Case Name:	Government Code 31720.7 - Blood Borne Disease		12/27/2001
Summary:	The disease so developing or manifesting itself in those cases shall in no case be attributed to any disease existing prior to that development or manifestation. (b) Any safety member, firefighter, county probation officer, or member active in law enforcement described in subdivision (a) permanently incapacitated for the performance of duty as a result of a blood-borne infectious disease shall receive a service-connected disability retirement. (c) The presumption described in subdivision (a) is rebuttable by other evidence. Unless so rebutted, the board is bound to find in accordance with the presumption. (d) -Blood-borne infectious disease,-for purposes of this section, means a disease caused by exposure to pathogenic microorganisms that are present in human blood that can cause disease in humans, including, but not limited to, those pathogenic microorganisms defined as blood-borne pathogens by the Department of Industrial Relations.
Note:	Presumption of industrial causation of blood-borne infectious disease.
Citation:	Gov Code 31720.7
WCC Citation:	WCC 28302001 CA

Case Name:	Graczyk v. WCAB		08/08/1986
Summary:	RICKY D. GRACZYK, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FULLERTON et al. , Respondents. The Board granted reconsideration and found (in a two-to-one decision) that applicant was not an employee of CSUF. Com. , supra, 219 Cal. App. 2d 457, and hence he could not be deprived of it retroactively by the Legislature's 1981 amendment to section 3352. To determine whether applicant had a vested right of action, we must look to the unique nature of the workers' compensation law in California. Workers' Compensation Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar 1985) § 1. 3, p. 4; see Lowman v. Stafford (1964) 226 Cal. App. 2d 31, 36 [37 Cal. Rptr.
Note:	Scholarship athletes are not employees; applies retroactively.
Citation:	184 Cal.App.3d 997, 51 CCC 408
WCC Citation:	WCC 24351986 CA

Case Name:	Gradle vs. Doppelmayer USA		02/27/2004
Summary:	RONALD MICHAEL GRADLE et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DOPPELMAYR USA, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. A mechanic asked Gradle if he wanted the lift stopped and Gradle said no. Gradle climbed into the operator shack at the terminal. Gradle yelled to the mechanic, who was 20 feet away, to take the lift to start speed and then stop it. Gradle squatted on top of the tub wall waiting for the lift to stop and slipped. Gradle testified the maintenance mechanic smelled "boozy" and appeared a little hung over the morning of the accident.
Note:	Cal-OSHA standards admissible to prove negligence per se against third party.
Citation:	116 Cal.App.4th 276
WCC Citation:	WCC 29722004 CA

Case Name:	Graham vs. WCAB		05/12/1989
Summary:	In July 1983, Graham filed an application with the Board for the adjudication of his claim for medical treatment and permanent disability benefits. Graham also filed a civil action against Dr. Peter Macs (later amended to the Estate of Macs) seeking damages for medical malpractice in Dr. Macs's treatment of Graham for the injuries he sustained in the bus accident. The Transit District then petitioned for credit, in the amount of the settlement, against the Transit District's liability for future workers' compensation payments to Graham. Graham filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board on the ground that the malpractice settlement was not subject to credit. 5 [2b] Graham counters that the conditions for invoking the statute were met in this case where counsel acknowledged in settlement discussions that Graham was entitled to workers' compensation benefits and did not include such benefits in computing the settlement.
Note:	Employer entitled to credit if the medical malpractice settlement does not consider workers' compensation benefits in arriving at the result.
Citation:	210 CA3d 499
WCC Citation:	WCC 30191989 CA

Case Name:	Granado vs. WCAB		10/04/1968
Summary:	HENRY GRANADO, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HASLETT WAREHOUSE et al. , Respondents. The board's position is that this rule should be applied to temporary disability cases. Thus we were not directly confronted with the question whether temporary disability may be apportioned as between industrial and nonindustrial injuries. There is a substantial difference between the rules governing apportionment between industrial injuries and those governing apportionment between industrial and nonindustrial injuries. We thus need not consider reports other than Dr. McIvor's, including one that the entire disability was due to the preexisting nonindustrial condition.
Note:	Temporary disability is not apportionable.
Citation:	69 Cal.2d 399
WCC Citation:	WCC 29581968 CA

