Case Name:	Corgiat v. Stanislaus County Superior Court		04/16/2013
Summary:	CORGIAT v. STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT KAREN CORGIAT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a former employee of the Stanislaus County Superior Court, filed a complaint against the court and three of its employees, alleging they discriminated against her based on physical and mental disability, retaliated against her for complaining about that discrimination, harassed her, and wrongfully constructively terminated her employment. The demurrer was heard on October 12, 2011, by Judge Duane Martin, a retired judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court. (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 211, 219 (Consolidated); McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 297, 303-304 (McDonald). )Thus, defendant superior court is not a person against whom a section 1983 claim may be alleged.
Note:	A disabled former state court employee is getting a second chance to establish the legal sufficiency of her discrimination and retaliation claims since her initial failure to respond to the defendant's demurrer should not have been treated as an admission of the demurrer's merit.
Citation:	F064200
WCC Citation:	WCC 40032013 CA

Case Name:	Correa Pallet, Inc. v. Lambeth		04/24/2008
Summary:	Michelle Lambeth served as the initial president, secretary, and treasurer of the corporate board of directors and Robert Lambeth served as the initial vice-president. Petterson signed the proposal on July 22, 2003 and Martin Correa, a principal of Correa, signed the proposal on August 12, 2003. She heard the arguments of counsel, adopted a tentative ruling, and amended the judgment to include Michelle Lambeth (but not Robert Lambeth) as a judgment debtor. Thus, Michelle Lambeth had the opportunity to control the litigation and Michelle Lambeth signed the settlement agreement. Lambeth presumably refers to the court's April 18, 2007, formal order amending the judgment to include shareholder Michelle Lambeth as a judgment debtor.
Note:	[Unpublished] Alter ego is a limited doctrine, invoked only where recognition of the corporate form would work an injustice to a third person.
Citation:	F052934
WCC Citation:	WCC 33492008 CA

Case Name:	Cortes v. WCAB (Cal. Dept. of Corrections)		09/11/2008
Summary:	Cortes brought the matter before a WCJ after the SCIF rejected Cortes's request for additional TD indemnity. Cortes petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration and the WCJ issued a report on April 10, 2008, recommending the WCAB deny the petition. Five days later, the WCAB denied reconsideration by adopting and incorporating the WCJ's report and citing Brooks. *fn6 ) Cortes declares that our holding in Brooks conflicts with several WCAB and appellate court decisions. Although individual counsel has changed, Cortes and the employee in Brooks are represented by the same law firm.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because industrial disability leave (IDL) is statutorily defined as the equivalent of temporary disability (TD), then the two-year limitation under section 4656, subdivision (c)(1), necessarily must apply to both IDL and TD.
Citation:	F055390
WCC Citation:	WCC 34222008 CA

Case Name:	Cortez v. Abich		01/24/2011
Summary:	OCTOVIANO CORTEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOURDES ABICH et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Octoviano Cortez (plaintiff) was seriously injured while working on a job at a house purchased and owned by Lourdes Abich, for her son, Omar Abich (collectively, defendants), to use as a residence. Omar Abich personally obtained construction permits from the City of Pasadena for a remodeling project that would add over 750 square feet to the house. (b)), because the project was undertaken for the noncommercial purpose of enhancing defendants' personal enjoyment of their residence. (See Ramirez v. Nelson (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 908, 916-917; Fernandez v. Lawson (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 31, 39-44 (Fernandez) (conc.
Note:	A recent California Supreme Court ruling means that homeowners who hire unlicensed subcontractors for major remodeling work must comply with state regulations requiring them to provide workers with a safe working environment.
Citation:	S177075
WCC Citation:	WCC 37042011 CA

Case Name:	Cortez v. Abich (2nd DCA opinion)		09/02/2009
Summary:	OPINION SUZUKAWA, J. Appellant Octoviano Cortez appeals from the judgment entered in favor of respondents Lourdes and Omar Abich (collectively the Abiches) following the trial court's order granting their motion for summary judgment. Omar Abich obtained the necessary permits from the City of Pasadena, but did not supervise the work. The court finds as a matter of law that plaintiff was not an employee of the Abich defendants. Neither of these disputes of fact is material to the issue of whether plaintiff was employed by the Abich defendants. [¶] Plaintiff's contention that the Abich defendants were required to comply with OSHA requirements fails as a matter of law because they were not plaintiff's employer.
Note:	The homeowners did not owe a duty to the worker under Cal-OSHA regulations.
Citation:	B210628
WCC Citation:	WCC 37052009 CA

