Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library

Case Name: Wills v. Superior Court of Orange County 04/13/2011
Summary: LINDA WILLS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Linda Wills appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted a summary judgment motion by defendant Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange (OC Court). Wills began working for the OC Court in 1999 as a court processing specialist, and later became a court clerk. But the department reported the incident to the OC Court, and demanded the OC Court never again assign Wills to its facility. The OC Court does not dispute Wills timely filed an administrative complaint with DFEH and obtained a right-to-sue notice.
Note: California law allows an employer to discipline an employee for making threats or engaging in violence, even when those behaviors are the result of a disability.
Citation: G043054
WCC Citation: WCC 37442011 CA
Case Name: Wilson v. Alstrom Power, Inc. 05/29/2008
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACOB WILSON et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ALSTOM POWER, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. About the only thing the parties agreed on at the five-week trial was that Brown and Wilson did contract valley fever. In December of 2003 the Laughlin action was consolidated with this action (the Wilson and Brown action). The record on appeal does not appear to indicate what became of the Laughlin action, but the Wilson and Brown action was tried by itself, and the judgment in the Wilson and Brown action was a judgment in the Wilson and Brown action only. He was called by the plaintiffs to testify about his diagnosis of Wilson for valley fever (Coccidioidomycosis) and his treatment of Wilson for that illness.
Note: [Unpublished] The court made no ruling barring the introduction of evidence of 17 purported additional cases of valley fever among La Paloma workers. Appellants simply changed their minds about attempting to introduce that evidence. There was no predjudicial error in refusing to admit evidence. There was no refusal.
Citation: F051673
WCC Citation: WCC 33752008 CA
Case Name: Wilson v. Centinela Hospital Med. Ctr. 08/31/1998
Summary: George Wilson, Applicant v. Centinela Hospital Medical Center, PSI, Adjusted by Wear & Wood, Defendant. W. C. A. B. Nos. It was ordered that defendant provide applicant rehabilitation services consistent with the determination of the Rehabilitation Unit, dated November 5, 1996. The record reflects chronologically that on March 13, 1998 the hearing took place and the matter was submitted for decision. On March 29, 1998 a transcript of the hearing was certified as true and correct by the court reporter. In light of our disposition, we will not take a position on the merits of defendant's allegations regarding applicant's QIW status.
Note: 'Timeliness' objection to F&A need not be made until after actual filing of F&A.
Citation: 63 CCC 1048
WCC Citation: WCC 26271998 CA
Case Name: Wilson vs. Obedoza 04/23/2009
Summary: Obedoza misdiagnosed Wilson as having an infection, and prescribed gentamicin for the eye infection. The trial court granted Obedoza's motion for summary judgment, finding that (1) Wilson and Obedoza were coemployees of the State of California, and (2) Wilson's suit was barred by section 3601. Here, Wilson appeared in this action, was represented by competent counsel, and fully litigated the summary judgment motion Obedoza brought against him. Proximate cause existed because Obedoza allegedly injured Wilson by aggravating his work-related injury, just as in Hendy. Furthermore, Dr. Obedoza was clearly acting within the course and scope of his employment when he diagnosed and treated Wilson.
Note: [Unpublished] Malpractice claim of injured inmate/worker against treating physician barred by provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act.
Citation: A120321
WCC Citation: WCC 35152009 CA
Case Name: Wings West Airlines v. WCAB 12/11/1986
Summary: WINGS WEST AIRLINES et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DEPARTMENT oF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents. The employer, Wings West Airlines (Wings West), and its workers' compensation carrier, Transport Insurance Company (collectively [187 Cal. App. 3d 1050] employer), timely seek review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) after reconsideration, finding that since the sister of the deceased employee had not qualified as a partial dependent (Lab. The employee, Paul Nebolon, born in 1956, was employed in California by Wings west as a pilot when he sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment that resulted in his death on August 24, 1984. In a telephone conversation in July, Nebolon promised to help Luckenbach but did not specify any amount. At Nebolon's funeral, Luckenbach learned from her mother that Nebolon had told their parents he planned to contribute $135 a month.
Note: Actual contribution of support by deceased employee required to find partial dependency.
