Case Name:	Wayne Oberreuter et al v. Traylor Brothers		05/05/2011
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D056637 May 5, 2011 WAYNE OBERREUTER ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS, CROSS-DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS, v. TRAYLOR BROTHERS, DEFENDANT, CROSS-COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT. Mountain was the subcontractor hired by a general contractor, defendant Traylor Brothers, Inc. (Traylor), to provide hauling services for a construction project. Oberreuter and his wife filed this action against Traylor seeking damages, and Traylor moved for summary judgment under the "Privette/Hooker"*fn1 doctrine. The trial court concluded there was no triable issue of material fact, and Privette/Hooker barred Oberreuter's claims against Traylor, and entered judgment in favor of Traylor. Procedural History Oberreuter and his wife filed the present action against Traylor, among others, asserting Traylor was negligent.
Note:	California's common law Hooker/Privette doctrine barred an subcontractor's employee from suing a general contractor.
Citation:	D056637
WCC Citation:	WCC 37602011 CA

Case Name:	WCAB v. Small Claims Court		11/29/1973
Summary:	WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Petitioner, v. THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT FOR THE SAN LEANDRO-HAYWARD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY et al. , Respondents; EARLY-WINSTON-DRAKE et al. , Real Parties in Interest (Opinion by Taylor, P. J. , with Kane and Rouse, JJ. , concurring. )[1] Petitioner, Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, seeks prohibition to prevent respondent, Small Claims Court, San Leandro-Hayward Judicial District, from proceeding to trial on [35 Cal. App. 3d 645] two small claims actions on the ground that the subject matter of the actions is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board. Respondents Righetti and Sidlow may not circumvent the remedy provided by statute by filing actions in the small claims court. [2c] Because the subject matter of the actions filed in respondent small claims court is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, respondent small claims court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine the claims. Let a writ of prohibition issue commanding respondent small claims court to dismiss the actions in small claims cases Nos.
Note:	Small claims court had no jurisdiction to hear case regarding expert witness and attorney fees from WC claim.
Citation:	35 Cal.App.3d 643
WCC Citation:	WCC 27481973 CA

Case Name:	Webb v. San Luis Obispo Community College Dist.		12/10/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX d Civil No. B195886 December 10, 2007 PAMELA WEBB, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Ct. No. CV060418) (San Luis Obispo County) Martin J. Tangeman, Judge. Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi, Llp, Peter C. Flanderka for Defendant and Respondent San Luis Obispo Community College District. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Pamela Webb appeals from a judgment of dismissal after orders sustaining the demurrers of School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE) and San Luis Obispo Community College District (District), each public entities. Webb was an employee of Cuesta College in the San Luis Obispo Community College District.
Note:	[Unpublished] A plaintiff may not sue for damages based on violation of the privacy clause of article I, section 1 of the California Constitution.
Citation:	B195886
WCC Citation:	WCC 32872007 CA

Case Name:	Webb v. WCAB		12/22/1980
Summary:	ROBERT F. WEBB, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DI GIORGIO CORPORATION, Respondents (Opinion by Mosk, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )On January 31, 1975, employee Webb slipped from a forklift he was operating for employer Di Giorgio Corporation and contused his lower back, causing debilitating pain. The bureau approved the plan and declared that 'employer will pay all temporary disability at the rate of $119 per week from the date of injury to the date Mr. Webb begins work at Roberts Motel. The workers' compensation judge found in his favor and ordered employer to pay the missing six months of temporary rehabilitation benefits. Moreover, this court has repeatedly recognized that a rule of liberal construction applies to all aspects of workers' compensation law.
Note:	Employer has duty to give notice to the Rehab. Bureau of EE's right to rehab.
Citation:	28 Cal.3d 621
WCC Citation:	WCC 28041980 CA

Case Name:	Weber v. UPS		04/03/2003
Summary:	According to Weber's first amended complaint, UPS employed Weber as an aircraft mechanic. UPS did not administer the hearing tests itself, but contracted with defendant TK Group to administer the tests on its behalf, and to report the results to UPS. Further, to the extent UPS knew that Weber's tests showed significant abnormalities in his hearing, UPS failed to notify Weber of the findings or their medical significance. UPS demurred to Weber's first amended complaint on the sole ground that because Weber had alleged that his injuries arose out of his employment with UPS, the Act provided Weber his sole and exclusive remedy, and barred his civil action in tort against UPS. Critical to the analysis of Weber's claim is the undisputed fact that but for his employment with UPS, Weber would have no basis for any claim against UPS under any legal theory.
Note:	No civil liability of employer for injuries from failure to diagnose condition that should have been detected on required med exam.
Citation:	107 Cal.App.4th 801, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 412
WCC Citation:	WCC 29262003 CA

