Case Name:	Kaplan v. Reiner		09/16/2010
Summary:	Kaplan works with the law firm of Graiwer & Kaplan. On September 18, 2009, Kaplan filed a motion for a harassment restraining order ( 527. 6) against Reiner, who was then the opposing counsel on a case. Reiner and a process server barged into the office of Kaplan's husband, attorney Gary Kaplan, who was on the telephone with a client at the time. Reiner then explained that an employee of Kaplan's firm held the door to the offices open for Reiner and the process server to enter. At the hearing on the petition for restraining order, Reiner called Kaplan as a hostile witness.
Note:	The California 2nd District Court of Appeals last week upheld a restraining order filed against a defense attorney who allegedly barged into the inner offices of a Los Angeles applicants' law firm and threw subpoenas onto the desks of two opposing attorneys.
Citation:	B220426
WCC Citation:	WCC 36692010 CA

Case Name:	Karaiskos vs. Metagenics		07/27/2004
Summary:	In that decision, the Court held that the Employment Development Department's (EDD's) lien is an obligation to a state because the EDD is a department of the State of California. Hence, its lien claim is not "covered claim" that CIGA is required to pay. The Court reversed the Appeals Board's decision of July 15, 2002 and remanded the matter here for further proceedings in accordance with the Court's opinion. The California Insurance Guarantee Association is not required to make payment to the Employment Development Department. "WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD (EN BANC) MERLE C. RABINE, Chairman WILLIAM K. O'BRIEN, Commissioner JAMES C. CUNEO, Commissioner FRANK M. BRASS, Commissioner JANICE J. MURRAY, Commissioner RONNIE G. CAPLANE, Commissioner DATED AND FILED IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA July 27, 2004 ---------------------------- FOOTNOTES .
Note:	Board on Remittitur from Appellate Court holds CIGA exempt from EDD lien.
Citation:	68 CCC 772; En Banc
WCC Citation:	WCC 30162004 CA

Case Name:	Karaiskos vs. Metagenics, etc., et. al.		07/15/2002
Summary:	In Karaiskos v. Metagenics, Inc. (AHM 0070712), the applicant's claim was settled by Compromise and Release (C&R) with the carrier left to litigate EDD's lien. On March 13, 2001, the WCJ found in relevant part that CIGA may be required to make payment to the EDD. As argued by the [EDD], this is actually money that is reimbursed into the account held by a particular applicant. As in Karaiskos, it was subsequently determined that an en banc decision would be appropriate, and the parties were provided an opportunity to file supplemental briefs. As noted in the Karaiskos case, Cal Comp was declared insolvent on September 26, 2000, and CIGA became responsible for its covered claims.
Note:	EDD unemployment compensation disability liens are
Citation:	67 CCC (2002) (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28692002 CA

Case Name:	Katzin v. WCAB		04/16/1992
Summary:	Katzin had sought reconsideration of an order by the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) that Katzin pay approximately $15,400 in medical-legal expenses incurred by applicant, Janee Guerra. She later filed and served on Katzin an amended application alleging that Katzin was the employer and that he did business as Professional Designers. Although the letter lists Katzin as a party being served with a copy of the letter, Katzin asserts in his verified petition for writ of review that the reports were not served on him. Katzin states his reason for not appearing at the trial was his mistaken belief that UEF would represent his interests. The WCJ concluded Katzin had adequate notice regarding the content of those reports, however, because one of the defense medical reports served on Katzin by UEF extensively reviewed applicant's medical evidence.
Note:	Employer denied due process b/c no notice of applicant's other industrial injuries.
Citation:	5 Cal.App.4th 703,57 CCC 230
WCC Citation:	WCC 26321992 CA

Case Name:	Keeler v. AIG Domestic Claims		12/19/2011
Summary:	KAREN KEELER et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents; GARY JANICH et al. , Objectors and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Karen Keeler brought a class action lawsuit against AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. , and other related companies, on behalf of AIG workers' compensation insurance claims adjusters. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2008, Karen Keeler filed a class action complaint against AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. , AIG Insurance Company, AIG Claims Services, Inc. , AIG Claims Services, and AIG Corporation (collectively AIG). Keeler was a workers' compensation insurance claims adjuster for AIG. The notice further specified that the release would apply to claims, known or unknown, based on the claims alleged in the complaint, including FLSA claims.
Note:	A Los Angeles trial court did not err when it approved a $1.4 million class action wage-and-hour settlement between AIG and its former adjusters.
Citation:	B226691
WCC Citation:	WCC 38342011 CA

Case Name:	Kelley v. Conco Companies et al.		06/06/2011
Summary:	KELLEY v. CONCO COMPANIES PATRICK C. KELLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE CONCO COMPANIES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION BRUINIERS, J. Patrick Kelley was an apprentice ironworker employed by respondent The Conco Companies (Conco). To get work, Kelley would contact companies such as Conco directly and, once hired, he would inform the union and obtain a dispatch slip. Rather, Conco discharged Kelley because he had been suspended by the union and Kelley has not produced evidence that would support an inference that Conco contributed to the union's decision to suspend Kelley. Kelley testified that a coworker had expressed concern to Kelley about the incident and Kelley saw that coworker talk to Gallegos before Gallegos spoke to Kelley.
Note:	An employer can be liable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for coworkers' retaliatory conduct toward an employee who complained about what he believed was same-sex sexual harassment, California's 1st District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	A126865
WCC Citation:	WCC 37692011 CA