Case Name:	Cortez v. WCAB (C.T.&F., Inc.)		02/08/2006
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioner, Manuel Cortez, sustained an industrial back injury on June 29, , while working as a laborer for respondent, C. T. & F. , Inc. The employer provided medical treatment and orthopedic consultation with Richard Feldman, M. D. On October 24, 2001, Cortez and the employer entered into Stipulations with Request for Award. Cortez also procured medical treatment from orthopedist Archie Mays, M. D. Dr. Mays recommended psychological consultation for heightened anxiety. Cortez informed the employer by letter that he would not attend the evaluation with Dr. Perlo because ". The employer petitioned the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) for an order compelling Cortez to attend a rescheduled evaluation with Dr. Perlo.
Note:	Medical evaluation and reporting procedures of former section 4062 remain operative in represented cases with injury date before 1/1/05.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 4th 596
WCC Citation:	WCC 31422006 CA

Case Name:	Cory James v. City of Los Angeles		12/15/2010
Summary:	Defendant City of Los Angeles (the City) offered plaintiff Cory James employment as a firefighter, conditional upon his passing a medical examination. FACTS After James passed the written and oral examinations for employment as a City firefighter, the City offered him employment contingent on passing a City-administered medical examination. This test was designed for the City of Los Angeles by Dr. Robert Goldberg, the City's former Assistant Medical Director. The City therefore made a prima facie showing that James was not qualified to be hired as a City firefighter. I would reverse the judgment and the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant City of Los Angeles.
Note:	The City of Los Angeles did not discriminate against an applicant for a firefighter position by failing to offer a reasonable accommodation after he failed to pass a color-vision test, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B222168
WCC Citation:	WCC 36942010 CA

Case Name:	Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic		11/13/2007
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. GRO 0031810 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) JOEY M. COSTA, Applicant, vs. HARDY DIAGNOSTIC and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 235, 238 [49 Cal. Comp. Cases 716, 718]: "As a general rule, the WCAB is authorized to award costs. "This constitutional provision supports petitioner's contention that the WCAB should have the authority to award appellate costs. Forcing employees to absorb such costs would diminish the minimal awards obtained under the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 3200 et seq. )*** "This court must construe section 5811 liberally, 'with the purpose of extending [its] benefits for the protection of persons injured in the course of their employment. '
Note:	The costs at issue here may be allowable under section 5811 and vocational rehabilitation counselors may be appropriate expert witnesses to present evidence on and/or in rebuttal to a permanent disability rating under the new permanent disability rating schedule. Case remanded.
Citation:	72 CCC 1492
WCC Citation:	WCC 32772007 CA

Case Name:	Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic and State Compensation Insurance Fund		12/06/2006
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA JOEY M. COSTA, Applicant v. HARDY DIAGNOSTIC and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). "Applicant further alleged the response demonstrated that "the acting AD shirked her constitutional duty, as a public official, in administering workers' compensation benefits. "Moreover, these are issues affecting a large number of workers' compensation cases in California, i. e. , those which have a permanent disability rating. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. (d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.
Note:	Presenting the deposition transcript of an expert from another unrelated case to which insurer was not a party deprives insurer of its fundamental right of cross-examination, and thus, of due process of law.
Citation:	71 CCC 1797
WCC Citation:	WCC 31982006 CA

Case Name:	Costco Wholesale Corp. v. WCAB		05/23/2007
Summary:	Filed 5/23/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JORGE CHAVEZ, Respondents. A116145 (WCAB Case No. SFO 484264) Costco Wholesale Corporation and its third party claims administrator Sedgwick Claims Management Services (collectively, Costco) petitioned for review of the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) affirming an award to respondent Jorge Chavez (Chavez). (footnote #1) The statute then lists three exceptions to the rule that the date of injury governs the schedule to be applied. He contends that prior to January 1, 2005, Costco was required to provide the notice required by section 4061 to the injured worker, thus triggering the earlier schedule. Costco was required to provide notice under section 4061, together with the last payment of temporary disability indemnity in June 2005.
Note:	Under Labor Code section 4660(d), a medical-legal report, like a treating physician's report, must contain an indication of permanent disability to trigger use of the pre-2005 rating schedule.
Citation:	151 Cal. App. 4th 148, 72 CCC 582
WCC Citation:	WCC 32242007 CA