Case Name:	Webinger v. WCAB		11/21/1975
Summary:	JOSEPH B. WEBINGER, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, Respondents. Applicant began receiving disability payments from the Veterans' Administration on April 1, 1946, in the amount of $ 13. 80 per month. On October 31, 1962, Mr. Webinger began receiving checks in the amount of $ 20. 00 per month. On January 1, 1973, he began receiving $ 178. 84 per month, which includes compensation for regular aid and attendance. '(2) On December 22, 1967, he suffered a bruise-type industrial injury to his right foot that necessitated amputation of his leg.
Note:	S.I.F. was entitled to a credit for payments for a non-service connected disability which pre-existed injury.
Citation:	40 CCC 714
WCC Citation:	WCC 25181975 CA

Case Name:	Weerasinghe v. Gates, McDonald and Co.		05/14/2010
Summary:	Weerasinghe contends that Gates was not entitled to summary judgment on any of her six causes of action. FACTS[ 1 ] In 2002, respondent Gates hired appellant Manique Weerasinghe to be a worker's compensation claims examiner in its Concord office. From November 30 through December 6, 2004, Gates granted Weerasinghe a one-week medical leave of absence to have a breast mass removed. From January 14 through 27, 2005, Gates granted Weerasinghe a leave of absence to provide medical care for her spouse. During February 2005, Tovar placed Weerasinghe on an attendance improvement plan because she had failed to heed the earlier coaching about attendance issues.
Note:	A former claims examiner did not have enough evidence to substantiate a variety of retaliation, discrimination, and wrongful termination claims after her employer fired her for poor performance.
Citation:	A124847
WCC Citation:	WCC 36242010 CA

Case Name:	Weiner v. Ralphs Co., et al. (Order Denying Reconsideration)		08/17/2009
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Case No. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426) LAWRENCE WEINER, Applicant, vs. RALPHS COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured; and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). Applicant, Lawrence Weiner, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (En Banc) issued by the Appeals Board on June 11, 2009. (See Weiner v. Ralphs Company (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 736 (Appeals Board en banc) (Weiner I). )On April 8, 2008, a stipulated Findings and Award issued finding 60% permanent disability and a need for further medical treatment. Defendant appealed the Rehabilitation Unit's determination and a trial was held before the WCJ on November 24, 2008.
Note:	The WCAB determined that the applicant's right to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance never vested. The WCAB also explained that it lacks the authority to declarea statute unconstitutional.
Citation:	ADJ347040
WCC Citation:	WCC 35542009 CA

Case Name:	Weiner v. Ralphs Company		06/11/2009
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426) LAWRENCE WEINER, Applicant, vs. RALPHS COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured; and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) We granted the petition for reconsideration of defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company, to allow time to further study the record and applicable law. Background Applicant, Lawrence Weiner, sustained an industrial injury to his right hip, cervical spine, and lumbar spine from 1967 through September 30, 2002, while employed as a checker by defendant. Code, § 4644(a)(5)-(7)) and to provide that an employee was normally limited to only one vocational rehabilitation plan (former Lab. Applicant, Lawrence Weiner, while employed as a checker by Ralphs Grocery Company at Los Angeles, California, during the period of 1967 through September 30, 2002, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of the employment to his right hip, cervical spine and lumbar spine.
Note:	[En Banc] The repeal of section 139.5 terminated any rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits or services pursuant to orders or awards that were not final before January 1, 2009, including those pending on or after that date, and effective January 1, 2009, the WCAB lost jurisdiction over non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims, but the WCAB continues to have jurisdiction under sections 5502(b)(3) and 5803 to enforce or terminate vested rights.
Citation:	ADJ347040
WCC Citation:	WCC 35332009 CA

Case Name:	Weinstein v. St. Mary's Med. Cntr.		10/30/1997
Summary:	On January 10, 1995, while still on crutches, Weinstein went to the Hospital to receive medical treatment for her injury. As this was happening, Weinstein slipped and fell on a watery liquid substance in one of the Hospital's hallways. [58 Cal. App. 4th 1227] On December 12, 1995, Weinstein filed her complaint in this personal injury action against the Hospital. Thus the 'conditions of compensation' were not met, and Weinstein was not restricted to the remedy of workers' compensation. The Hospital countered that it owed Weinstein the same duty to maintain safe premises whether she was there as a patient or an employee.
Note:	Exclusive remedy only applies when duty arises from employment relationship.
Citation:	58 Cal.App.4th 1223
WCC Citation:	WCC 24181997 CA