Case Name:	Kelly v. County of Los Angeles		07/26/2006
Summary:	Kelly's Employment with the County of Los Angeles Consta Kelly began working as a licensed vocational nurse (LVN) for the Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center (RLAMC), a Los Angeles County hospital, in 1979 and concurrently became a member of the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA). The plan was silent as to whether the objective was to retrain Kelly for placement in another position with Los Angeles County or in private employment. Kelly's and Los Angeles County's Petitions for Writ of Mandate Seeking to Compel LACERA to Find Kelly Permanently Disabled Both Kelly and Los Angeles County filed petitions for writ of mandate in the trial court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 seeking to compel LACERA to reverse its ruling and find Kelly eligible for a disability retirement. Neither Kelly nor Los Angeles County appealed from the judgment. To be sure, the written vocational rehabilitation plan agreed to by RLAMC and Kelly is silent as to whether the plan's objective includes retraining Kelly for placement in a position with Los Angeles County.
Note:	That the employee lacked employment-related income following the cessation of her vocational rehabilitation benefits was due to her own inaction, rather than the result of a termination.
Citation:	141 Cal.App.4th 910
WCC Citation:	WCC 31712006 CA

Case Name:	Kemps v. Beshwate		12/30/2009
Summary:	Facts and Procedural History Defendant and respondent Richard A. Beshwate represented a defendant, Timothy Young, in a multiple-murder case in Tulare County. Kemps is the owner of Sierra Valley Medico, Inc. , apparently a company providing medical examinations in workers' compensation cases. Respondents contend, in essence, that they thought Kemps was the office manager for Dr. Heller, that various of them spoke to Kemps prior to the trial, and that Weber served her with a trial subpoena. The parties agree, however, that when Kemps failed to appear to testify, Beshwate applied for and obtained a warrant for her arrest. Kemps opposed the motion, contending that respondents' conduct was not protected activity because it was unlawful as a matter of law.
Note:	The absolute privilege from tort liability, except for claims of malicious prosecution, established by Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), applies to statements made to the authorities in order to obtain the arrest of a person, even where that person has no connection whatsoever to any pending litigation.
Citation:	F056377
WCC Citation:	WCC 35882009 CA

Case Name:	Kenai Drilling, etc. v. WCAB		04/20/1998
Summary:	Kenai Drilling, National Union Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Harold Vastbinder, Respondents. Applicant was injured while working for Defendant Kenai Drilling Co. on November 7, 1992. Findings & Award issued on December 11, 1995, ruling that Applicant was entitled to Temporary Disability from February 23, 1994 to February 8, 1995. Applicant claimed that VRMA payments were due at the Temporary Total Disability rate following Defendant's delay pursuant to LC 4642. WCAB granted Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, but denied Defendant's Petition.
Note:	Employer liable for retroactive maintenance allowance when they failed to given applicant notice of right to rehab.; duty extends to employers despite applicant's representation by attorney.
Citation:	63 CCC 643
WCC Citation:	WCC 27981998 CA

Case Name:	Kennedy v. MUFG Union Bank		01/15/2020
Summary:	.             E070775 .             (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1615472) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. INTRODUCTION .           Plaintiff and appellant, Denise Kennedy,filed a civil action against defendants and respondents, MUFG Union Bank (Union Bank) and Vicki Gomez (collectively, defendants), which alleged various claims arising out of her former employment with Union Bank. While on disability leave, her position was eliminated as part of a regionwide restructuring by Union Bank. Plaintiff alleged she was an African-American woman who had been employed as a customer service manager for Union Bank for over 14 years. She stated that it was her understanding that she remained an employee of Union Bank until the time of her resignation.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the dismissal of a bank employee’s claims for disability discrimination, finding her voluntary resignation as part of a workers’ compensation settlement precluded any claim of wrongful termination.
Citation:	No. E070775
WCC Citation:	No. E070775

Case Name:	Kerley vs. WCAB		03/01/1971
Summary:	LONNIE EUGENE KERLEY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GENERAL CABLE COMPANY, Respondents. OPINION BURKE, J. Petitioner Lonnie Eugene Kerley seeks review of a decision, after reconsideration, of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, refusing to assess a 10 percent penalty against respondent employer, General Cable Company, for unreasonable delay in paying compensation. Upon leaving the plant that afternoon, petitioner noticed stiffness in his upper back and numbness in his left leg. The following day, Friday, in the absence of Dr. King, the orthopedist who performed the February surgery, petitioner consulted Dr. Branick. At the conclusion of the hearing, the referee indicated that he intended to find petitioner's condition permanent and stationary.
Note:	The only excuse for delay in payment of benefits is genuine doubt from a medical or legal standpoint; burden on employer to present substantial evidence of such.
Citation:	4 Cal.3d 223
WCC Citation:	WCC 30151971 CA

Case Name:	Kerner v. Superior Court of LA County		05/21/2012
Summary:	KERNER v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LISA KERNER, Petitioner,v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; RICHARD M. WIDOM, Real Party in Interest. STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WIDOM, WOOLVERTON & MUEHL et al. , Petitioners,v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; RICHARD M. WIDOM, Real Party in Interest. Ct. L. A. County, No. BD501681)) and obtained a temporary restraining order against Widom based on allegations of domestic violence. According to a later declaration by McCloskey, her firm began representing Kerner and George ceased his representation of Kerner on that same date. They stated further that Defendants' co-counsel Sedwick LLP also represented Kerner and that the objection was asserted on behalf of both Defendants and Kerner.
Note:	A California appellate court has published a 64-page decision overturning four pre-trial rulings in a long-running dispute between Los Angeles workers' compensation defense attorney Richard Widom, his former law firm and his ex-wife, who has twice accused him of beating her.
Citation:	B233918
WCC Citation:	WCC 38982012 CA

