Case Name:	Herrera v. CU Cooperative Systems		01/29/2013
Summary:	HERRERA v. CU COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. ROXANNE HERRERA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CU COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant, Roxanne Herrera, sued her former employer, defendant and respondent, CU Cooperative Systems, Inc. (CO-OP), alleging three violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq. Herrera Tells Freer She is Pregnant On July 15, 2008, Herrera told Freer she was pregnant. Herrera showed Freer a copy of her meal plan and asked him for permission to eat at her desk. On November 4, 2008, while Herrera was still on PDL, Monise contacted Herrera by telephone and terminated her effective November 5, 2008.
Note:	An employer defeated a pregnancy discrimination suit by showing that it had actually fired the plaintiff because she had coached a coworker on how to skip work
Citation:	E052869
WCC Citation:	WCC 39802013 CA

Case Name:	Herrera v. WCAB		06/18/1969
Summary:	DANIEL A. HERRERA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, GOLETA LEMON ASSOCIATION et al. , Respondents. Everett A. Corten, Edward A. Sarkisian, Rupert A. Pedrin, Nathan Mudge, T. Groezinger, Loton Wells and G. K. Bogue for Respondents. Thereafter, respondent employer and respondent insurance carrier jointly petitioned for reconsideration, which was granted. . . . ' It was further stated: 'Evidence Code Section 631 states 'Money delivered by one to another is presumed to have been due the latter. 'There was no agreement that any part of the wage payments made to petitioner by respondent employer constituted disability payments.
Note:	Board has discretion to credit wage payments after injury against disability benefits.
Citation:	71 Cal.2d 254, 34 CCC 382
WCC Citation:	WCC 24631969 CA

Case Name:	Hershman v. Eisenberg Medical		06/11/2002
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. PAS 0023953 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) LESTER HERSHMAN, Applicant, vs. JAMES EISENBERG MEDICAL GROUP; CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; and KEMPER EMPLOYERS CLAIMS SERVICE (Servicing Facility), Defendants. Applicant, Lester Hershman, sustained an industrial injury to various body parts on June 18, 1993, while employed as a physician by the James Eisenberg Medical Group ('employer'). [N3] The phrase "workers' compensation benefits under the workers' compensation law of this state" is broad enough to include penalties under section 5814. )[N4] Having concluded that section 5814 penalties are 'compensation' that, therefore, fall within the general definition of 'covered claims' (Ins. Labor Code Section 5814 Penalties Do Not Fall Within The Insurance Code Section 1063. 1(c)(8) Exclusion For 'Punitive Or Exemplary Damages. '
Note:	5814 penalties imposed on insolvent carrier are 'covered claims' for CIGA to pay.
Citation:	67 CCC 808 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28652002 CA

Case Name:	Hertz v. WCAB (Aguilar)		12/16/2008
Summary:	SJO226456, SJO228891, SJO235420) INTRODUCTION Respondent Manuel Aguilar sustained specific and cumulative injuries to both of his knees, shoulders and wrists, and to his right ankle while working as an auto washer for petitioner Hertz Corporation (Hertz). Therefore, we conclude that Hertz is not liable for that portion of Aguilar's permanent disability that is caused by pre-existing nonindustrial factors. In 1984 or 1985, he obtained employment with Hertz as an auto washer, regularly working 80 hours a week. [Aguilar] is not able to return to his full duties at Hertz and is a Qualified Injured Worker . [Hertz] is attempting to obtain apportionment to factors which are not disability.
Note:	An employer is not responsible for any portion of a worker's permanent disability that is caused by pre-existing non-industrial factors.
Citation:	H032438
WCC Citation:	WCC 35122008 CA

Case Name:	Hessong v. City and County of San Francisco		08/30/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR TIMOTHY HESSONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. 04-430971) In this employment discrimination action, the trial court granted respondent City and County of San Francisco's (city) motion for summary judgment on appellant Timothy Hessong's action for violation of the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). He worked for the city's Department of Public Health (department) as a pharmacy technician at San Francisco General Hospital. E. Hessong Files Lawsuit In April 2004, Hessong filed a complaint for damages in the trial court, alleging that the city had violated the FEHA. In opposition to summary judgment, Hessong offered evidence of the work that he could perform if reassigned back to San Francisco General Hospital.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because a reviewing court is necessarily limited to the claims alleged in the underlying complaint, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgement on the cause of action that was pled in the original complaint.
Citation:	A113744
WCC Citation:	WCC 32492007 CA