Citation: 187 CalApp.3d 1047
WCC Citation: WCC 26561986 CA
Case Name: Winslow v. County of Siskiyou; SCIF 01/29/1957
Summary: LYDIA W. WINSLOW, Applicant v. COUNTY OF SISKIYOU and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. S. F. No. 162-090 INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION Cal. OPINION: Commission decision On March 6, 1954, an automobile accident occurred in Siskiyou County at a point about 1 1/2 miles east of Happy Camp. A letter from the Sheriff of Siskiyou County was received showing that there were 19 members of the Sheriff's Aero-squadron at the time of this fatal accident. There is no doubt that the decedent, Winslow, possessed all the necessary qualifications to be appointed as a member of the Aero-squadron. Winslow had stated to his wife and friends that he wanted nothing more to do with flying at tree top levels.
Note: Pilot commandeered by sheriff entitled to benefits.
Citation: 22 CCC 56 (IAC Panel)
WCC Citation: WCC 4251957 CA
Case Name: Wisdom v. AccentCare 01/03/2012
Summary: WISDOM v. AccentCARE, INC. MELISSA WISDOM et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AccentCare, INC. et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Four of the six plaintiffs, Norma and Katrina Rodriguez, Batseba Escoto, and Jessica Bondi, signed acknowledgment forms when they applied for employment with AccentCare. I further agree, in the event that I am hired by AccentCare, that all disputes that cannot be resolved by informal internal resolution which might arise out of my employment with AccentCare, whether during or after that employment, will be submitted to binding arbitration. "*fn1 Two of the plaintiffs, Melissa Wisdom and Vanessa Rodriguez, did not sign any arbitration agreement. Although this agreement had a date and signature line for both the employee and AccentCare, only the employee (Bondi) signed the agreement.
Note: An employer's arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
Citation: C065744
WCC Citation: WCC 38412012 CA
Case Name: Withem v. Ron Rogers & Associates 12/18/2008
Summary: [U] Withem v. Ron Rogers & Associates, No. B204034 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 12/18/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR No. B204034 December 18, 2008 KAREN WITHEM, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. RON ROGERS & ASSOCIATES, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Walsh & Associates, Adam N. Bouayad and Dennis J. Walsh for Defendant and Respondent. In June 2000, defendant Ron Rogers & Associates, a public relations firm, hired plaintiff Karen Withem as an account supervisor. Plaintiff's CFRA claim related to defendant's terminating her following her medical leave rather than allowing her to return to work. (m)); her third cause of action alleged a failure to engage in an interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation.
Note: An employer did not discriminate when it terminated a worker whose doctors said she was totally disabled, but it may have violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act before she was terminated by refusing to accommodate her fibromyalgia before she took medical leave.
Citation: B204034
WCC Citation: WCC 34702008 CA
Case Name: Witt v. Jackson 12/04/1961
Summary: JAMES ROBERT WITT et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RAYMOND LESTER JACKSON, Defendant and Respondent; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Intervener and Appellant COUNSEL Murray Jackson for Plaintiffs and Appellants. This action was brought by James Witt and Julius Grossman to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when the automobile in which they were riding was struck from the rear by one owned and operated by defendant Jackson. Plaintiffs challenge the instructions relating to the contributory negligence of plaintiff Witt. Defendant testified that Witt did so when the cars were only about 100 feet or six car lengths apart. Witt testified that he first saw defendant's headlights in his rear-view mirror about three or four seconds before the impact.
Note: Employer negligence is imputed to carrier limiting subrogation recovery.
Citation: 57 Cal.2d 57
WCC Citation: WCC 23811961 CA
Case Name: Wolf v. State Bar 08/05/2008
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO MERVYN HILLARD WOLF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. The State Bar of California, Office of General Counsel, Marie M. Moffat, Lawrence C. Yee and Tracey L. McCormick for Defendant and Respondent. * * * * * * Appellant Mervyn Hillard Wolf appeals the denial of a petition for writ of mandate which he sought against respondent The State Bar of California. He also contends the evidence was insufficient to support the findings of the Client Security Fund Commission of The State Bar of California (CSF). The purpose of the fund is to relieve or mitigate pecuniary losses caused by the dishonest conduct of an active member of the State Bar.
Note: [Unpublished] Appellant had three opportunities to be heard on the claim against him, but no substantive opposition was ever presented. Surely, the process here afforded appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard, in satisfaction of his due process rights.
Citation: B198608
WCC Citation: WCC 34082008 CA
1706 Results Page 167 of 171