Case Name:	Graphic Arts Mutual Ins. Co. v. Time Travel Internat., Inc.		02/02/2005
Summary:	GRAPHIC ARTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TIME TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Because we find that plaintiff and appellant Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company may proceed in superior court, we reverse the judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. From September 15, 1993 through September 15, 1994, appellant insured defendant and respondent Time Travel International, Inc. , for workers' compensation benefits. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the trial court has jurisdiction over its complaint for indemnity against respondent pursuant to section 5500. 5, subdivision (a). Lungren v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 294, 300; Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 120, 125. )
Note:	WCAB does not have exclusive jurisdiction in a carrier's action against an uninsured employer in a CT reimbursement claim.
Citation:	126 Cal. App. 4th 405
WCC Citation:	WCC 30762005 CA

Case Name:	Gravelin v. Satterfield		11/15/2011
Summary:	GARY GRAVELIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PAUL SATTERFIELD et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Gary Gravelin, a hired worker, was injured while installing a satellite dish on the roof of a residence. Dish Network outsourced the job to Linkus Enterprises, Inc. , which sent plaintiff Gary Gravelin to perform the installation job. Plaintiff Gravelin testified that the roof extension looked like it was constructed of roofing plywood. Raymond Coolidge did not talk with plaintiff Gravelin when Gravelin arrived to install the satellite dish.
Note:	A trio of homeowners are not liable for a satellite dish installation worker's slip and fall from their roof because they did not owe him a duty.
Citation:	A131333
WCC Citation:	WCC 38262011 CA

Case Name:	Green v. State of California		08/23/2007
Summary:	Ct. No. RCV060816 DWIGHT D. GREEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant. Plaintiff began working for the State of California in 1974. In 1987, plaintiff worked as a stationary engineer for the Department of Corrections at the California Institute for Men in Chino (the Institute). In this case, for example, if because of his hepatitis C plaintiff Dwight Green was unable to perform the essential duties of a stationary engineer at a state prison, defendant State of California did not violate FEHA by terminating him because of his disability. (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 998, 1012-1014; Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd.
Note:	The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that plaintiffs prove they are 'qualified individuals' under the statute, i.e., that they have the ability to perform a job's essential duties before they can prevail in a lawsuit for discrimination...the FEHA requires employees to prove that they are qualified individuals under the statute just as the federal ADA requires.
Citation:	42 Cal. 4th 254
WCC Citation:	WCC 32422007 CA

Case Name:	Green v. WCAB (City of Compton)		03/30/2005
Summary:	City answered that any delay was part of continuous conduct, and, thus, the WCAB correctly awarded a single increase of compensation. Green Petitions for Reconsideration Green petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration. In addition, none of the reporting physicians prior to the agreed medical examiners indicated Green required vocational rehabilitation. On November 3, 2003, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and decision, and denied Green reconsideration. Weiss and Fauget, and then again by the Stipulation, the WCAB should have awarded multiple increases in compensation.
Note:	LC 5814 as amended by SB 899 applies retroactively to cases still open as of effective date.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 1426
WCC Citation:	WCC 30902005 CA

Case Name:	Greene v. Countrywide Home Loans		10/29/2007
Summary:	Ct. No. 042760) (Ventura County) Plaintiff, Mercedes Greene, appeals a summary judgment in favor of defendants, Frank Duda, Anne Babb and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide), her former employer, in her wrongful termination, sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge and disability discrimination action. Duda reported receiving this package to Countrywide and made a complaint against Greene because "two of the emails contained death threats. "Countrywide concluded that Greene violated its workplace violence policy and a rule prohibiting employees from using its email system to send "threatening messages. "Greene claimed that in 2002 there were a series of incidents showing a pattern of harassment against her by Duda and Countrywide. She did not consider Greene's gender or any complaint Greene had made against Countrywide in deciding to terminate her employment.
Note:	[Unpublished] The plaintiff did not meet her burden to overcome the defendant-employer's evidence which shows it did not engage in harassment or discrimination and it had legitimate reasons for terminating the plaintiff-employee.
Citation:	B192329
WCC Citation:	WCC 32732007 CA

