Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library



 
Case Name: Vaught v. State 12/18/2007
Summary: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA No. D050358 December 18, 2007 MARCK O. VAUGHT ET AL, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION We hold the workers' compensation exclusivity rule of Labor Code*fn1 section 3602 bars the civil action of plaintiffs Marck Vaught (Marck) and Maria Vaught (Maria) (together the Vaughts) against Marck's employer, the State of California (State), for injuries he sustained while residing on state premises. The Vaughts sued the State for negligence and failure to make the ranch house habitable for human occupation. The fact Marck was not a new employee with the State, but rather was merely changing positions in that employment, does not affect our conclusion Marck sustained injuries in the course of his employment with the State. The evidence showed the State offered Marck residence in the ranch house because of Marck's employment with the State as a park ranger, as a benefit and out of work necessity, and not because the State sought to enter into a landlord-tenant relationship with the Vaughts.
Note: The workers' compensation exclusivity rule of Labor Code section 3602 bars the civil action of plaintiff for injuries plaintiff sustained while residing on state premises.
Citation: 157 Cal. App. 4th 1538; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605
WCC Citation: WCC 32912007 CA
 
 
Case Name: Vaynberg v. Chevron Products Company 03/14/2013
Summary: VAYNBERG v. CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY MOYSEY VAYNBERG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Appellant Moysey Vaynberg worked for respondent Chevron Products Company (Chevron) through an employment agency for nine years, from August 1999 through April 2008. At Chevron's request, the trial court instructed the jury: "Chevron contends that Mr. Vaynberg was not entitled to overtime pay from Chevron because he was an employee of Value Added working at Chevron as an independent contractor, not an employee of Chevron. Chevron argued these points to the jury: "Not one witness testified in this case that Mr. Vaynberg was an employee of Chevron at any time. Mr. Vaynberg admitted to you that at all times while working on assignment at the Chevron facility he was a contractor of Chevron. "
Note: Chevron Products Co. was not a dual employer of a computer analyst employed by a staffing agency.
Citation: A131126
WCC Citation: WCC 39912013 CA
 
 
Case Name: Vega vs. Taco Bell; Cal Indemnity 06/09/2003
Summary: On January 2, 2003, defendant, Taco Bell, by and through its insurer, California Indemnity Insurance Company, filed a petition for removal, or alternatively, for reconsideration, for review of the Appeals Board's December 13, 2002, order denying a prior petition for removal. Defendant now seeks the consolidated review of two additional cases to demonstrate the disparate treatment of this issue at different district offices. Under Section 5502(b), expedited hearings may be set to determine the rights of the parties on specified issues, including entitlement to medical treatment and temporary disability indemnity. (2) The employee's entitlement to, or the amount of, temporary disability indemnity payments. This also implicates an applicant's right to temporary disability indemnity, as such benefits are tied to a treating physician's medical reporting.
Note: Board shall set expedited hearing when right to medical control under HCO in issue.
Citation: 68 CCC 921
WCC Citation: WCC 29372003 CA
 
 
Case Name: Veguez v. Long Beach Unified School District 03/07/2005
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B172414 March 7, 2005 BONITA VEGUEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. GOVERNING BOARD OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. OVERVIEW Bonita Veguez, a certificated employee of the Long Beach Unified School District (District), began a medical leave of absence on March 12, 2002. The District denied her request on the ground the five months statutory paid leave Veguez had received following her 1998 accident exhausted her rights under section 44977. Instead, pursuant to section 44978. 1, the District placed Veguez on a 39-month reemployment list effective March 19, 2002. Veguez acknowledges the District had the right to condition her return to work on an examination by a District- appointed physician.
Note: 'Per injury or accident' as used in Education Code section 44977 applies to second leave where subsequent injury was known and treateable in original leave.
Citation: 127 Cal.App.4th 406
WCC Citation: WCC 30892005 CA
 
 
Case Name: Velez v. Kohl Building Maintenance Inc. unpublished 02/02/2021
Summary: ______________________ Defendant Kohl Building Maintenance, Inc. (Kohl) appeals from the trial court’s June 27, 2019, order awarding $141,165 in attorney fees in a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) matter to plaintiff and prevailing party Gilberto Velez. Velez filed a workers’ compensation claim, and on August 26, 2016, Kohl terminated Velez. On at least one occasion, Velez’s counsel represented to the trial court that Velez was not seeking any lost income for the time period for which Velez received workers’ compensation. Notwithstanding his conclusory claim that Velez “knew” he would not recover more than $25,000, Kohl does not actually demonstrate this was so. Thus, Kohl has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $141,165 in attorney fees to Velez.
Note: A California appellate court upheld an award of attorney fees to an injured worker on his successful Fair Employment and Housing Act claim against his former employer.
Citation: No. B300253
WCC Citation: No. B300253
 
