respondents. 1 The workers' compensation referee (WCR) assessed an award against Industrial Indemnity Company (Industrial), State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), and CIGA proportionate to periods of coverage by Industrial, SCIF, and insolvent Pacific States Casualty Company (Pacific). Seeking reconsideration by the Board, CIGA asserted a joint and several award should be issued against Industrial and SCIF. Upon reconsideration, the Board rescinded the WCR's award and substituted a joint and several award against Industrial and SCIF. Any liability that Industrial Indemnity and State Compensation Insurance Fund insure is for their particular share of the cumulative trauma under their policies of insurance. '
Note:	CIGA not liable for workers' comp. when two other insurers were also liable for benefits.
Citation:	60 Cal.App.4th 548, 62 CCC 1661
WCC Citation:	WCC 25411997 CA

Case Name:	Industrial Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		03/13/1985
Summary:	On June 4, 1981, Elvis Elizondo (applicant) sustained injury in the course of his employment as a journeyman taper by Raymond Interior Systems, insured by Industrial Indemnity Company (Industrial). Industrial failed to reply to applicant's request until March 1982, when its counsel arranged for a job analysis. Industrial appealed the consultant's order to the workers' compensation judge (WCJ), who, after a hearing, issued an order affirming and adopting the consultant's order. Fund, supra, 9 Cal. Workers'Comp. Rptr. 212, Aguja v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1982) 79 SF 280-205, 10 Cal. Workers'Comp. Rptr. 205, and Mosqueda v. Lear Siegler, Inc. (1983) 81 LA 463-871, 11 Cal. Workers'Comp. Rptr. 252. Section 139. 5 provides in part as follows: "(a) The administrative director shall establish within the Division of Industrial Accidents a rehabilitation unit, which .
Note:	The Board's statutory interpretation allowing benefits during the qualified injured worker (QIW) evaluation period, provided the employee in good faith presents prima facie evidence justifying a request for rehabilitation, clearly forecloses false claims. Such interpretation is consistent with, and not in conflict with, the statute, and is reasonably necessary to effect the statutory purposes.
Citation:	B003862
WCC Citation:	WCC 34351985 CA

Case Name:	Infinet Marketing Services, Inc. v. American Motorist Insurance Company		04/06/2007
Summary:	Ct. No. 04CC07426) OPINION INFINET MARKETING SERVICES, INC. , Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. AMERICAN MOTORIST INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-defendant and Respondent. When a defense was refused, the insurance broker cross-complained against the insurance company claiming insurance bad faith. InfiNet Insurance and Financial Network (InfiNet), is a Texas corporation in the business of providing marketing services to employee leasing companies. When a defense was refused, the marketing company cross-complained against the insurance company claiming insurance bad faith. (Infinet Marketing Services v. American Motorist Insurance Company (Mar.
Note:	The insurance broker is not a third party beneficiary of the insurance contract.
Citation:	150 Cal. App. 4th 168
WCC Citation:	WCC 32182007 CA

Case Name:	Infospan, Inc. v. Ensign Communique (Pvt.) Ltd.		10/23/2017
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN .             INFOSPAN, INC. et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             ENSIGN COMMUNIQUE (PVT. ).             B265490 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Lindborg & Mazor, Peter F. Lindborg, Irina J. Mazor; Boies Schiller & Flexner and William A. Isaacson for Plaintiffs and Appellants. .             Plaintiffs Infospan, Inc. and Infospan (Pvt. )* .           We concur: .           PERLUSS, P. J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a workers’ compensation claims collection service could not attempt to relitigate its claims against a rival for allegedly interfering with its client relationships.
Citation:	B265490
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC499795

Case Name:	Iniguez v. Blue Rose Concrete Contractors, Inc.		07/08/2016
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD  STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             ENRIQUE INIGUEZ, Applicant, .             v. .             BLUE ROSE CONCRETE CONTRACTORS, INC. ; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, Defendants. .             Case No. ADJ7672487 (Pomona District Office) .             OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION .             The Appeals Board previously granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           JOSE H. RAZO .           I CONCUR, .           DEIDRA E. LOWE .           I DISSENT. .           MARGUERITE SWEENEY .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           JUL 0 8 Z016 DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER SWEENEY  .           I dissent. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           MARGUERITE SWEENEY, Commissioner .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           JUL 0 8 2016 Section 5313 is within Chapter I, "Jurisdiction," of Part 4, Division 4 of the Labor Code.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ7672487
WCC Citation:	ADJ7672487