Case Name:	Greener v. WCAB		12/27/1993
Summary:	GLENN GREENER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. Noting that the dismissal order was not appealable since it was not signed by the court (Code Civ. The workers' compensation law nowhere states that the Board is not subject to suit in the superior court. (See generally, Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 280 [109 P. 2d 942, 132 A. L. R. 715]; 2 Witkin, Cal. It appears to so concede elsewhere where it argues that the award of fees for legal services in workers' compensation proceedings is a subject 'within the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of the WCAB. '
Note:	5955 relates to subject matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction; No law says Board is not subject to suit in superior court.
Citation:	6 Cal.4th 1028, 58 CCC 793
WCC Citation:	WCC 27441993 CA

Case Name:	Greener v. WCAB		12/27/1993
Summary:	GLENN GREENER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. Noting that the dismissal order was not appealable since it was not signed by the court (Code Civ. The workers' compensation law nowhere states that the Board is not subject to suit in the superior court. (See generally, Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 280 [109 P. 2d 942, 132 A. L. R. 715]; 2 Witkin, Cal. It appears to so concede elsewhere where it argues that the award of fees for legal services in workers' compensation proceedings is a subject 'within the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of the WCAB. '
Note:	Plaintiffs' remedies are limited to petition for review if Board fails to award fees.
Citation:	6 Cal.4th 1028, 58 CCC 793
WCC Citation:	WCC 26041993 CA

Case Name:	Greer v. Safeway, Inc.		06/15/2010
Summary:	In 2002, while still employed with Safeway, Greer made a claim to the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for benefits. In June 2006, Greer filed a complaint with the WCAB against Safeway for improperly distributing Greer's medical information. In September 2007, Greer filed a complaint against Safeway and Richard Lyding, an attorney for Safeway, in Napa County Superior Court. On August 10, 2009, Greer filed a notice of appeal from the court's order for attorney fees dated August 3, 2009 (case No. It bears repeating that the trial court proceedings were stayed because Greer had already filed suit in federal court.
Note:	[Unpublished] Appeals dismissed for failure to file opening briefs in conformance with California Rules of Court, and appellant declared a vexatious litigant.
Citation:	A125741
WCC Citation:	WCC 36382010 CA

Case Name:	Gregory v. Cott		01/28/2013
Summary:	GREGORY v. COTT CAROLYN GREGORY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LORRAINE COTT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Lorraine injured the caregiver, plaintiff Carolyn Gregory, who thereupon sued Lorraine for battery and Lorraine and Bernard for negligence and premises liability. In this case, Mrs. Cott was not an Alzheimer's patient; vis-à-vis plaintiff, she was not a patient at all. Mrs. Cott was not placed in plaintiff's care, first and foremost because, having no medical or nursing license or certification, plaintiff was completely unqualified to provide medical care to Mrs. Cott. Given that Mrs. Cott was unable to care for herself, and knowing that she was at times aggressive and combative, Mr. Cott chose, no doubt at great personal sacrifice, to care for her at home.
Note:	The assumption of risk doctrine barred a home care worker from suing a violent patient for negligence.
Citation:	B237645
WCC Citation:	WCC 39762013 CA

Case Name:	Greitz v. Sivachenko		07/29/1957
Summary:	ALEXANDER L. GREITZ, Respondent, v. DIMITRI Y. SIVACHENKO et al. , Appellants. COUNSEL Dimitri Y. Sivachenko, in pro. Defendants appeal from a judgment ordering partition of real property by sale and division of the proceeds. By award filed August 5, 1954, the Industrial Accident Commission ordered appellant Dimitri Sivachenko to make payments to respondent on account of injuries sustained in the course of the latter's employment on September 29, 1953. After expiration of the period for redemption, the sheriff deeded this interest to respondent, who commenced this action for partition.
Note:	On filing copy of award, clerk must immediately enter judgment, no notice required; clerk part of commission, not superior court which can't stay or modify award.
Citation:	152 Cal.App.2d 849, 22 CCC 176
WCC Citation:	WCC 26081957 CA