Case Name:	Keulen v. WCAB.		09/23/1998
Summary:	Al Keulen, Jr. (Keulen) petitions this court for a writ of review of the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or the Board) denying reconsideration of its decision that Keulen only suffered a 2. 25 percent permanent disability from industrial injury to his left thumb. Keulen objected to Doctor Mooney's findings and requested an agreed medical examiner pursuant to section 4062. Keulen arranged for his own qualified medical evaluator, Doctor Donald R. Schwartz, to conduct a comprehensive medical evaluation. When Doctor Schwartz examined Keulen, Keulen reported that the pain restricted his activities upwards of 70 percent of the day, and that he had to alter the way he uses his left arm and hand. He determined that Keulen did not sustain injury resulting in ulnar neuropathy, but that Keulen is in need of future medical care.
Note:	New, uncontested med. evidence rebutted presumption that treating physician's findings were correct; Earlier treating physician's opinion no less relevant than QME's.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.4th 1089, 63 CCC 1125
WCC Citation:	WCC 24121998 CA

Case Name:	Key Energy Services, Inc. v. Cal. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Bd.		02/22/2018
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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; .             DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. .             F073567 .             (Super. Ct. No. S-1500-CV283958) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. .           -ooOoo- .           An employer appeals from the denial of its petition for a writ of mandate. .           _____________________ HILL, P. J. .           WE CONCUR: .           _____________________ GOMES, J.
Note:
Citation:	F073567
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. S-1500-CV283958

Case Name:	Khoury v. Martha		02/08/2010
Summary:	Filed 2/8/10 Khoury v. Martha CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO MASHHOUR KHOURY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MAHER MARTHA, Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. SCV236372) Mashhour Khoury sued Maher Martha for negligence and failure to hold workers compensation insurance after he fell through a ceiling at the premises of a disbanded bakery where he had previously been employed by Martha. He appeals from a judgment in favor of Martha on a jury verdict finding Martha was not negligent and appellant was not working as an employee at the time of the accident. Nimer Martha ( Nimer ), Mahers first cousin and the husband of Mahers sister, worked at the bakery as a delivery person.
Note:	A Sonoma County Superior Court did not err by admitting evidence of a plaintiff's prior work-related drug use at trial.
Citation:	A120651
WCC Citation:	WCC 35962010 CA

Case Name:	Kielar v. Metropolitan Museum of Art		10/28/2008
Summary:	Kielar v Metropolitan Museum of Art NY Slip Op 08177 Decided on October 28, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. 4402A 115524/04 591277/04 [*1]Wioleta Kielar, etc. , et al. , Plaintiffs-Respondents, v The Metropolitan Museum of Art, et al. , Defendants-Appellants, Total Safety Consulting, L. L. C. , Defendant. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, R. Smith Restoration, Inc. , Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. Bivona & Cohen, P. C. , New York (Curtis B. Gilfillan of counsel), for appellants and appellant-respondent. The motion court properly granted the museum and the City summary judgment on their contractual indemnity claims in view of the employer's indemnification agreement with the museum and the City.
Note:	The museum did not have actual or constructive notice of any unsafe practices, and no issues of fact as to whether the museum was affirmatively negligent are otherwise raised.
Citation:	4402 4402A 115524/04 591277/04
WCC Citation:	WCC 34422008 CA

Case Name:	Kifle-Thompson v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners		07/20/2012
Summary:	In August 2008 the Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) issued a decision revoking Aster Kifle-Thompson's chiropractic license. (Kazensky v. City of Merced (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 44, 52; see also Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners (1984) 32 Cal. 2d 301, 308-309. )The Board granted Kifle-Thompson a chiropractic license in 1993, after she received a Doctor of Chiropractic (DC) degree that year. Kifle-Thompson argues the Board also exceeded its jurisdiction because the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had already adjudicated claims raised by insurer or lien-claimants with respect to the billings examined by the Board. F.  Bias of Board Members Kifle-Thompson argues the Board acted improperly because it did not afford her a fair hearing in accordance with due process.
Note:	The Board of Chiropractic Examiners did not err when it upheld an administrative law judge's recommendation to revoke the license of a chiropractor who conspired to defraud insurance companies.
Citation:	A130819
WCC Citation:	WCC 39142012 CA

Case Name:	King v. CompPartners, Inc.		01/05/2016
Summary:	Filed 1/5/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             KIRK KING et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             COMPPARTNERS, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             E063527 .             (Super. Ct. No. RIC1409797) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. .             Murchison & Cumming, William D. Naeve, Ellen M. Tipping and Terry L. Kesinger for Defendants and Respondent. .           CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION .           MILLER J. .           We concur: .           McKINSTER Acting P. J.
Note:
Citation:	E063527
WCC Citation:	Super.Ct.No. RIC1409797

Case Name:	King v. WCAB		07/03/1991
Summary:	JEWELL KING, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LYNWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondents. Dr. Curtis reported that the symptoms associated with those disorders were largely transitory and did not contribute to applicant's depression. Dr. Dean Wiese, an internist, noted that applicant was treated for hypertension and congestive heart failure in 1980 and 1982. Dr. Scott concluded applicant's conflict with and harassment by Ms. Webb exacerbated applicant's preexisting hypertension, causing shortness of breath, dizziness, and fatigue. Dr. Scott recommended that applicant be permanently limited to light work with a minimum of physical effort and no stress.
Note:	Apportionment to preexisting disability must be based on evidence that preexisting condition was labor disabling.
Citation:	231 Cal.App.3d 1640, 56 CCC 408
WCC Citation:	WCC 24761991 CA