Case Name:	Costco Wholesale vs. WCAB (Slayton)		03/27/2009
Summary:	F057008 (WCAB No. STK 210450) OPINION THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Costco Wholesale (Costco) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) claiming an injury sustained at the end of an employee's shift while retrieving and completing a purchased item in the employer's store did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. In March 2007, Slayton underwent right knee surgery as a result of the fall, but Costco denied reimbursement as a nonindustrial injury. The WCAB subsequently summarily denied Costco's petition for reconsideration, adopting and incorporating the reasoning from the WCJ's report and recommendation. Accordingly, we must agree with the WCAB that Costco's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.
Note:	[Unpublished] Though retrieving a cake for personal reasons, injury was AOE/COE because injured workers' shift had not yet ended and she was further business' interest because another employee would have been required to complete the task.
Citation:	F057008
WCC Citation:	WCC 35082009 CA

Case Name:	County of Alameda v. WCAB (Knittel)		01/30/2013
Summary:	COUNTY OF ALAMEDA v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Petitioner, v. THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BRYAN KNITTEL, Respondents. Miguel Marquez, County Counsel, Donna Diaz, Lead Deputy County Counsel, Sara J. Ponzio, Deputy County Counsel, Office of the County Counsel County of Santa Clara. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Ralph L Rosato, Assistant County Counsel, Jeffrey L. Scott, Deputy County Counsel, Lin Lee, Deputy County Counsel, County of Los Angeles. BACKGROUND On September 13, 2009, Bryan Knittel injured his knee while working as an Alameda County Deputy Sheriff. Knittel was unable to perform his duties after the injury, and the County of Alameda (County) paid disability benefits from the date of his injury.
Note:	The California 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarding an injured law enforcement officer 104 weeks of temporary disability benefits after he had collected 52 weeks of salary continuation benefits for a knee injury which continued to prevent him from working.
Citation:	A135889
WCC Citation:	WCC 39792013 CA

Case Name:	County of Kern v. WCAB (Petersen)		09/30/2011
Summary:	Theresa A. Goldner, County Counsel, Margo A. Raison, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and David T. Unger, Deputy County Counsel for Petitioner. On June 19, 2007, the Kern Administrative Officer, Kern Board of Supervisors Chairman, Kern Assistant County Counsel, and SCVFD President executed an "Agreement for Donation toward Equipment Purchase for the Sand Canyon Volunteer Fire Department" (Donation Agreement). After Kern petitioned for a writ of review, the WCAB reaffirmed its decision denying reconsideration in briefing to this court. "To the contrary, it is felt that any one of the above-described events represented official recognition of SCVFD by Petitioner Kern County. "Here, Kern provided SCVFD with funds and donated use of equipment the year before Kern disputed its workers' compensation liability.
Note:	Kern County is the statutory employer of a volunteer firefighter for the Sand Canyon Volunteer Fire Department.
Citation:	F057718
WCC Citation:	WCC 38072011 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. LA County Employee Relations Commision		02/24/2011
Summary:	COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 721, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Proc. , 1094. 5), in which it asserted the privacy rights of these non-member County employees and challenged the decision by the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (Commission) that ordered the County to release their names, home addresses, and home telephone numbers to the Union. The Union filed an unfair employee-relations practice charge with the Commission in which it contended the County violated sections 12(a)(3) and 151 of the County's Employee Relations Ordinance (Ordinance). (Union of American Physicians & Dentists v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com. Section 12, subdivision (a)(3), codified at section 5. 04. 240, subdivision (A)(3) of the Los Angeles County Code, states that it is an unfair employee relations practice for the County "[t]o refuse to negotiate with representatives of certified employee organizations on negotiable matters. "
Note:	Los Angeles County must give its non-union employees notice and an opportunity to object before disclosing their personal information to the Service Employees International Union, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B217668
WCC Citation:	WCC 37232011 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. WCAB (Bass)		04/21/1986
Summary:	Petitioner, County of Los Angeles (County), seeks review of the Board's opinion and order dismissing County's petition for reconsideration. County failed to attach a proof of service to the petition for reconsideration. In its petition for review County asserts that counsel for applicant was served with a copy of the petition for reconsideration. County contends that the Board should have informed it that no proof of service was attached and should have given County an opportunity to prove that the petition was timely served. County also contends that in light of applicant's responses to Dr. Levy's questions County should not be required to offer applicant psychiatric treatment to reduce its liability for compensation since such an offer would be futile.
Note:	Board must notify lack of proper service of Petition for Recon., afford reas. time for proof.
Citation:	51 CCC 194
WCC Citation:	WCC 27271986 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. WCAB (King)		03/17/1980
Summary:	COUNSEL John H. Larson, County Counsel, Milton J. Litvin and Daniel E. McCoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner. OPINION FILES, P. J. Petitioner County of Los Angeles contends that respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board erred in assessing a 10 percent penalty against county pursuant to Labor Code fn. On November 19, 1973, while employed as a vocational nurse by county, King sustained an injury to her right eye. County began payments under the new award and also provided medical care by referring King to Michael J. On September 3, 1977, county filed a petition to reduce the permanent disability award on the ground that King's permanent disability had lessened.
Note:	Regs. 10462, 10464, 10466 are not applicable to permanent disability; termination of PD before WCAB orders reduction valid where circumstances known to employer prove reasonable.
Citation:	104 Cal.App.3d 933, 45 CCC 248
WCC Citation:	WCC 27741980 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. WCAB (Rottman)		08/31/1982
Summary:	[135 Cal. App. 3d 568] COUNSEL John H. Larson, County Counsel, Milton J. Litvin and Patrick A. Wu, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner. This is a writ of review from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and a denial of a petition for reconsideration. The order is that the county is liable for the value for services rendered Zachary Rottman (Rottman) by Kaiser Foundation Hospital (Kaiser). 1 was an employee of Los Angeles County (County). A hearing was held on the claimed liability of the County for the Kaiser lien.
Note:	Lien claim not barred by SOL where employee or claimant had no knowledge that disability was work-related.
Citation:	135 Cal.App.3d 567, 47 CCC 951
WCC Citation:	WCC 25341982 CA

