Case Name:	U.S. Auto Stores v. WCAB		03/26/1971
Summary:	U. S. AUTO STORES et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and HERMAN FREDERICK BRENNER, Respondents. OPINION PETERS, J. Petitioners U. S. Auto Stores and American Hardware Mutual Insurance Company claim that the award of permanent disability of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board is not supported by substantial evidence and that the award is not supported by the findings. Dr. Wood estimated [4 Cal. 3d 472] applicant's permanent disability 'at no greater than 15 to 20% at the present time. . . . ' fn. [¶] The above-described factors result in a 77 1/2% reduction in his ability to compete in the open labor market. 'Com. , 30 Cal. Comp. Cases 336, relied upon by U. S. Auto Stores, are not in point.
Note:	Referee's failure to make specific findings of disabling extent and effect of factors was waived by failure to raise in petition.
Citation:	4 Cal.3d 469
WCC Citation:	WCC 26711971 CA

Case Name:	Universal City Studios, Inc., v. WCAB		12/12/1979
Summary:	UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BERNICE LEWIS, Respondents. Her employer, petitioner Universal City Studios, Inc. (Universal), petitioned for writ of review before this court. 3 At the conclusion of the cross-examination of Dr. Rolston and the rating specialist, Universal moved that Dr. Rolston's report and the rating be stricken. Specifically, Universal contended that Dr. Rolston did not use the term 'semi-sedentary work' within the meaning as stated in the Rating Schedule. Universal also asserted that Dr. Rolston's description of Lewis' subjective complaints and physical ability were inconsistent with a restriction of semisedentary work.
Note:	Worker may receive 100% PD although able to return to work at prior wages; judge allowing rater to decide among evidentiary facts is improper.
Citation:	99 Cal.App.3d 647
WCC Citation:	WCC 25191979 CA

Case Name:	Unruh vs. Truck Ins. Exchange		07/21/1972
Summary:	ORPHA UNRUH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE et al. , Defendants and Respondents In Bank. The second amended complaint (hereinafter for convenience referred to as "complaint") names as defendants Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck), Farmers Insurance Group (Farmers), William Baker and Lawrence Marino fn. On March 31, 1960, plaintiff injured her back while working for an employer insured under the workmen's compensation laws by defendant Truck. Exchange (1958) 157 Cal. App. 2d 759 [321 P. 2d 831] (negligence and conspiracy in providing medical treatment); State Comp. It is convenient to note at this point that this issue before us pertains only to defendant Truck, the sole compensation carrier of plaintiff's employer.
Note:	WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction on negligent acts of carrier, but not intentional; Employer may 'set off' award against civil damages.
Citation:	7 Cal.3d 616
WCC Citation:	WCC 28611972 CA

Case Name:	Uranga v. Continental Casualty Co.		03/24/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX MATTSON URANGA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. , Defendant and Respondent. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant's employer, National Ready Mix, had two insurance policies; one for commercial automobile coverage and another for workers' compensation benefits. CNA, through respondent Continental Casualty Company, provided uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits. Appellant filed a claim against the driver who caused the collision and a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Appellant's workers' compensation claim against National Ready Mix was resolved by stipulation on November 30, 2004, in the amount of $168,687. 93.
Note:	[Unpublished] A carrier did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by making low settlement offers during the arbitration process.
Citation:	B205995
WCC Citation:	WCC 35062009 CA

Case Name:	Uwaydah v. Roth		05/18/2010
Summary:	On December 20, 2007, Weiss sent Roth a letter about Frost's investigation, welcoming Roth's direct inquiries regarding Uwaydah if there was a legitimate reason. Uwaydah heard nothing more from Roth until January 7, 2009, when, by chance, he learned Roth had sent two subpoenas, dated September 5, 2008 (attached as exhibits to the complaint), to Jindy Bal, counsel for Tustin Hospital (one of the locations where Uwaydah practices). *fn3 Uwaydah is informed and believes Roth continues to contact hospitals and other third parties "fishing" for information to deny Uwaydah's claims. On the basis of these allegations, Uwaydah (and Frontline, included in our further references to Uwaydah) sued Roth for abuse of process. While Uwaydah misrepresents some of the contentfor example, Roth said, he made no "negative statements" about Uwaydah, the communications complained of were communications in the course of this investigation.
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his abuse of process claim, and defendant's motion was properly granted.
Citation:	B217606
WCC Citation:	WCC 36252010 CA