Case Name:	Greyhound Lines v. WCAB		05/14/1984
Summary:	Greyhound Lines, Inc. , Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, (Floyd D. Plunkett, injured party), Respondents. 6), Greyhound filed a petition, with supporting declaration, 'for automatic reassignment of regular hearing to another workers' compensation judge. 'The hearing on this issue was also assigned to Judge Williams and Greyhound did not in this instance seek a reassignment under rule 10453. Cases 488), Greyhound had a basis upon which to challenge that judge 'for cause'; and that Greyhound therefore had no right to an 'automatic' reassignment pursuant to rule 10453. Second, since Greyhound possessed a basis upon which to seek reassignment 'for cause,' a petition for reassignment on that ground provided the exclusive remedy.
Note:	Challenge to WCJ for cause need not be conditioned on the absence of a specific ground.
Citation:	49 CCC 354
WCC Citation:	WCC 27691984 CA

Case Name:	Greyhound Lines v. WCAB		05/14/1984
Summary:	Greyhound Lines, Inc. , Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, (Floyd D. Plunkett, injured party), Respondents. 6), Greyhound filed a petition, with supporting declaration, 'for automatic reassignment of regular hearing to another workers' compensation judge. 'The hearing on this issue was also assigned to Judge Williams and Greyhound did not in this instance seek a reassignment under rule 10453. Cases 488), Greyhound had a basis upon which to challenge that judge 'for cause'; and that Greyhound therefore had no right to an 'automatic' reassignment pursuant to rule 10453. Second, since Greyhound possessed a basis upon which to seek reassignment 'for cause,' a petition for reassignment on that ground provided the exclusive remedy.
Note:	Continuation of an adjourned hearing shall be decided by original referee.
Citation:	49 CCC 354
WCC Citation:	WCC 25541984 CA

Case Name:	Grimaldo v. WCAB		03/19/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR B208959 (WCAB No. LBO 0370243) JOEL GRIMALDO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. , Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Joel Grimaldo worked for four years as an event aide at Abbey, a party rental service. On that day, Grimaldo slipped at work and noticed an open wound on his left great toe. Raymond Bautista, D. P. M. , a treating physician, declared Grimaldo permanent and stationary in a report of February 22, 2006. However, he reported that Grimaldo needed strict management of his diabetes so he could undergo surgery for an infected bone in his left foot.
Note:	[Unpublished] The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board relied upon insufficient evidence when it ruled that a claimant's diabetes was not not lit up or aggravated by an industrial injury to the foot.
Citation:	B208959
WCC Citation:	WCC 35052009 CA

Case Name:	Grom vs. Shasta Wood Products		12/08/2004
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. RDG 0091839 KENNETH GROM, Applicant, vs. SHASTA WOOD PRODUCTS; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. STATEMENT OF FACTS Applicant, Kenneth Grom, sustained an injury to his back on July 27, 1999 arising out of and in the course of his employment by Shasta Wood Products. We require evidence-based studies that are of sufficient quality before we can accept hypogonadism as an industrial injury. Defendant contends that any recommended treatment must both cure and relieve applicant from the effects of his industrial injury. Thus, the phrase "cure or relieve" is identical to the phrase "cure and relieve," such that their use is interchangeable.
Note:	'Cure and relieve' means 'cure or relieve.'
Citation:	69 CCC (2004); Panel
WCC Citation:	WCC 30672004 CA

Case Name:	Grossmont Hospital v. WCAB (Kyllonen)		12/11/1977
Summary:	GROSSMONT HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MAY R. KYLLONEN, Respondents. [59 Cal. App. 4th 1352] Background On April 16, 1995, respondent May R. Kyllonen (Kyllonen), a full-time employee for petitioner Grossmont Hospital (Grossmont), sustained an admitted injury in the course of her employment. The first three methods were based on the actual earnings of the employee or those of employees in the same class. First, the section relied upon by Grossmont is taken out of context. Moreover, if an overall purpose of the legislation was to reduce litigation, Grossmont provides no support for its contention Thrifty Drug led to increased litigation.
Note:	Anticipated wage increase after injury to be considered in TD rate.
Citation:	59 C.A.4th 1348
WCC Citation:	WCC 29161977 CA