Case Name:	Hestehauge v. Charkins		09/23/2005
Summary:	In relevant part, that decision found that applicant, Paul Hestehauge (Mr. Hestehauge), sustained industrial injury to his head, entire body, brain and left wrist in a fall on November 15, 2000, while employed as a painter by homeowners, Wayne Charkins (Mr. Charkins) and Laurie Charkins (Mrs. Charkins), the insureds of defendant. At some point, Mr. Hestehauge agreed with Mr. and Mrs. Charkins to do some painting at their house. Although Mr. Charkins is a California-licensed glazing contractor and was aware that people doing contractor's work in California had to be licensed, neither he nor Mrs. Charkins ever asked Mr. Hestehauge if he had a license. After the accident, Mr. and Mrs. Charkins had others complete the painting work that Mr. Hestehauge was going to perform. Although section 2750. 5 mandates that Mr. Hestehauge be deemed an employee of Mr. and Mrs. Charkins, the existence of an employment relationship under section 2750. 5 does not necessarily mean that Mr. Hestehauge is entitled to workers' compensation benefits.
Note:	Household employees under LC 3351, 3352 and 3715.
Citation:	70 CCC 1294
WCC Citation:	WCC 31212005 CA

Case Name:	Heywood v. Casa Cabinets, Inc.		12/21/2017
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO   .             JACOB HEYWOOD, Plaintiff and Respondent. .             v. .             CASA CABINETS, INC. , Defendant and Appellant, .             E066122 .             (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1603934) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. I INTRODUCTION .           Defendant Casa Cabinets, Inc. appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Jacob Heywood’s wrongful termination action. .           Plaintiff alleged in his verified complaint that he was employed as an hourly worker at Casa Cabinets, Inc. (defendant) from January 2014 to August 17, 2015. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS .           CODRINGTON J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an injured worker could not be compelled to arbitrate his discrimination and retaliation claims against his former employer, since the arbitration agreement he had signed was unconscionable.
Citation:	E066122
WCC Citation:	Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1603934

Case Name:	Hikida v. WCAB (Costco Wholesale Corporation)		06/22/2017
Summary:	Filed 6/22/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             MAUREEN HIKIDA, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. .             B279412 .             (W. C. A. B. No. ADJ7721810) .             PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. .             Law Firm of Rowen, Gurvey & Win and Alan Z. Gurvey for Petitioner. .             Mullen & Filippi, Jay S. Cohen and Daniel Nachison; Seyfarth & Shaw and Kiran A. Seldon for Respondents Costco Wholesale Corporation and Helmsman Management Services. .           Section 5950 provides that “[a]ny person affected by an order, decision, or award of the [Board] may .
Note:
Citation:	B279412
WCC Citation:	W.C.A.B. No. ADJ7721810

Case Name:	Hinkle v. WCAB		12/12/1985
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO No. E002195 December 12, 1985 JOSEPH HINKLE, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, KIRK MAYER, INC. , ET AL. , RESPONDENTS Elliot S. Berkowitz and John J. "Applicant worked as an electrical mechanical design engineer for Kirk Mayer, Inc. , a consulting firm which contracts out its employees to others. [175 CalApp3d Page 590] Those who are contracted out remain on the Kirk Mayer payroll and are paid by it. "Kirk Mayer's payment policy for its 'farmed out' employees is to mail the weekly paycheck to wherever the employee desires. However, on Fridays, it was Mattel's policy to add an extra one-half hour to its employees' lunch break.
Note:	Injury not compensable where employee injured while picking up paycheck at place/ time within employee's discretion
Citation:	175 Cal. App. 3d 587
WCC Citation:	WCC 30521985 CA