 
Case Name: Ventura Coastal LLC v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Department of Industrial Relations) 12/01/2020
Summary: It was upheld by the hearing officer and, on reconsideration, by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Board). Ventura appealed the citation to the Board, arguing that it did not violate the safety order or, if there was a violation, it was misclassified as serious. Ventura further argued the evidence showed the violation was unforeseeable under the Newbery defense. 2 On September 22, 2017, the Board issued its decision after reconsideration. The Board concluded the Division established a violation of the regulation by a The Newbery defense, which originated in Newbery Electric Corp. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. Instead, on October 20, 2017, 28 days after the Board filed its decision after reconsideration, Ventura filed a second petition for reconsideration with the Board.
Note: A California appellate court ruled that an employer cited for a safety violation did not timely seek review of an administrative decision, but it is entitled to assert a claim of equitable tolling.
Citation: No. F077267
WCC Citation: No. F077267
 
 
Case Name: Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. 12/20/2012
Summary: VENTURA v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED SYLVIA VENTURA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED et al. , Defendants and Appellants. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION ARMSTRONG, J. ABM Industries Incorporated, ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. , and American Building Maintenance Company appeal from the judgment entered against them and in favor of respondent Sylvia Ventura, on Ventura's complaint. When Ventura spoke of Manzano's relationship with Esther Mendoza, the human resources director suggested that Ventura was jealous. There was also evidence that after he knew the details of Manzano's attack on Ventura, Martinez told Ventura that Manzano had had similar problems before. American Building Maintenance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. , which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABM Industries Incorporated.
Note: An employer must plead and prove that the Workers' Compensation Act applies to a lawsuit that indicates an employment relationship exists in order to invoke exclusive remedy.
Citation: B231817
WCC Citation: WCC 39652012 CA
 
 
Case Name: Vera v. WCAB 08/30/2007
Summary: Daniel Vera petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying his petition for reconsideration of a decision awarding him permanent disability benefits in the amount of $18,823. 75. It also noted that in a June 2004 report, the treating physician stated that Vera " 'remains TTD [i. e. , temporarily totally disabled],' " and that Vera underwent surgery for his shoulder in August 2004. Vera argued that his employer "[was] required subsequently to provide" the notice required by section 4061, and thus the old schedule applies. Vera filed a petition for writ of review in this court, arguing that the old schedule governs his claim for permanent disability benefits, and that the WCAB therefore erred in denying his petition for reconsideration. Our decision is consistent with the en banc decision of the WCAB in Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cas.
Note: The WCAB properly denied the petition for reconsideration because the schedule for rating permanent disabilities that went into effect on January 1, 2005, applies to the instant case.
Citation: 72 CCC 1115
WCC Citation: WCC 32482007 CA
 
 
Case Name: Verga v. WCAB 01/23/2008
Summary: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the WCAB) concluded that Rosemary Verga was not entitled to compensation for psychiatric injury while employed by United Airlines. However, the WCAB found "the true fact remains that [Verga] was not actually subject to harassment or persecution, she instead brought upon herself the disdain of her co-workers" because Verga was "a difficult person to get along with"; she was impolite, unpleasant, and co-workers "never knew when [she] might get upset. "Various employees testified that they had never seen Verga mistreated by Allen, who did as much as he could to support her, even though Verga had mistreated them. Hence, Verga failed to establish an "actual event of employment" was the predominant cause of her injury within the meaning of section 3208. 3. After Verga filed a petition for reconsideration, the WCJ submitted to the WCAB a report and recommendation clarifying the basis for the WCJ's decision. Verga contends that it does matter whether the events of her employment occurred as she recalls or as found by the WCAB.
Note: In light of the legislative intent in enacting section 3208.3, subdivision (b)(1), the disdainful reactions of co-workers to the claimant's abusive conduct were neither actual events of employment nor the predominant cause of her psychological injuries within the meaning of the statute.
Citation: C055711
WCC Citation: WCC 33042008 CA
 
 
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
 
1705 Results Page 161 of 171