Case Name:	Grupe Co. v. WCAB (Ridgeway)		09/15/2005
Summary:	Respondent Ruby Ridgeway, while working for petitioner Grupe Company (Grupe) as a computer operator, injured her upper extremities and neck and was awarded temporary disability payments. Petitioners informed the WCAB that a settlement had been offered but Ridgeway declined to reach a settlement until she had completed her vocational rehabilitation program. However, the final judgment rule, ubiquitous in civil appeals, does not hold sway in the arena of WCAB appeals. The Safeway court looked first to the finality required in order to bring a motion for reconsideration before the WCAB. The WCAB granted reconsideration and found for the employee, holding the injury was compensable and remanding for further hearing on other issues.
Note:	Substance of witness testimony not required to be included in pretrial conference statement.
Citation:	132 Cal. App. 4th 977
WCC Citation:	WCC 31192005 CA

Case Name:	Grupe Co. v. WCAB (Ridgeway)		10/14/2005
Summary:	Filed 10/14/05 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* COPY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT GRUPE COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RUBY RIDGEWAY, Respondents. Ridgeway is awarded costs on appeal. Petitioners' petition for rehearing is denied. BY THE COURT: RAYE , Acting P. J. MORRISON , J. ROBIE , J. Opinion Footnotes ---------------------------- * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976. 1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I, II, and IV.
Note:	Substance of witness testimony not required to be included in pretrial conference statement.
Citation:	C041291
WCC Citation:	WCC 31252005 CA

Case Name:	Guajardo v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company		12/04/2012
Summary:	GUAJARDO v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIANA MADRIGAL GUAJARDO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Diana Madrigal Guajardo, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of her employer, defendant, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, on her first amended complaint. The services center is a third-party department that is operated and managed by an independent vendor, Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The position included intensive and substantial typing duties, high volume of telephone calls and interactions with customers. Defendant, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, is awarded its costs on appeal from plaintiff, Diana Madrigal Guajardo.
Note:	An employer did not discriminate against an injured worker by insisting that its third-party administrator handle her request for a reasonable accommodation, failing to let her work the shift that she wanted or threatening to terminate her if she did not follow the company's procedures.
Citation:	B238075
WCC Citation:	WCC 39592012 CA

Case Name:	Gudino v. Kalkat		05/21/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) .             MARIA GUDINO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             BHUPINDER SINGH KALKAT, Defendant and Respondent. .             C080625 .             (Super. Ct. No. 161834) .             Amador Gudino fell to his death while working on the framing of defendant Bhupinder Kalkat’s new house. .             Amador Gudino was an employee of JKD and worked on the framing of Kalkat’s house. Kalkat provided a forklift and that forklift was near Gudino when he fell; photographs showed two ladders and a plank on the balcony where Gudino fell near the forklift.
Note:	A California appellate court on Monday ruled that the family of a worker who fell to his death during a home construction project could not proceed with claims against the homeowner, as a matter of law.
Citation:	C080625
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 161834

Case Name:	Guia v. Smart & Final Stores		03/09/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             LORENA GUIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SMART & FINAL STORES, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. .             B276435 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Jackson Lewis, Theresa M. Marchlewski, Sherry L. Swieca and Christopher M. Habashy for Defendant and Respondent.   .             Plaintiff and appellant Lorena Guia appeals a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Smart & Final Stores, LLC (S&F), her former employer. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS  .           EDMON, P. J. .           We concur: .           LAVIN, J.   .           CURREY, J.
Note:
Citation:	B276435
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC554278

Case Name:	Gund v. County of Trinity		06/04/2018
Summary:	Filed 6/4/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION  IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Trinity) .             JAMES GUND et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             COUNTY OF TRINITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             C076828 .             (Super. Ct. No. 11CV080) .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Trinity County, Richard Scheuler, Judge. .             This lawsuit alleges that a Trinity County deputy sheriff phoned citizens James and Norma Gund -- who do not work for the County -- and asked them to go check on a neighbor who had called 911 for help likely related to inclement weather. .           Mrs. Gund went in first while Mr. Gund stayed in the truck.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that the workers’ compensation system provides the only available remedy to two private citizens who suffered horrific injuries in a knife attack while checking on the well-being of a neighbor at the request of a deputy sheriff.
Citation:	C076828
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 11CV080