Case Name:	Kinsman v. Unocal Corp.		12/19/2005
Summary:	Kinsman argued that given industry knowledge, Unocal should have warned Kinsman's employer or adopted various safety measures. But Unocal argued that Kinsman was not exposed to levels of asbestos that were considered unsafe at the time. Kinsman, in closing argument, pointed to the lack of evidence that Unocal complied with the industry standards, as well as testimony questioning the validity of those standards. Kinsman submitted his case on two theories of liability: first, a premises liability theory, that Unocal was negligent in the use, maintenance, or management of the areas where Kinsman worked; second, that Unocal was negligent in the exercise of retained control over the methods of the work or the manner of the work performed by Kinsman. It assigned Unocal 15 percent of the fault in causing Kinsman's mesothelioma, with the remaining 85 percent of fault attributable to "all others," and awarded Kinsman over $3 million in compensatory damages against Unocal.
Note:	Landowner hiring independent contractor liable for injuries if landowner knows about and fails to warn contractor of hazardous condition.
Citation:	37 Cal. 4th 659
WCC Citation:	WCC 31332005 CA

Case Name:	Kirby v. Contra Costa Water District		09/07/2017
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD  STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             TIMOTHYKIRBY, Applicant, .             v. .             CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by YORK RISK SERVICES, Defendants~ .             Case No. ADJ10289629 (Oakland District Office) .             OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION .             We granted Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. .             We received a Report and Reco~endation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) from the WCJ recommending the Petition be denied. .           After examining applicant and reviewing the medical record, Dr. Poston stated: .           "Mr. Kirby's psychiatric condition is such he would be expected to have some difficulty performing in the workplace, but not ·to the extent he is seen as totally or partially disabled. .           For the foregoing reasons, .           IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings, Award and Order issued by the WCJ on November 29, 2016 is AFFIRMED. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           DEIDRA E. LOWE .           I CONCUR, .           MARGUERJTE SWEENEY .           JOSE H. RAZO .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           SEP 0 7 2017 Defendant e-filed a Petition For Leave to File a Reply to Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration and subsequently filed the petition with the WCAB.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ10289629
WCC Citation:	ADJ10289629

Case Name:	Kirk v. First American Title Insurance Co.		04/07/2010
Summary:	PATRICK KIRK et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Appellants. The Underlying Litigation The instant attorney disqualification dispute arose in the context of four related class actions brought against First American Title Insurance Company and related First American entities (collectively, First American). Together, the First American team has defended First American in 80 class actions across the country, and has also been retained to give legal advice to First American. The First American Team Moves to Sonnenschein On February 2, 2009, the First American team moved from Bryan Cave to Sonnenschein. First American also submitted the declaration of its senior vice-president and national litigation counsel, who testified to the key experience of the First American team and their irreplaceability.
Note:	We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, automatic vicarious disqualification is not required, and that, instead, there is a rebuttable presumption that the attorney's knowledge of client confidences is imputed to the firm, which can be refuted by evidence that the law firm adequately screened the attorney from the others at the firm representing the adverse party. In addition, as the disqualified attorney has left the firm, the trial court's examination of the screen's adequacy should be on a retrospective, not prospective, basis.
Citation:	B218956
WCC Citation:	WCC 37322010 CA

Case Name:	Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management		06/26/2017
Summary:	Filed 6/26/17 Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(a). 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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             VALERIE KIZER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. .           Plaintiffs and appellants Valerie Kizer and Sharal Williams (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this putative class action against their former employer, defendant and respondent Tristar Risk Management (Tristar), alleging Tristar failed to pay Plaintiffs and its other claims examiners overtime compensation because it misclassified them as exempt from California’s overtime laws. I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .           Tristar provides third party risk management services, including claims adjusting and administrative services, with specialization in handling worker’s compensation and general liability claims. .           Plaintiffs presented evidence showing the standardized job description Tristar applied to claims examiners and the standardized procedures Tristar used to supervise its claims examiners.
Note:
Citation:	G052558
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00707394

Case Name:	Klee v. WCAB		07/12/1989
Summary:	FAYE KLEE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, McDONALD'S et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Abbe, J. , with Stone (S. Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe, Charles E. Finster, Miller & Folse, Deborah L. Gilman and David J. DePaolo for Respondents. 1 At the trial of the permanent disability indemnity issue, applicant Faye Klee testified about specific and cumulative industrial injuries to her back and neck while employed by McDonald's. Two physicians opined in essence that applicant is totally permanently disabled and unable to compete in the open labor market. We denied the petition, concluding that viewed in the light of the entire record, there was substantial evidence of total permanent disability.
Note:	WCAB's order annulled when prior writs were attempts to delay payment.
Citation:	211 Cal.App.3d 1519, 54 CCC 251
WCC Citation:	WCC 26291989 CA

Case Name:	Kleeman v. WCAB		03/02/2005
Summary:	Kleemann petitioned respondent, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), for a ruling that new Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664 did not apply but the WCAB remanded to the WCJ for a final decision. Accordingly, the decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. *FN 1 Kleemann petitioned the WCAB for removal, *FN 2 alleging that the WCJ's retroactive application of apportionment under new sections 4663 and 4664 would cause irreparable harm. The WCAB expressly declined to decide whether new sections 4663 and 4664 applied. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	SB 899 apportionment applies prospectively from the date of enactment of S.B. 899, regardless of the date of injury.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 274
WCC Citation:	WCC 30972005 CA