Case Name:	Iniguez v. WCAB (Blue Rose Concrete Contractors, Inc.)		04/12/2017
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             ENRIQUE INIGUEZ, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, BLUE ROSE CONCRETE CONTRACTORS, INC. et al. , Respondents. .             No. B276997 .             (W. C. A. B. No. ADJ7672487) .             PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. .             Richard L. Newman, Anne Schmitz, and Peter Ray for Respondent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. .             Tobin • Lucks and Christopher Arthur Ball for Respondents Blue Rose Concrete Contractors, Inc. and Zurich North America-Los Angeles. .           __________________________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           We concur: .           _____________________________, J. CHAVEZ .           ____________________________, J. HOFFSTADT Dr. Fisher diagnosed a cervical strain with electrodiagnostic evidence of a right C6-7 radiculopathy and lumbosacral strain with spinal stenosis of a bilateral L5-S1 radiculopathy.
Note:
Citation:	B276997
WCC Citation:	W.C.A.B. No. ADJ7672487

Case Name:	Insur. Co. of N. America v. T.L.C. Lines		10/16/1996
Summary:	INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. T. L. C. LINES, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. On December 10, 1991, appellant Insurance Company of North America (hereinafter INA) filed the instant action in the Kern County Municipal Court against respondents T. L. C. Lines, Inc. , and Lawrence Edward Barrows (hereinafter collectively TLC). Plaintiff, Insurance Company of North America (hereinafter 'INA') was the Worker's Compensation insurance carrier for Lonnie Ray Guidry's employer at the time of the accident on December 10, 1990. This letter was the first notification to anyone on behalf of the defendants of the Worker's Compensation claim by Lonnie Ray Guidry. The case was briefed by the parties, argued before Judge Arthur E. Wallace on September 29, 1994, and submitted.
Note:	Where the tortfeasor settles with an insured in good faith, the insurer's right to recovery from the tortfeasor is barred but the insurer may be able to recover from its insured.
Citation:	50 Cal.App.4th 90, 61 CCC 1166
WCC Citation:	WCC 23901996 CA

Case Name:	Integrated Healthcare Holdings inc. v. Weiss (G041905)		09/13/2010
Summary:	INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC. , Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. ANDREW L. WEISS, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. The settlement resolved an employment dispute between Andrew L. Weiss (Weiss), a labor and employment attorney, and Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (IHHI), a start-up company he helped launch. The complaint alleged Weiss was bound by paragraph 16 of the JAMS settlement to dismiss with prejudice the 132a petition. IHHI also filed a motion for preliminary injunction in the superior court, seeking to enjoin Weiss from further prosecuting his 132a petition. Weiss states in a footnote that this motion was denied, but the record is silent as to its fate.
Note:	An attorney who had settled a lawsuit against his former employer breached the parties' settlement agreement by continuing to pursue a Labor Code 132a claim against the employer at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the 4th District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	G041905
WCC Citation:	WCC 36662010 CA

Case Name:	Integrated Healthcare Holdings inc. v. Weiss (G042016)		09/13/2010
Summary:	INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC. , Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. ANDREW L. WEISS, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent. The settlement resolved an employment dispute between Andrew L. Weiss, (Weiss) a labor and employment attorney, and Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. , (IHHI) a start-up company he helped launch. About eight months later, on February 10, 2006, Weiss filed two workers' compensation claims for personal injuries incurred while working for IHHI. On October 27, Weiss filed a "Declaration of Readiness" to set the 132a petition for trial. Accordingly, IHHI shall forthwith distribute said shares to WEISS, and WEISS shall have judgment against IHHI in connection with his cross-complaint to this effect. "
Note:	An attorney who had settled a lawsuit against his former employer breached the parties' settlement agreement by continuing to pursue a Labor Code 132a claim against the employer at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the 4th District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	G042016
WCC Citation:	WCC 36652010 CA

Case Name:	Integrated Investigations Inc. v. O'Donnell		10/18/2011
Summary:	INTEGRATED INVESTIGATIONS, INC. v. O'DONNELL INTEGRATED INVESTIGATIONS, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CHRISTY L. O'DONNELL, Defendant and Appellant. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Integrated Investigations, Inc. (Integrated), Paul F. Thornton, and Ian Farrell filed a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles (the County) and Christy L. O'Donnell after Integrated, a private investigation company, learned that the County had sent emails and other communications to various entities, stating that Integrated was not to be hired to conduct investigations for the County and related entities. Integrated provided its report on the surveillance of Villegas on April 26, 2009; the report did not address the incident involving the car chase. It alleges that, sometime after the meeting with O'Donnell, Integrated received several calls from various claims adjustors, asking if Integrated was involved in an embezzlement situation in another county, because the County had sent out emails and other communications stating that Integrated was not to be used for any investigations on behalf of the County or other entities. The declaration of Paul Thornton, who is the Vice-President of Integrated, stated that he arranged for the meeting between his investigators and O'Donnell.
Note:	A California appellate court on Tuesday threw out a private investigation firm's lawsuit against a defense attorney who had advised agencies affiliated with Los Angeles County to avoid using the firm because it had failed to report to the county that one of its investigators had been involved in a high-speed chase with a workers' compensation applicant.
Citation:	B231035
WCC Citation:	WCC 38132011 CA