Case Name:	Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories		09/28/2001
Summary:	ROSS C. GUNNELL et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. METROCOLOR LABORATORIES, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs Ross C. Gunnell, James L. Walters, and Ronald J. Cohen sued, among other defendants, Metrocolor Lab, Inc. (Metrocolor) and Warner Brothers, Inc. (Time Warner). In 1989, Gunnell, Walters, and Cohen worked for four and one-half months at Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc. , which owned a facility to process and develop television and movie film. Cleaning the interior walls and ceiling of the Metrocolor film lab exposed Gunnell, Walters, and Cohen to the blue-green cleaning substance. Gunnell cites the jury's findings that Metrocolor specifically intended to injure Gunnell, who did not consent to contact with harmful chemicals which caused his injuries, and that in committing a battery on Gunnell, Metrocolor acted with oppression, malice, and fraud.
Note:	Neither battery nor willful physical assault provides an exception to exclusive remedy rule.
Citation:	92 Cal.App.4th 710
WCC Citation:	WCC 28622001 CA

Case Name:	Guptill v. WCAB		03/07/1991
Summary:	Lois Guptill, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, et al. , Respondents Civil No. B051580 Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 6 CCC 184 March 7, 1991 DISPOSITION: Proceeding to review decision. On October 7, 1987, she informed the Employment Development Department (EDD) her workers' compensation claim had 'verbally' been denied by the employer. In November 1987 EDD sent applicant a letter stating she might be entitled to workers' compensation benefits instead of disability insurance. EDD explained she needed to file an application with the Board and provide the Board case number to EDD to receive disability insurance benefits. On April 2, 1988, defendants filed an answer denying applicant sustained industrial injury to the low back.
Note:	When approving a C&R or reinstating order of dismissal, WCAB examines applicant's understanding of rights to benefits, significance of dismissal.
Citation:	56 CCC 184
WCC Citation:	WCC 25731991 CA

Case Name:	Gutierrez v. Girardi		08/13/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             LUIS GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             THOMAS V. GIRARDI et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B271272 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Appellant/plaintiff Luis Gutierrez (Gutierrez) appeals from a judgment following an order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of respondents/defendants Thomas V. Girardi and Girardi & Keese (collectively G&K). (See Gutierrez v. Girardi (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 925 [reversing summary judgment]; Gutierrez v. Girardi (Jan. 12, 2015, B251857) [nonpub. Defendants Thomas V. Girardi and Girardi & Keese are awarded their costs.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a worker was time-barred from pursuing a lawsuit against his former attorneys in a toxic tort action for their alleged mishandling of settlement proceeds.
Citation:	B271272
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC400560

Case Name:	Gutierrez v. Girardi		04/27/2011
Summary:	GUTIERREZ v. GIRARDI LUIS GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THOMAS V. GIRARDI et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought by plaintiff and appellant Luis Gutierrez on behalf of himself and all other persons who were represented by defendants and respondents Thomas V. Girardi and his law firm Girardi & Keese (collectively G&K) in a previous lawsuit by employees of Lockheed Corporation (Lockheed) against Lockheed and other defendants (Lockheed Action). According to Gutierrez, G&K did not have a fee agreement with Gutierrez in connection with the Lockheed Action. From October 1991 to February 2001, Gutierrez received 13 settlement checks from G&K totaling $81,310. 41. On April 18, 2002, three defendants in the Lockheed Action (the non-settling defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment against Gutierrez. Breach With respect to the element of breach, G&K argues that Gutierrez cannot prove G&K misappropriated settlement funds because at his deposition, Gutierrez testified that there was no written fee agreement between G&K and Gutierrez.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal resuscitated an injured worker's malpractice suit, which charges that his famous former attorneys misappropriated more than $20 million from a $131 million class-action settlement with Lockheed Corp.
Citation:	B226614
WCC Citation:	WCC 37572011 CA