Case Name:	Kleinman v. California State Personnel Board		03/20/2012
Summary:	SUSAN KLEINMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Susan Kleinman (Kleinman) appeals a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, defendant and respondent California State Personnel Board (the Board). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1994, Kleinman began working at the Board as an administrative law judge (ALJ). Following Kleinman's rejection of the offer, the Board continued to interact with Kleinman about the offer and other alternatives. On September 21, 2009, Kleinman responded, requesting that the Board file for disability retirement on her behalf.
Note:	An administrative law judge attempting to return to work after suffering a back injury failed to raise a triable issue as to the reasonableness of her employer's effort to accommodate her.
Citation:	B226239
WCC Citation:	WCC 38712012 CA

Case Name:	Kmart Corp. v. Lewis Brisbois et al		07/19/2010
Summary:	KMART CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP et al. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Jana I. Lubert, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Respondent Kmart Corporation sued its former attorneys, Appellant Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, for professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Kmart's complaint included allegations that, while representing Kmart in a related matter, Appellant filed a declaratory relief action on behalf of an insurer whose interests were adverse to Kmart. Although Kmart notified National Union of the lawsuit, Kmart retained its own counsel and did not involve National Union in the litigation.
Note:	An appellate court denied Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP's motion to strike its former client's malpractice complaint based on the firm's role in complex personal injury litigation.
Citation:	B209833
WCC Citation:	WCC 36492010 CA

Case Name:	KMS Courier, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.		11/30/2007
Summary:	APPEAL from a judgment of dismissal of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan M. Lewis, Judge. The Plaintiffs are employee-based courier service providers that do business throughout California. We decline to consider their arguments to this effect raised for the first time in their reply brief. Although the Plaintiffs point out that the Unfair Practices Act is to be liberally construed to promote its purposes (Bus. Finally, the Plaintiffs contend in passing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying them leave to amend.
Note:	[Unpublished] Standing alone, the Customer Defendants' requests for bids from, and entrance into service contracts with, the Plaintiffs' competitors do not constitute solicitations of a violation of the Unfair Practices Act.
Citation:	D049775
WCC Citation:	WCC 32842007 CA

Case Name:	Knight v. United Parcel Service		10/12/2006
Summary:	AHM 127807 AHM 129147 BRUCE KNIGHT, Applicant, vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE; and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. FACTS In 1973, applicant was first employed as a delivery person/driver with United Parcel Service (UPS), insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty). "As Mr. Knight was aware the MPN was in place and elected to treat with you anyway, we are considering any and all treatment with you self-procured. Therefore, Mr. Knight will be responsible for all medical treatment and service charges. "Also be advised that if Mr. Knight elects to continue treatment with you, he will be responsible for all medical treatment and service charges. "
Note:	Employer or insurer's failure to provide required notice to an employee of rights under the MPN that results in a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment renders the employer or insurer liable for reasonable medical treatment self-procured by the employee.
Citation:	71 CCC 1423 (2006)
WCC Citation:	WCC 31862006 CA

Case Name:	Knopfer v. Flournoy		09/20/1973
Summary:	JACK KNOPFER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HOUSTON I. FLOURNOY, as State Controller, et al. , Defendants and Respondents (Opinion by Friedman, J. , with Richardson, P. J. , and Janes, J. , concurring. ). . . ' In this mandate action appellants complain that the State Controller is making unauthorized deductions from the payments directed by section 4800. This cryptic allegation is the only hint in the record or briefs that income tax withholding may be involved. Federal and state tax agencies are not parties to this litigation and questions of taxability have not been briefed. We do not decide whether the payments in question are subject to federal or state income taxation or income tax withholding.
Note:	Payments made in lieu of disability payments indemnify him for work-connected disability.
Citation:	34 Cal.App.3d 318, 38 CCC 913
WCC Citation:	WCC 27071973 CA

Case Name:	Koch v. Markel Insurance Co., et al.		01/26/2011
Summary:	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS WOODS, J. Blake Koch sued his business liability insurer, Markel Insurance Company (Markel), for refusing to defend or indemnify him in a personal injury lawsuit. Kopstein told Koch that he wanted to sell Koch insurance coverage for Koch's new business and property and represented to Koch that selling garage policies was a specialized area of insurance in which he and Blum were well qualified because of their extensive experience. Had the Blum Defendants advised Koch that he required different or additional coverage, Koch would have purchased it. B. Koch Divides His Business In early 2003, Koch sought to expand his business by purchasing another garage called Adair's Automotive. After Markel denied coverage, Koch asked Kopstein what had gone wrong, and Kopstein replied it appeared Koch had bought the wrong policy.
Note:	The owner of an auto repair shop sufficiently alleged a number of causes of action against his broker and business liability insurer for a coverage gap that left him uncovered against a personal injury suit.
Citation:	B213610
WCC Citation:	WCC 37062011 CA