Case Name:	Interstate Fire and Casualty Ins. Co. v Cleveland Wrecking Co.		02/22/2010
Summary:	Ct. No. 475134) Interstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (Interstate) appeals from a judgment entered after the court sustained, without leave to amend, a demurrer to Interstate's amended complaint against Cleveland Wrecking Company (Cleveland). Cleveland Wrecking Company (Cleveland) was a subcontractor responsible for certain demolition work. The good faith settlement does not bar Interstate from pursuing its cause of action for express contractual indemnification against Cleveland. Cleveland contends Webcor did not actually suffer any loss, because Interstate paid the costs of defending against and settling Frisby's claims. Cleveland urges that Webcor does not have an existing cause of action against Cleveland because Webcor has already been fully compensated by Interstate.
Note:	It is prudent to permit subrogation, so that a party with an alleged contractual indemnification obligation will be encouraged to step up in the underlying case and either fulfill the obligation (and implicitly help settle the case) or resolve any dispute over the application of the indemnification obligation.
Citation:	A124920
WCC Citation:	WCC 36002010 CA

Case Name:	Irvine Eurocars v. WCAB (Shelly)		02/11/2011
Summary:	Irvine and Redwood contend that the WCJ should have found from the evidence that applicant was employed by Shelly on the date of injury. Irvine denied that applicant was its employee, claiming instead that she was placed on the Irvine payroll only so that she could receive its group health insurance and that she actually was Shelly's employee and never performed any employment duties for Irvine. The WCJ's finding that applicant was employed by Irvine on the date of injury is supported by an earlier Appeals Board panel decision involving similar facts. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the petition of Irvine Eurocars, doing business as Irvine BMW, and of its workers' reconsideration of the December 1, 2010 Findings and Order of the workers' compensation compensation insurer, Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, for administrative law judge is DENIED. The record shows that applicant applied for employment as a home assistant/nanny for Shelly and never worked at the Irvine automobile dealership.
Note:	The state Supreme Court will not review a split panel decision featuring a controversial dispute about whether an auto dealership was a nanny's employer.
Citation:	ADJ4715696
WCC Citation:	WCC 37872011 CA

Case Name:	Islas vs. D & G Manufacturing Co., Inc.		07/09/2004
Summary:	KEYN HERNANDEZ ISLAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D & G MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 30, 2001, Islas filed a complaint for personal injury against National Sheet Metal Machines, Inc. (National) and respondent D & G Manufacturing Company, Inc. (D & G). The complaint alleges that on October 31, 2000, Islas was employed by D & G, and was operating a power press made by National. D & G submitted deposition testimony from John Gleason, a supervisor for D & G, who denied that the blades were properly classified as a "die. "The trial court nonetheless directed D & G to prepare a written order containing its findings and rulings.
Note:	Definition of 'power press' is one of fact for trier of fact.
Citation:	120 Cal.App.4th 571
WCC Citation:	WCC 29972004 CA

Case Name:	Ito v. WCAB (Fry's Food Stores)		10/29/1993
Summary:	Lori Ito, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Fry's Food Stores, et al. , Respondents. COUNSEL: For petitioner--Frank Ury For respondent employer--Nathan Gilbert OPINION BY: Newsom, Acting P. J. OPINION: Lori Ito (applicant) worked as a food clerk for Fry's Food Stores (employer). She loaded it with anything from toilet paper to 50-pound bags of dog food. The other 25 percent of the time she did checking and customer service at the front of the store. The WCJ found that the second trial was not collaterally estopped by the first because the issues were not identical.
Note:	When doubt exists as to whether injuries are cumulative or separate, file separate applications for each incident.
Citation:	58 CCC 744
WCC Citation:	WCC 27581993 CA