Case Name:	Guzman v. WCAB (Sun Garden Packing)		07/26/1991
Summary:	Maria Guzman, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, and Sun Garden Packing, Respondents. At a joint hearing in June 1990, the two cases were consolidated and SJ 102401 was designated as the master file. . . . RE-SERVED BY MAIL ON PERSONS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD [¶] Date: OCT 31 1990' (Emphasis in original. )The substance of the petition was that the record did not support the WCJ's findings and award. The board then agreed with the substance of Citation's petition and remanded the matter back to the trial level for further proceedings.
Note:	No presumption of proof of service when order is not signed by person making service; statutory period begins with proper service/actual receipt.
Citation:	56 CCC 472
WCC Citation:	WCC 27881991 CA

Case Name:	H.B. Fuller Co., etc. v. WCAB		09/17/1998
Summary:	H. B. Fuller Company, American Motorists Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Eric Weaver, Respondents. However, the parties disputed whether Applicant had made a good faith demand for vocational rehabilitation services. Defendants dispute this as not being a good faith request because, only a few days earlier, Applicant had indicated that he wanted voc. The WCJ recommended that the WCAB deny reconsideration, stating: 'In analyzing the testimony, it appeared that very shortly after being terminated with H. B. Fuller, Applicant was faced with a decision of whether he should pursue vocational rehabilitation. Applicant's main focus was eventually obtaining another position with H. B. Fuller because he wanted to continue his employment there.
Note:	Employer must clarify applicant's willingness to participate in rehab. if request conflicts with statements made by applicant; entitlement to maintenance allowance begins when employer receives application.
Citation:	63 CCC 1287
WCC Citation:	WCC 27961998 CA

Case Name:	Hall v. Curran		05/11/2011
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Respondent Scott Hall (Hall) hired appellant Martin Gerard Curran*fn1 (Curran) to undertake a remodeling project. After disputes arose about workmanship and payment, Curran brought an action against Hall to foreclose on a mechanic's lien. BACKGROUND While only Hall and Curran are parties to this appeal, the underlying action was filed by Coastside Lumber Supply, Inc. (Coastside). Curran filed its own mechanic's lien for $58,109, and in March 2007, filed a cross-complaint against Hall to foreclose on the lien. Hall then dismissed his remaining cause of action against Curran, and the court ordered judgment entered against Curran for $102,740--which represented the entire amount he had been paid for the remodeling project, minus the amount Hall received in settlement from Curran's bonding company, plus $240 in costs.
Note:	A homeowner was able to recoup $102,740 he had paid to a construction firm after discovering that the firm had failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance for some of its workers.
Citation:	A127542
WCC Citation:	WCC 37632011 CA

Case Name:	Hall v. Goodwill Industries of Southern California		03/16/2011
Summary:	MICHAEL HALL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and Appellant Michael Hall filed suit against Goodwill Industries of Southern California (Goodwill) alleging a retaliation claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, 12900 et seq. According to Hall, after Goodwill terminated his employment he was unable to find new work. On December 30, 2005, Hall filed a civil complaint against Goodwill for retaliation in violation of FEHA and wrongful termination. Hall filed a motion for reconsideration but the trial court entered judgment in the case before the motion was heard.
Note:	A worker's Fair Employment and Housing Act suit was untimely because his attorney filed his complaint more than a year after the state issued his right-to-sue notice, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in a published decision.
Citation:	B215860
WCC Citation:	WCC 37272011 CA

Case Name:	Halliburton v. Remington College-Denver Campus, Inc.		04/28/2008
Summary:	According to Halliburton, Cisneros had previously "falsely" stated that Halliburton was sexually harassing her. Halliburton presented deposition testimony from other Halliburton employees including Katrina Shdeed, Manuel Gallegos and Terrence Peterson. Gallegos heard Halliburton complaining about these matters several months before his termination, and he believed Halliburton complained too much and there was no other reason he could think of as to why Halliburton would be fired. Remington thereafter moved for clarification, correction and/or reconsideration of the court's March 2006 order, arguing Remington was not named as a party to Halliburton's defamation cause of action. Background In March 2005, Halliburton served discovery on Remington including special and form interrogatories and a request for production of documents.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because causes of action based on defamation are not barred by the exclusive remedy provision, summary judgement was improper in response to claimant's wrongful discharge and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
Citation:	D049223
WCC Citation:	WCC 33502008 CA