Case Name:	Vacanti, Inc. v. SCIF		01/04/2001
Summary:	After plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, defendants filed another demurrer, again alleging that workers' compensation exclusivity bars plaintiffs' claims. After plaintiffs amended their complaint a third time, the second judge sustained the demurrer solely on exclusivity grounds. The employee may also obtain compensation for medical-legal evaluations necessary to establish his or her entitlement to benefits. Ordinarily, the insurer must pay all medical or medical-legal bills of an injured employee within 60 days of receiving the bill. Indeed, the unabated flow of published decisions clarifying the scope of workers' compensation exclusivity suggests considerable confusion as well as innovative lawyering.
Note:	Exclusive Remedy Doctrine extends to claims for acts/motives typified in the compensation bargain (i.e. late payment).
Citation:	24 Cal 4th 800
WCC Citation:	WCC 26302001 CA

Case Name:	Vaira v. WCAB (California Travel and Tourism Commission)		12/03/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOIS VAIRA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA TRAVEL AND TOURISM COMMISSION et al. , Respondents. Petitioner contends the WCAB erred in apportioning a share of her disability to her age and a pre-existing condition of osteoporosis. Five months earlier, on August 14, 2002, petitioner had suffered another work-related injury and filed a separate workers' compensation claim (WCAB No. SAC0323237). We agree with the WCAB that the parties' stipulation did not preclude a reduction in the overall disability for the award in WCAB No. SAC0323237. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Note:	[Unpublished] Any apportionment to age, per se, runs afoul of state antidiscrimination law.
Citation:	C054948
WCC Citation:	WCC 32852007 CA

Case Name:	Valadez v. WCAB		10/15/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HORACIO MONTOYA VALADEZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BONANZA FARMS, Respondents. -ooOoo- *Before A. P. J. , Levy, J. , Cornell, J. , and Gomes, J. Horacio Montoya Valadez (Montoya) petitions for a writ of review claiming the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) acted without or in excess of its powers by issuing an unreasonable decision based upon unsettled, wrongly decided law and unsupported findings of fact. *fn3 Montoya petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration contending the WCAB wrongly decided Pendergrass and Baglione and that the WCJ here should have adopted a permanent disability rating under the 1997 PDRS. On June 21, 2007, the WCAB denied reconsideration by adopting and incorporating the WCJ's report and recommendation. The WCAB issued earlier opinions in both Pendergrass and Baglione, but before they became final, a new majority resulting from a change in WCAB membership reconsidered the matters and reversed the prior decisions.
Note:	[Unpublished] The Legislature expressly established that the 2005 PDRS applies prospectively at the time of the WCAB's determination unless one of three specific exceptions applies.
Citation:	F053290, VNO0500624
WCC Citation:	WCC 32672007 CA

Case Name:	Valdez v. Clarendon National Insurance Co.		12/31/1969
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             ALEJANDRO VALDEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B278542 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Tressler, Mary E. McPherson and Ryan B. Luther for Defendants and Respondents Clarendon National Insurance Company, QBE Americas, Inc. , and QBE First Insurance Agency, Inc, .             The Morrison Law Group, Edward F. Morrison, Jr. and Larry A. Schwartz for Defendants and Respondents T&T Improvements, Inc. and Tim Tilton. .           Plaintiff and appellant Alejandro Valdez (plaintiff) appeals from the judgment dismissing his action against defendants and respondents Clarendon National Insurance Company (Clarendon), QBE Americas, Inc. , QBE First Insurance Agency, Inc. , 1 T&T Improvements, Inc. (T&T), and Tim Tilton (Tilton) (collectively, defendants)2 after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, defendants’ demurrers to all of the causes action asserted against them. .           J. CHAVEZ .           We concur: .           Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an injured worker could not proceed with his civil action against his employer and its insurance carrier for alleged misconduct during the negotiations to settle his comp claim because the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.
Citation:	B278542
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC606254

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