Case Name:	Hinojosa vs. WCAB		10/18/1972
Summary:	MIGUEL HINOJOSA, a Minor, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, W. W. WIEST et al. , Respondents In Bank. Petitioner's employer, W. W. Wiest, an operator of seven or eight non-contiguous ranches, employed Miguel Hinojosa as a farm laborer, for thinning and picking peaches, plums, and apricots on his ranches. Hinojosa worked at this job nine to nine and one-half hours per day, six days a week, and received in payment $1. 75 per hour. Thus the working conditions imposed by the employer required that Hinojosa provide himself with some form of automotive transportation. In return, Hinojosa paid Rodriguez $3 per week to share the operating costs of the automobile.
Note:	Requirement that employee provide own transportation between 'fields' on the job creates compensable injury.
Citation:	8 Cal 3d 150
WCC Citation:	WCC 29921972 CA

Case Name:	Hinson vs. WCAB		10/02/1974
Summary:	BILLY GENE HINSON, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, GIFFEN, INC. , et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Franson, J. , with Brown (G. Hinson was injured on January 5, 1973, when his pickup collided with another vehicle on Highway 33 as he was driving to work. However, at times, Hinson and the other drivers would use their own cars to get to the fields if they had driven them to work. Hinson testified that the foreman would "rather" that the employees take their own cars to the tractors, thus avoiding the necessity of his having to take them to and from the fields. Hinson took the tools home each night in his car to keep them from being stolen.
Note:	No 'Going & Coming' if personal transportation on job not a requirement.
Citation:	42 CA3d 246
WCC Citation:	WCC 29931974 CA

Case Name:	Hobbs v. Marin county Employees Retirement Assn.		09/30/2008
Summary:	Filed 9/30/08 Hobbs v. Marin county Employees Retirement Assn. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR DONALD HOBBS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. That petition sought review of the administrative decision of respondent Marin County Employees' Retirement Association (County) denying his application for service-connected disability retirement benefits. (See Singh v. Board of Retirement (1996) 41 Cal. App. 4th 1180, 1185; Heaton v. Marin County Employees Retirement Bd. While the County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 and the Workers' Compensation Act "are related in subject matter and harmonious in purpose" (Kuntz v. Kern County Employees' Retirement Assn.
Note:	[Unpublished] Courts have rejected the claim that the class of employees to which the heart trouble presumption applies should be expanded and accordingly, the court did not err by failing to 'impute' the legislative intent plaintiff claims is behind the heart trouble presumptions in workers' compensation law...to the service-related disability retirement of all county employees.
Citation:	A120222
WCC Citation:	WCC 34332008 CA

Case Name:	Hodge v. Aon Insurance Services et al.		02/02/2011
Summary:	KENNETH HODGE et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AON INSURANCE SERVICES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTS As a TPA, Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. *fn3 contracts with self-insured businesses, governmental agencies, and insurance companies to adjust claims involving those entities. In the context of its contracts with insurance companies or the California Insurance Guarantee Association or "CIGA" (which takes over policies from insolvent insurers), Cambridge adjusts claims made under the insurance policies issued by those entities. *fn5 Hodge thereafter dismissed all of his causes of action except his cause of action alleging a violation of the UCL. Our references to Cambridge include AON Insurance Services, AON Corporation and AON Service Corporation, which, according to the operative complaint, own and operate one or more "Cambridge locations" in California.
Note:	Cambridge Integrated Services did not violate overtime regulations because it designated its claims adjusters as exempt administrative employees, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in a class action suit on Wednesday.
Citation:	B217156
WCC Citation:	WCC 37122011 CA

Case Name:	Hodge v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County		11/29/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT No. B189941 November 29, 2006 KENNETH HODGE ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, RESPONDENT; AON INSURANCE SERVICES ET AL. , REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. The trial court ruled the defendants were entitled to a jury trial on the section 17200 claim. Transportation Co. v. Superior Court (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 433, 435 [granting writ relief where party challenged grant of jury trial]. )In Wisden v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 750, 754, we identified the basic principles governing jury trials. (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 163, 179 (Cel-Tech); see also § 17203. )
Note:	Even though the contractual duties of the employer implicitly include performance of mandatory statutory duties, such as the payment of overtime wages, and even though the application of the statutory requirements includes factual determinations, defendent is not entitled to a jury trial.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 278
WCC Citation:	WCC 31962006 CA

