Case Name:	Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc.		08/26/2014
Summary:	.           Eddie Yau filed a complaint against his former employer, Santa Margarita Ford, alleging a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. .           In 1992, Yau was hired as a mechanic by Santa Margarita Ford. Yau alleged he was terminated in February 2009 after complaining to Santa Margarita Ford’s general manager, Mike Mamic, and later to Santa Margarita Ford’s owner, James Graham, that fraudulent warranty repair claims were being submitted to Ford. Yau alleged Santa Margarita Ford’s service director, Robert Selff, to whom Yau reported, was the instigator/mastermind of the warranty fraud. .           In January 2009, Yau met with Mamic and Graham (owner of Santa Margarita Ford) and explained what was happening with fictitious warranty repair orders.
Note:
Citation:	G048013 consol. w/ G04834
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00448900

Case Name:	Yavitch v. WCAB		04/20/1983
Summary:	OPINION FEINERMAN, P. J. Petitioners Morris Yavitch and Continental Insurance Company seek an order compelling the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board or WCAB) to annul its stay of WCAB proceedings pending the outcome of Los Angeles Superior Court number C-344346, to annul the rescission of the trial judge's findings and order of June 29, 1982, and thereafter to determine the petition for reconsideration on its merits. The petitioners, Morris Yavitch and his workers' compensation insurer, Continental Insurance Company, denied any industrial injury and the matter was tried. The applicant testified as follows: She worked for Morris Yavitch as a nurse, cook, driver and housekeeper during the summer of 1980. In reaching his decision, the judge stated: 'It is found that applicant was employed by Morris Yavitch on October 9, 1980. The applicant never alleged that WCAB should defer to the superior court in determining whether the WCAB had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether there was a work-related injury.
Note:	Decision after remittitur for review of findings is original decision, not one following reconsideration.
Citation:	142 Cal.App.3d 64
WCC Citation:	WCC 26541983 CA

Case Name:	Ybarra v. WCAB, SIF		10/21/2002
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This petition brought by former Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Raymond Ybarra involves two claims for workers' compensation benefits. After he was granted a disability pension, petitioner filed an application with the Subsequent Injuries Fund (SIF) for additional benefits. Although SIF determined petitioner was entitled to receive the additional benefits, SIF asserted his award was subject to reduction by operation of Labor Code section 4753. That section provides for reduction of SIF benefits to the extent the employee receives payments from another source due to a pre-existing disability. In a report submitted to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, the judge recommended a finding that petitioner was eligible for SIF benefits, but that SIF was entitled to assert a credit against petitioner's disability retirement benefits.
Note:	Subsequent Injuries Fund can not take credit for disability retirement where basis is different though stems from same case.
Citation:	Unpublished
WCC Citation:	WCC 28932002 CA

Case Name:	Yeager Construction v. WCAB and Dennis Gatten		11/28/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO E. L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DENNIS GATTEN, Respondents. Rucka, O'Boyle, Lombardo & McKenna and Cosimo Aiello; Hinden, Rondeau & Brevlavsky and Charles R. Rondeau for Respondent Dennis Gatten. At the time of the injury, he was diagnosed with a lumbar strain/sprain with a compression facture at L2. The WCJ found applicant's industrial back injury caused a 74 percent permanent disability with no basis for apportionment. Filed 12/15/06 COURT OF APPEAL -- STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ORDER E. L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DENNIS GATTEN, Respondents.
Note:	Labor Code Section 4663 allows for the apportionment of pre-existing degenerative conditions.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 922
WCC Citation:	WCC 31992006 CA

Case Name:	Yee-Sanchez vs. Permanente, etc. et at		04/29/2003
Summary:	Nevertheless, PMG went forward with Dr. Hightower's deposition (although, apparently, it never took the depositions of Yee-Sanchez or Dr. Duong). In response to Yee-Sanchez's letter to him, the PWCJ set a pre-trial conference, even though no application had yet been filed. Prior to the conference, PMG requested that the DEU issue a consultative rating of Dr. Duong's October 19, 2000 report. The DEU's consultative rating opined that the factors of permanent disability in Dr. Duong's October 19, 2000 report rated at 31%. However, the PWCJ took no action at that time, but instead suggested that the parties attempt to reach an informal resolution.
Note:	Definition of rights, duties, penalties for pre-application discovery.
Citation:	68 Cal.Comp. Cases 637
WCC Citation:	WCC 29322003 CA