Case Name:	Kohler vs. Interstate Brands Corp.		11/25/2002
Summary:	RENAE KOHLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. [103 Cal. App. 4th 1098] OPINION ROBIE, J. - In this action for gender-based harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Interstate Brands Corporation (Interstate) on the ground plaintiff Renae Kohler (Kohler) had released Interstate from liability for her FEHA claim by signing a standard workers' compensation compromise and release agreement releasing "all claims and causes of action" against Interstate. Kohler appeals, arguing the broad language of the workers' compensation release was not sufficient to release her civil claims against Interstate. While working at Interstate, she claims she was physically and verbally harassed by fellow Interstate employee Ralph Gallego. 1 Paragraph 3 states "said employee [Kohler] releases and forever discharges said employer [Interstate] .
Note:	Broad settlement language in C&R sufficient to cover previously undisclosed FEHA claim.
Citation:	103 Cal.App.4th 1096
WCC Citation:	WCC 29772002 CA

Case Name:	Konig v. State Bar of California		09/28/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE No. A113742 September 28, 2007 ALAN KONIG, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Plaintiff is a former attorney on the staff of the State Bar of California (State Bar). His complaint alleges that he became aware of unethical and improper conduct by judges of the State Bar Court (Bar Court). For example, plaintiff alleges that, "[b]eginning in or about May 2003, Plaintiff repeatedly advised Defendants of rulings and orders in several State Bar Court matters that violated Defendant STATE BAR's state and federal constitutional rights, violated witnesses' state and federal constitutional rights, and disregarded binding precedent, including that of the California Supreme Court. "The State Bar argues that because the individual defendants obtained a judgment against plaintiff, the State Bar, as employer of those defendants, can assert the preclusive effect of the judgment.
Note:	[Unpublished] A negative employment action motivated by retaliation for an employee's efforts to report unethical or improper judicial behavior would fall outside the exclusive remedy provisions of workers' compensation because such conduct violates public policy. However, the collateral estoppel effect of the district court's decision precludes any claim that defendants' actions were so motivated.
Citation:	A113742
WCC Citation:	WCC 32632007 CA

Case Name:	Kopitske v. WCAB		08/24/1999
Summary:	Victoria Kopitske (Kopitske) petitions for review of the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration of its ruling that the penalty assessed for unreasonable delay in paying PDA should only be against VRMA supplemented by PDA, and not against PD. [74 Cal. App. 4th 627] We annul the order and direct the WCAB to enter a new order assessing the penalty against PD. Kopitske chose to enter vocational rehabilitation (VR) and received vocational rehabilitation temporary disability (VRTD) payments of $372 per week. Because Kopitske had received VRMA of $11,300 and PDA of $5,800 for a total of $17,100, the 10 percent penalty assessed was $1,710. The WCAB denied reconsideration of the decision and Kopitske petitioned this court for review.
Note:	Failure to pay PDA on request while applicant in rehab results in penalty against PD.
Citation:	74 Cal.App.4th 623, 64 CCC 972
WCC Citation:	WCC 3811999 CA

Case Name:	Kopping v. WCAB		09/11/2006
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1996, Kopping injured his spine while working as a traffic officer for the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The parties stipulated that the injury caused permanent disability of 29 percent, and Kopping was awarded $20,357. 50 in permanent disability benefits. Kopping filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board challenging the WCJ's construction of section 4664(b). Thus, the Board returned this case to the WCJ to determine whether Kopping had disproved (or could disprove) overlap, not to allow Kopping to prove medical rehabilitation from the disabling effects of his earlier injury. Kopping petitioned this court for a writ of review of the Board's decision after reconsideration, which we granted to consider the intended meaning of section 4664(b).
Note:	If section 4664(b) is understood as representing the Legislatures common sense recognition that there can be no recovery from a permanent disability, then there is no inconsistency between that statute and section 4664(a).
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 1099
WCC Citation:	WCC 31812006 CA

Case Name:	Koscki v. Herbert		10/12/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAURA C. KOSCKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GERALD HENRY HERBERT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Laura C. Koscki was seriously injured when her coworker, Gerald Henry Herbert, negligently operated a tractor-trailer rig, causing it to leave the roadway. Koscki sued Herbert and their employer, Consolidated Freightways Corporation (Consolidated), for her injuries. Herbert requested the trial court take judicial notice of these documents to establish that Koscki had filed a workers' compensation claim. Koscki admitted in her moving papers that her injuries arose out of her employment and that Herbert was her coemployee.
Note:	[Unpublished] It is reasonably probable that the claimant could have have cured the defect in her complaint through amendment.
Citation:	F051098
WCC Citation:	WCC 32662007 CA

Case Name:	Koscki v. Herbert		05/26/2010
Summary:	Plaintiff Laura Koscki appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted the summary judgment motion of defendants Gerald Henry Herbert (Herbert) and Consolidated Freightways Corporation (Consolidated). From our nonpublished opinion (Koscki v. Herbert et al. (Oct. 12, 2007, F051098), to be discussed below, it appears that Koscki filed a form complaint alleging that Herbert's negligent operation of the tractor caused her injuries. It also objected to various exhibits submitted by Koscki as lacking in relevance, as inadmissible hearsay, and on the ground that Koscki failed to provide a foundation to establish the documents were as claimed by Koscki. And, as Koscki admitted, attempts were made to reimburse Koscki for these payments, although Koscki found the attempts unsatisfactory. Koscki did not allege her action against Herbert was not precluded by Labor Code section 3601, subdivision (a).
Note:	[Unpublished] Claim barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, because injury occurred within course and scope of employment while employer was actively insured.
Citation:	F057422
WCC Citation:	WCC 36312010 CA

