Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library



 
Case Name: Zullo v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County 06/21/2011
Summary: ZULLO v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHARON ELIZABETH ZULLO, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; INLAND VALLEY PUBLISHING CO. , Real Party in Interest. The superior court granted Inland's petition to compel arbitration and stayed the civil proceedings. The superior court rejected the evidentiary challenge and found the agreement was not unconscionable. Petitioner argues that under the facts of this case, the superior court was bound to deny Inland's petition to compel. She further maintains that the superior court erred in overruling her objection that the acknowledgement of receipt was not properly authenticated.
Note: An employer could not force a Fair Employment and Housing Act suit into arbitration, because its arbitration policy was both procedurally and substantively unfair, the 6th District Court of Appeal ruled in an unpublished opinion.
Citation: H036242
WCC Citation: WCC 37752011 CA
 
 
Case Name: Zuniga v. WCAB (Interactive Trucking) 01/23/2018
Summary:  Filed 1/12/18 Zuniga v. WCAB CA1/2 (unmodified opinion)   .  Petitioner Saul Zuniga availed himself of the IMR process and then petitioned the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) to disclose the names of the reviewers. Zuniga points to no authority to suggest that a statute is rendered meaningless simply because his preferred method of enforcing it is unavailable. Under section 4610. 6, subdivision (h), IMR determinations are subject to review, and Zuniga sought, and received, review of the IMR determination in his case.   In claiming that IMR reports are testimonial in character, Zuniga relies on Massachusetts Bonding & Ins.
Note: California’s 1st District Court of Appeal on Friday ruled that injured workers do not have a due process right to know the identifies of the medical professionals performing their independent medical reviews.
Citation: A143290
WCC Citation: WCAB No. ADJ2563341)
 
 
Case Name: Zurich Ins. Co. v. WCAB 08/02/1973
Summary: ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ORLANDO M. CAIRO, Respondents In Bank. He was provided compensation benefits through May 1, 1966, and resumed work at the warehouse on approximately that date. By letter dated December 14, 1970, counsel for petitioner filed written objection in response to the notice of intention. Did the board have the power to amend its awards more than five years after the injuries occurred?The jurisdiction of the appeals board in such cases shall be a [9 Cal. 3d 852] continuing jurisdiction at all times within such period. '
Note: Referee's notice of increased award brought case within 5 yr. statute of limitations.
Citation: 9 Cal.3d 848
WCC Citation: WCC 26601973 CA
 
1693 Results Page 170 of 170