Case Name:	Iverson v. California Village Homeowners Assoc.		03/23/2011
Summary:	IVERSEN v. CALIFORNIA VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION KURT IVERSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Defendant and respondent California Village Homeowner's Association (California Village) hired plaintiff and appellant Kurt Iversen (Iversen), an independent contractor, to service air conditioner units on the roofs of several of the buildings at its Tarzana, California condominium complex. California Village moved for summary judgment, inter alia, on the ground that Iversen could not rely on Cal-OSHA to support a negligence action because he was an independent contractor and not California Village's employee. In addition, California Village also contended that Iversen could not show that its failure to install safety equipment caused him to fall. Finally, California Village argued that Iversen voluntarily used the ladder knowing of its condition, thereby assuming any risk associated with the ladder.
Note:	An independent contractor could not rely on Cal-OSHA regulations to establish negligence per se in a premises liability suit, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B220863
WCC Citation:	WCC 37352011 CA

Case Name:	J.C. Penney v. WCAB		07/07/2009
Summary:	Petitioners J. C. Penney Company and its insurer American Home Assurance Company, adjusted by AIG Claim Services, (collectively J. C. Penney) contend that respondent the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) erred in limiting a credit for overpayment of temporary disability indemnity. The WCAB limited the requested credit on the ground that J. C. Penney failed to object, under Labor Code section 4062,*fn1 to the ongoing determinations of Edwards's treating physicians that he remained temporarily totally disabled. J. C. Penney argues that the WCAB erred because the treating physicians' determinations were based on an incorrect legal theory and do not afford substantial evidence of ongoing temporary disability. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 23, 2003, Edwards was on a ladder painting a J. C. Penney store in Sacramento. However, J. C. Penney offered no claim of good cause for failure to object in the WCAB proceedings. (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 827 (Maples). J. C. Penney replies that the factual record in this case does not support an estoppel. J. C. Penney has the more persuasive position.
Note:	It is contrary to the spirit of section 4062 to permit a retrospective determination of a permanent and stationary date when to do so would be to allow a belated objection to a medical determination by the treating physician.
Citation:	C059760
WCC Citation:	WCC 35402009 CA

Case Name:	J.T. Thorp, Inc. v. WCAB		03/20/1984
Summary:	[153 Cal. App. 3d 331] Needless to say, we think the problem at hand is correctly solved according to presumptions mandated by law. Lien claimant Permanente Medical Group presented an itemization of expenses for X-rays and associated services in the amount of $322. 40. A compensable injury may render the employer liable for, among other things, the cost of medical treatment ( § 4600;Granado v. Workmen's Comp. [1] Medical treatment and disability indemnity are separate and distinct elements of compensation which fulfill different, though complementary, legislative goals. Temporary disability indemnity is intended primarily to substitute for the worker's lost wages, in order to maintain a steady stream of income.
Note:	An employee suffering from asbestosis may obtain reimbursement for predisability medical expenses and does not prohibit the board from awarding additional compensation for medical expenses or for disability manifesting itself more than five years after initial diagnosis or treatment.
Citation:	153 Cal.App.3d 327, 49 CCC 224
WCC Citation:	WCC 26631984 CA

Case Name:	Jablonski v. Royal Globe Ins. Co.		09/02/1988
Summary:	EMANUEL JABLONSKI et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ROYAL GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents [Opinion certified for partial publication. ]Plaintiffs Emanuel and Dagmar Jablonski filed suit against defendants Royal Globe Insurance Company, Jones Brand & Hullen Insurance Services, Inc. and Michael Petkus alleging a virtual smorgasbord of causes of action. He further argued that his causes of action against Royal Globe and its agents were not barred under the act because that insurer forfeited its protection when it committed intentional torts against him. Co. (1985) 175 Cal. App. 3d 146, 148 [220 Cal. Rptr. 549]; Soto v. Royal Globe Ins. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that Royal Globe denied coverage under the workers' compensation policy and committed other unfair practices.
Note:	No immunity for TPA who committed intentional tort in investigating claim.
Citation:	204 Cal.App.3d 379, 53 CCC 402
WCC Citation:	WCC 24261988 CA

Case Name:	Jackson v. Home Depot		06/13/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE DAVID JACKSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE HOME DEPOT U. S. A. , INC. , Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION A pipe fell from overhead shelving and struck plaintiff and appellant David Jackson (plaintiff), an employee of Washington Inventory (Washington), while he was performing inventory services for defendant and respondent The Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. (Home Depot). The trial court agreed with Home Depot and issued an order granting a new trial. *fn3 A Home Depot employee in an orange vest approached plaintiff and asked him what he needed. Because plaintiff had his back to the Home Depot employee on the ladder, plaintiff did not see what struck him.
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff knew or should have known better than to linger, even for a short period of time, near a ladder on which an employee is engaging in an obviously dangerous activity.
Citation:	B196344
WCC Citation:	WCC 33842008 CA