Case Name:	Kosowski v. WCAB		07/25/1985
Summary:	RICHARD KOSOWSKI, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF SANTA ROSA et al. , Respondents. Kosowski was paid full salary, in lieu of temporary disability, beginning August 4, 1980, pursuant to section 4850. When an orthopedic surgeon, after an examination of Kosowski at the request of City, reported he was permanent and stationary and could not return to work, City instituted disability retirement proceedings. Kosowski was involuntarily retired for disability on April 6, 1981, and payment of his full salary was terminated on April 30, 1981. Kosowski sought reconsideration, which the Board granted for further study of 'an issue of first impression. '
Note:	Employer may credit amounts independently earned by employee during leave against disability liabilities.
Citation:	170 Cal.App.3d 632, 50 CCC 427
WCC Citation:	WCC 24591985 CA

Case Name:	Koszdin v. SCIF		07/06/2010
Summary:	Ct. No. BC392986) KENTON KOSZDIN et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. [Kenton Koszdin et al. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company (No. BC393290); Gilbert Lipman v. Explorer Insurance Company (No. BC393291); Gilbert Lipman v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (No. BC393292); Kenton Koszdin et al. v. Marriot Claims Services (No. BC393295); Gilbert Lipman v. Stater Bros. Markets (No. BC393296). Kazandjieff & Traney and Nick Kazandjieff; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich; Novak & Ben-Cohen and Pejman Ben-Cohen for Plaintiffs and Appellants Kenton Koszdin and Gilbert Lipman. In this case, the attorney fee awards ordered by the WCAB expressly directed the payment of attorney fees to either Koszdin or Lipman. [3] In the complaints where both Koszdin and Lipman were named as plaintiffs, relief was sought on behalf of both proposed sub-classes.
Note:	A trial court did not have jurisdiction over a suit seeking unpaid interest on Workers' Compensation Appeals Board attorney fee awards because the board did not specify that the awards should include interest, an appellate court ruled.
Citation:	B214481
WCC Citation:	WCC 36472010 CA

Case Name:	Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co.		01/19/1979
Summary:	THOMAS L. KOWALSKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Bird, C. J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Plaintiff, Thomas L. Kowalski, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant, Shell Oil Company, in an action for personal injuries. This court must decide whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that plaintiff was not Shell Oil Company's special employee. On February 1, 1974, Kowalski filed a complaint against Shell and other defendants seeking damages for personal injuries. Shell could also request Peterson to remove an employee whose work Shell found unsatisfactory.
Note:	Since there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Kowalski was not Shell's special employee, the trial court erred in granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Therefore, that judgment is reversed and the trial court is directed to enter judgment for plaintiff.
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 168
WCC Citation:	WCC 39361979 CA

Case Name:	Krause v. WCAB		07/23/2010
Summary:	NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION THE COURT*fn1 Cynthia Krause petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (Krause v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (F049301) (Krause I). )By way of a petition for writ of review, Krause contended the WCAB erred in finding she did not also sustain a psychological injury and by not authorizing a referral for a gastric bypass evaluation. The WCJ also recommended the WCAB impose sanctions against Krause for improperly trying to "`backdoor'" evidence refuting the existence of Wal-Mart's MPN that had not been submitted at trial. As the WCAB concluded, Krause "cannot claim to be aggrieved by the inclusion of AHA at this time. "
Note:	The 5th District Court of Appeal denied an applicant's petition for a writ of review that attempted to continue treatment outside of an insurer's medical provider network.
Citation:	F058778
WCC Citation:	WCC 36512010 CA

Case Name:	Kreigsman v. WCAB		04/10/1993
Summary:	Therefore, our summary of those events is based on the petition for writ of review, the answer to the petition, and the return. As the Stump case progressed, it appeared that the trial was not going to be finished until late in the afternoon. At 3 p. m. , the WCJ referred counsel for Zenith and Attorney Sparagna to PWCJ Bate for a discussion of the situation. On April 15, 1992, PWCJ Bate issued an order allowing Dr. Kriegsman $ 6,895. 06 of his lien claim and denying $ 5,554. 44 of the lien claim. We must therefore remand this matter for further proceedings including a trial on the merits of Dr. Kriegsman's lien claim.
Note:	Lien claimant denied due process by lien reduction with no opportunity to argue for full amount due to scheduling conflict.
Citation:	58 CCC 244
WCC Citation:	WCC 27761993 CA

Case Name:	Kroger Co. v. WCAB (Rodriguez)		10/30/2012
Summary:	KROGER CO. v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD THE KROGER CO. et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, Respondents. The employer, The Kroger Company (Kroger), through its adjustor, Sedgwick CMS (Sedgwick), filed its notice of appeal on November 27, 2007. He apparently sustained a second injury on December 30, 1999; both injuries were admitted and involved as employer a predecessor or subsidiary of petitioner Kroger. According to the WCJ, there was no clear indication that the DOR had ever been filed with the WCAB. We are not bound by determinations of questions of law by the WCAB (Dimmig v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	A Declaration of Readiness to Proceed does not need to be filed along with a notice of appeal challenging a vocational rehabilitation award for the appeal to be effective.
Citation:	B239771
WCC Citation:	WCC 39472012 CA

Case Name:	Kroger Co. v. WCAB (Velasquez)		06/04/2012
Summary:	KROGER COMPANY v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD THE KROGER COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GEORGE VELASQUEZ, Respondents. In practice, parties aggrieved by an award of the Rehabilitation Unit had 20 days within which to file a notice of appeal, which went to the WCAB. The Rehabilitation Unit acknowledged, in writing, that the notice of appeal had been filed with the WCAB. Rather, it was the WCAB position that the award was final because petitioners' appeal was defective and of no effect. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the cause is remanded with directions to proceed with petitioners' appeal to the WCAB as deemed timely filed.
Note:	An employer's failure to file a declaration of readiness to proceed along with its notice of appeal of an administrative ruling did not invalidate its timely filed appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
Citation:	B236608
WCC Citation:	WCC 39022012 CA