Case Name:	Yellow Cab Coop., Inc. v. WCAB		01/16/1991
Summary:	YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RICHARD EDWINSON, Respondents. OPINION RACANELLI, P. J. Petitioners Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. (Yellow) and Golden Eagle Insurance Co. challenge a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) holding that Yellow was the employer, for workers' compensation purposes, of applicant Richard Edwinson, a cabdriver. During or after this meeting applicant executed a written 'Taxicab Lease Agreement' designating him as 'Lessee' and Yellow Leasing Co. , a division of Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. , as 'Lessor' or 'Leasing Company. '830 [171 So. 2d 510]; Shinuald v. Mound City Yellow Cab Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1984) 666 S. W. 2d 846; Employers Ins. (See Worrell v. Yellow Cab Co. (1978) 146 Ga. App. 748 [247 S. E. 2d 569], appeal after remand Yellow Cab Co. v. Worrell (1980) 155 Ga. App. 41 [273 S. E. 2d 410] [where ordinance restricted operation to permittee's employees and agents, cab company could not avoid compensation liability by delegating duties via lease]. )
Note:	Corporation was employer of cabdriver with full control over his work.
Citation:	226 Cal.App.3d 1288
WCC Citation:	WCC 25901991 CA

Case Name:	Yong S. Kim v. WCAB		08/04/1999
Summary:	YONG S. KIM, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. Facts and Prior Proceedings Petitioner Yong Kim injured his right arm while working. Kim speaks only Korean and requires the assistance of an interpreter for all vocational training classes and activities. Kim claims that interpreter services would cost $5,000 per month (we find no support for this in the record). Kim offered no contrary evidence that the cap was intended to limit access to vocational rehabilitation for non-English-speaking workers.
Note:	Cap applies to all persons and services, including interpreters; Does not violate Equal Protection.
Citation:	73 Cal.App.4th 1357
WCC Citation:	WCC 3821999 CA

Case Name:	Young v. Gannon, DIR		03/28/2002
Summary:	JOHN D. YOUNG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RICHARD GANNON, Defendant and Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Real Party in Interest. - INTRODUCTION John D. Young appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate. After the lunch, appellant's telephone calls to Donald increased in frequency, and he left messages for her at her office and home. This was accomplished by a Notice of Adverse Action from the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers' Compensation. Therefore, a majority of the Board conclude[d] that dismissal [was] the just and proper penalty for the proven misconduct. '
Note:	Regulations adopted governing WCJ conduct upheld; 'filed' decisions means typed and signed.
Citation:	97 Cal.App.4th 209, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 187
WCC Citation:	WCC 28432002 CA

Case Name:	Youngblood v. WCAB		12/15/1989
Summary:	ROBERT YOUNGBLOOD, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondents (Opinion by Anderson, P. J. , with Poch and Perley, JJ. , concurring. )OPINION ANDERSON, P. J. Petitioner Robert Youngblood (applicant) seeks review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) which held that it did not have jurisdiction under Labor Code fn. [216 Cal. App. 3d 768] Applicant also requested vocational rehabilitation, and apparently initiated proceedings before the rehabilitation bureau (Bureau) sometime in 1982. There was no mention whatsoever regarding vocational rehabilitation, either that applicant might be interested in it or that he was requesting it. Finding that applicant's permanent disability had increased to 53 percent, the WCJ granted applicant's petition to reopen for new and further disability.
Note:	Board lacked jurisdiction to award benefits 5+ years post-injury.
Citation:	216 Cal.App.3d 764
WCC Citation:	WCC 26411989 CA

Case Name:	Zaragoza v. Ibarra		06/08/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE June 8, 2009 ELIAZAR ZARAGOZA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. MARIA IBARRA, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Zaragoza and Canongo soon found themselves stationed on top of two separate ladders, their backs to one another. The trial court granted Ibarras summary judgment motion on the ground Zaragoza had assumed the risk of injury under the undisputed facts. *fn9 ) Short of ordering Zaragoza not to get nine feet up on a ladder and try to pull a nail out of some drywall, there was nothing Ibarra could have done to prevent the accident. That is (and without knowing the terms of her homeowners policy), unless Zaragoza comes within section 3351, subdivision (d), Ibarra may not have insurance for any workers compensation liability owed by Ibarra to Zaragoza, and certainly not by virtue of the terms of Insurance Code section 11590.
Note:	A homeowner who hired an unlicensed contractor to convert her garage into a living space was not an employer for purposes of workers' compensation because the contractor had not worked the minimum of 52 hours.
Citation:	No. G040242
WCC Citation:	WCC 35322009 CA