Case Name:	Halverson v. Orange County Employees Retirement System		01/27/2011
Summary:	JANET R. HALVERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION The Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS) adopted a referee's recommendation made following an administrative hearing and denied the application of Janet R. Halverson for service-connected and nonservice-connected disability retirement. Halverson began working for the County of Orange in September 1980. Dr. Savarirayan found Halverson to be anxious and depressed, prescribed Paxil, and placed Halverson on disability for one month. (Curtis v. Board of Retirement (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 293, 297, quoting Mansperger v. Public Employees' Retirement System (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 873, 876. )
Note:	Substantial evidence that a public guardian was able to return to work supported the Orange County Employees' Retirement System's denial of her request for disability-related retirement benefits.
Citation:	G042276
WCC Citation:	WCC 37082011 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton v. WCAB		05/04/1979
Summary:	In 1975, two years after his retirement, Hamilton entered Kaiser hospital for a routine examination. Instead he said 'lay off the booze,' and recommended a 'dry-out clinic' to which Hamilton went for three or four days. But Hamilton did not stop drinking, at least until about a year after he had filed his claim for workers' compensation. 'Review of records: I reviewed all of the records that were sent to me regarding Mr. Hamilton. These records confirm the fact that Mr. Hamilton did indeed begin to have intermittent hypertension since the middle of the 1960's.
Note:	Presumption must be supported by evidence of causal connection between employment and injury.
Citation:	93 Cal.App.3d 587, 44 CCC 520
WCC Citation:	WCC 4141979 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton vs. Lockheed Corp.		04/30/2001
Summary:	Applicant sustained admitted cumulative industrial injury to the psyche from December 1990 through September 30, 1992. After applicant's evaluation by an A m , the matter was submitted for decision "on the record' at the hearing of July 25, 2000. Filed behind the minutes is a large collection of documents with numbered tabs, which include medical reports and deposition transcripts. There is no way to ascertain which, if any of them, were admitted into evidence. In reliance upon same the Court is of the opinion that applicant is totally (100%) disabled due to her employment at Lockheed Corporation from 12/90 to 9/30/92.
Note:	Minimum necessary to be in Board file for case to be submitted for decision.
Citation:	66 CCC 473
WCC Citation:	WCC 29052001 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton vs. Martinelli & Assoc.		07/23/2003
Summary:	BARBARA ANN HAMILTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARTINELLI & ASSOCIATES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Introduction Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Ronald Martinelli (Martinelli) and Martinelli & Associates Justice Consultants, Inc. (Martinelli & Associates) (collectively defendants), on plaintiff's complaint for personal injuries based on negligence and intentional tort. Defendant Martinelli instructed the course on behalf of Martinelli & Associates. Martinelli and one of his assistants instructed the course through Martinelli & Associates, under contract with the Department. She said Martinelli "harbored bitter feelings against [her] based on a prior dispute" and displayed "reckless and vindictive" indifference to her safety.
Note:	No duty owed to a peace officer who is engaged in training to meet an emergency situation.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 1012
WCC Citation:	WCC 29512003 CA

Case Name:	Hamp v. Harrison Patterson O'Connor & Kinkead, LLP		12/18/2012
Summary:	HAMP v. HARRISON PATTERSON O'CONNOR & KINKEAD, LLP RICHARD HAMP, SR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HARRISON PATTERSON O'CONNOR & KINKEAD, LLP et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Richard Hamp, Sr. , (Hamp) sued Harrison Patterson O'Connor & Kinkead, LLP, its successor Harrison Patterson & O'Connor, LLP, and Harry W. Harrison (collectively Harrison) for alleged deficiencies in Harrison's representation of Hamp in an employment action. Hamp subsequently hired Harrison to represent him in an employment action against Hanson. After a failed settlement attempt, Harrison withdrew from representing Hamp in May 2010 and Hamp obtained new counsel. Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 658, upon which Harrison relies, is distinguishable.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal revived an injured worker's malpractice claim against his former attorney, ruling that the action was not subject to dismissal as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Citation:	D061276
WCC Citation:	WCC 39582012 CA