Case Name:	Kunz vs. Patterson Floor Coverings		12/05/2002
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SJO 0224503 SCOTT KUNZ, Applicant, vs. PATTERSON FLOOR COVERINGS, INC. ; and GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CO. In the August 9, 2002 decision, the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, Scott Kunz, sustained industrial injury to his left knee on February 3, 2000, while employed as a carpet installer by Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc. , the insured of Golden Eagle Insurance Company ("Golden Eagle"). On April 4, 2001, applicant had left knee surgery, performed by Michael Butcher, M. D. , at Alpine's outpatient surgery center. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 57, 67 [50 Cal. Comp. Cases 411, 418]; Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acc. (Obernier) (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 1204, 1210 [60 Cal. Comp. Cases 289, 291-292]; Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Failure to make specific objection does not waive it; OFMS applies to services prescibed by DR at outpatient center; Outpatient fees must be reasonble.
Citation:	67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588
WCC Citation:	WCC 28982002 CA

Case Name:	L.A. Co. Professional Peace Officers Assoc. v. Co. of L.A.		02/11/2004
Summary:	LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION et al. , Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Respondents. [FN 2] Under the applicable County ordinances, D. A. investigators may accumulate up to 320 hours in current and deferred vacation time. (L. A. County Code, § 6. 20. 070F. 1. ) When Kupper and Layne retired, each was paid back for all accumulated vacation hours. Kupper, Layne, and their union, the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Association (the Association) brought a mandate petition (Code Civ. By failing to make the payment, they alleged, the County violated its obligation to fully compensate them during that period (Lab.
Note:	Accrued vacation time does not count towards 4850 calculation.
Citation:	115 Cal.App.4th 866
WCC Citation:	WCC 29702004 CA

Case Name:	L.A. County Dept. of Parks v. WCAB		06/06/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MERRELL LEE CALVILLO, Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Merrell Lee Calvillo, a cashier/clerk for the Los Angeles County Department of Parks & Recreation (County), injured her neck, back and right knee in a fall at work on September 24, 1997. *fn10 The County petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration and contended that the March 9, 1999, order transformed the March 8, 1999, stipulation into a formal award under Huston v. Workers' Comp. However, the award of attorney's fees under section 5814. 5 should be vacated as contended by the County. The WCAB has original jurisdiction to award temporary total disability indemnity more than five years from the date of injury under State of California v. Ind.
Note:	[Unpublished] The stipulations and order to comply was not a formal award requiring a petition for continuing jurisdiction under the Labor Code.
Citation:	B200215
WCC Citation:	WCC 33812008 CA

Case Name:	L.A. Unified School Dist. v. WCAB		01/11/1984
Summary:	LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RUSSELL L. MATTHEWS, Respondents. Respondent Russell Matthews, employed as a custodian for petitioner Los Angeles Unified School District, suffered industrial injuries during the period of his employment from 1949 through September 22, 1978. Petitioner appealed the order, claiming it was entitled to a credit for retirement disability payments against rehabilitation temporary disability indemnity. In Gorman, an industrially injured police officer took a one-year leave of absence with pay pursuant to section 4850 fn. Respondent, a retired school custodian, is clearly not a 'safety' employee under the terms of sections 4850 et seq. , but rather a school member of PERS whose occupational functions do not involve public safety or law enforcement.
Note:	Applicant entitled to TD indemnity concurrently with PERS retirement payments.
Citation:	150 Cal.App.3d 823, 49 CCC 48
WCC Citation:	WCC 27021984 CA

Case Name:	La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co.		12/19/1994
Summary:	LA JOLLA BEACH AND TENNIS CLUB, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. On May 9, 1986, the Trust tendered defense of the Saleh complaint to its workers' compensation carrier, defendant Industrial Indemnity Company (Industrial) fn. The Current Action On or about August 29, 1990, plaintiff La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club, Inc. , the Trust's successor in interest, and Kellogg (La Jolla) brought this action against Industrial and American. La Jolla appealed solely on the ground that Industrial had a duty to defend under part 1 of the policy, or the workers' compensation coverage. Accordingly, we discuss only those claims by La Jolla against Industrial with regard to the Saleh action.
Note:	Coverage A in a work comp policy does not give rise to duty to defend a civil suit.
Citation:	9 Cal.4th 27
WCC Citation:	WCC 28911994 CA

Case Name:	Laeng vs. WCAB		03/06/1972
Summary:	JOHN L. LAENG, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF COVINA et al. , Respondents In Bank. After granting a petition for reconsideration of the referee's decision, the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), by a 2-1 vote, denied the claimant all compensation benefits; Laeng attacks the decision of the WCAB by the present petition. [6 Cal. 3d 775] Pursuant to these instructions, Laeng, with 13 other applicants who had also successfully completed the written examination, [FN 1] reported to the high school gymnasium. Laeng successfully completed the first three parts of the test and then was directed to participate in the final "obstacle course" phase. Laeng immediately went to his family doctor who, after X-raying the foot referred the patient to an orthopedic surgeon.
Note:	Injury incurred during the 'tryout' phase of employment is compensable.
Citation:	6 Cal.3d 771; 100 Cal.Rptr. 377
WCC Citation:	WCC 30731972 CA