Case Name:	Hodges v. WCAB		07/18/1978
Summary:	WILLIAM G. HODGES, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ELMORE MOTORS-TOYOTA, Respondents. Mr. Casillas said in a loud voice to the applicant, 'I didn't know you were a boxer. 'Applicant traveled some 50 feet from the service department to where Casillas and Rofoli were standing outside the back door. At that point Casillas put up his hands in an open-hand position and came toward the applicant. The judge concluded that applicant's injury resulted from his participation in horseplay and was therefore not compensable.
Note:	WCJ's statement that he had difficulty concluding employer would condone horseplay was a
Citation:	82 Cal.App.3d 894, 43 CCC 870
WCC Citation:	WCC 26481978 CA

Case Name:	Hodgman v. WCAB		09/12/2007
Summary:	Filed 9/12/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE JOHN PERRY HODGMAN, an Incompetent Person, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, INC. , et al. , Respondents. BACKGROUND On October 28, 1988, John Perry Hodgman (John) sustained a catastrophic industrial injury in a motorcycle-versus-automobile collision while employed by Community Care Center. "The WCAB may ask the appointee to give a bond of the kind required by the superior court for the guardians it appoints. To be discharged from liability, the guardian or trustee must file an accounting with the WCAB or superior court. Fees of the guardian or trustee are fixed by either the WCAB or the superior court.
Note:	The Board has no basis for restricting compensation to nonduplicative care because the parties agreed in a compromise and release agreement (C&R) that the guardian was entitled to compensation for duplicative care and the employer, not the estate of the injured worker, should bear the expense.
Citation:	155 Cal. App. 4th 44; 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 687
WCC Citation:	WCC 32542007 CA

Case Name:	Hoffman v. Andrews		03/15/1945
Summary:	ISADORE M. HOFFMAN, Respondent, v. WILLEDD ANDREWS et. COUNSEL Willedd Andrews, in pro. Nor, indeed, do the provisions of section 21 of article XX of the Constitution authorize such legislation. The validity of an action in equity such as the one here considered, in effect, has been upheld. That the superior court had power to issue the order complained of, there can be no question.
Note:	Superior court has equity jurisdiction, has power to enjoin action to satisfy a judgment.
Citation:	68 Cal.App.2d 421, 10 CCC 67
WCC Citation:	WCC 26101945 CA

Case Name:	Hoffman v. The Superior Court of Orange County		11/07/2017
Summary:	Filed 11/7/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             SIM CARLISLE HOFFMAN, Petitioner, .             v. .             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; .             THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. .             G054414 .             (Super. Ct. No. 14CF0243) .             O P I N I O N .             Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. .             Moss Law Group, Richard A. Moss, and William C. Fleming, Jr. , for Petitioner. .           WE CONCUR: .           MOORE, ACTING P. J.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal on Tuesday ruled that the information filed against an Orange County doctor accused of running a bill-mill operation was procedurally appropriate, even though it lumped multiple allegations of illegal activity into a single count of fraud.
Citation:	G054414
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 14CF0243

Case Name:	Hofmeister v. WCAB		06/01/1984
Summary:	CARL F. HOFMEISTER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY et al. , Respondents. OPINION GILBERT, J. Petitioner Carl F. Hofmeister seeks review and annulment of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's determination as to the rate of awarding temporary disability benefits pursuant to Labor Code section 4661. 5. fn. Facts On September 20, 1979, Hofmeister, a reserve firefighter and bulldozer operator engaged in the suppression of a major fire, sustained injuries from burns to his body, arms, back, head and legs. Respondent county denied benefits on the ground that Hofmeister was not a county employee. [4] Inasmuch as Hofmeister was injured on September 20, 1979, section 4661. 5, as amended, is controlling.
Note:	4661.5 applicable to county reserve firefighter.
Citation:	156 Cal.App.3d 848, 49 CCC 438
WCC Citation:	WCC 25441984 CA

Case Name:	Holland v. WCAB		06/29/1993
Summary:	James Holland, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Teichert & Sons, Inc. , et al. , Respondents. Thompson fell behind in his payments to petitioner and in February 1991, he filed a petition for bankruptcy. n2 They further argued that Labor Code section 4900 prohibited the transfer of Thompson's lien to petitioner. On the other hand, if it was curing or relieving from [sic ] the effects of her industrial injuries, then . . . Section 4600 would allow her to seek and obtain it and would require the defense to pay for it.
Note:	Valid medical lien can be assigned by one provider to another.
Citation:	58 CCC 390
WCC Citation:	WCC 25051993 CA