Case Name:	County of Los Angeles v. WCAB and Jones		10/04/2002
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and STACEY JONES, Respondents. Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, Patrick A. Wu, Assistant County Counsel, Leah D. Davis, Deputy County Counsel; Malmquist, Fields & Camastra and Tom Hedrick for Petitioner. Stacey Jones was injured while employed as a social worker by the County of Los Angeles (County). Following a subsequent allegation that County unreasonably denied medical treatment and after a hearing on that issue, Jones and County entered a stipulation with request for award, which was approved on March 21, 2002. County issued a check for the attorney's fees, but the law firm representing Jones, Rose, Klein & Marias, did not receive the check within the thirty-day period.
Note:	Attorney fees are a species of benefits on which penalties may be assessed.
Citation:	2002 CCC
WCC Citation:	WCC 28872002 CA

Case Name:	County of Orange v. WCAB		01/31/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE COUNTY OF ORANGE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jack Lean sustained back injury caused by a work-related accident while he was employed by the County of Orange. County then sought a hearing before Board on the disputed issue of the commencement of payment of disability benefits. The affidavit of Deborah Rivera, an employee of the law firm representing County, was submitted with County's petition for review. Thus, Lean concludes, County made no showing of excusable neglect to be afforded relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).
Note:	[Unpublished] Under Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, while the language of 5909 appears mandatory and jurisdictional, 'the time periods must be based on a presumption that a claimant's file will be available to the board; any other result deprives a claimant of due process and the right to a review by the board.'
Citation:	G038527
WCC Citation:	WCC 33122008 CA

Case Name:	County of Riverside v. WCAB (Sylves)		03/24/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/24/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PETER G. SYLVES, Respondents. .             Law Office of Louis D. Seaman and Louis D. Seaman for Petitioner. .           CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION .           McKINSTER P. J. .           We concur: .           MILLER J. Commencing January 1, 1979, and thereafter on the first day of January for each of the next two years, the liability period for occupational disease or cumulative injury shall be decreased by one year so that liability is limited in the following manner: For claims filed or Asserted on or after:                       The period shall be: January 1, 1979                                                           three years January 1, 1980                                                           two years January 1, 1981 and thereafter                                   one year The statute was not, as the County asserts without citation to authority, “clearly put in place to avoid situations where employees could reach back over numerous years and sue an unsuspecting employer who had no notice of such injury when, in fact, that applicant had continued to perform the same occupation with a subsequent employer being subject to the continued injurious exposure. ”
Note:
Citation:	E065688
WCC Citation:	WCAB Case No. ADJ9538021