Case Name:	Holley v. Waddington North America et al.		03/15/2012
Summary:	WILLIE HOLLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WADDINGTON NORTH AMERICA, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Holley sued for violations of the CFRA, disability discrimination and related causes of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (§ 12940 et seq. )Holley recalls that during the meeting, a company representative told him that his "regular job duties do not exist. "Holley told a company representative that he would have no medical restrictions when he reported to work on the following day. Holley, however, did not report to work on February 20, 2008. e. Holley is "Totally Incapacitated" On February 25, 2008, Holley submitted a doctor's note to the company stating he was "`totally incapacitated'" until April 21, 2008.
Note:	A California company was not liable for terminating a warehouse supervisor who failed to return to work after 14 months of medical leave, and produced a note from his doctor at that time saying he was completely unable to work.
Citation:	B225623
WCC Citation:	WCC 38732012 CA

Case Name:	Holmes Eureka Lumber Co. v. IAC		10/11/1940
Summary:	HOLMES EUREKA LUMBER COMPANY (a Corporation) et al. , Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and OLEY J. HANSON, Respondents. By means of a writ of certiorari the petitioners seek to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission, denying their application for rehearing after a final award of compensation was made in favor of Oley J. Hanson, an employee of the Holmes Eureka Lumber Company. [41 Cal. App. 2d 152] [1] The claimant, Oley J. Hanson, was injured August 23, 1935, in the course of his employment, while he was hauling logs for the Holmes Eureka Lumber Company. The Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company was the insurer of the lumber company. The hearing on that petition was held at Eureka on April 18, 1940.
Note:	Award annulled b/c physicians' reports received in evidence after hearing.
Citation:	41 Cal.App.2d 150, 5 CCC 230
WCC Citation:	WCC 25821940 CA

Case Name:	Holsome v. Exel, Inc.		09/17/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO KEVIN HOLSOME, et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EXEL, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Law Offices of Mark Peacock and Mark J. Peacock for Plaintiff and Appellant Kevin Holsome. Arkin & Glovsky and Sharon J. Arkin for Plaintiffs and Appellants Kevin Holsome and Fressy Holsome. Law Offices of Christopher A. Kall and Christopher A. Kall for Plaintiff and Appellant Fressy Holsome. INTRODUCTION On June 21, 2004, Kevin and Fressy Holsome (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for damages resulting from the negligent conduct of Michael Thomas Brown (Brown).
Note:	[Unpublished] Because there is a material issue of fact in dispute between the parties, summary judgement cannot be granted for either side.
Citation:	E040658
WCC Citation:	WCC 32552007 CA

Case Name:	Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. v. Lundy		01/28/2013
Summary:	HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. v. LUNDY HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WILLIAM LUNDY, Defendant and Appellant. SSA Terminals LLC, SSA Terminals (Long Beach) LLC, and SSA Pacific, Inc. are employers of longshoreman and are insured for worker's compensation benefit claims through Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. (Homeport). Homeport prepared a separate written settlement agreement for Lundy's worker's compensation claim, which was signed by both Lundy and his worker's compensation attorney. Following entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining Lundy from working for SSA, Lundy filed an appeal challenging the enforceability of the "no reemployment" provision. (Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. , et al. v. Lundy (Nov. 5, 2012, B236276 [nonpub.
Note:	An employer who successfully sought enforcement of a provision in a settlement agreement for a longshoreman's workers' compensation and personal injury claims which barred him from ever seeking reemployment with any company covered by his employer's insurance carrier was entitled to an award of attorney fees.
Citation:	B238296
WCC Citation:	WCC 39772013 CA

Case Name:	Homeport Insurance Services, Inc., v. Lundy		11/05/2012
Summary:	HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. v. LUNDY HOMEPORT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WILLIAM LUNDY, Defendant and Appellant. Homeport Insurance Services, Inc. (Homeport) provides insurance for SSA, including workers' compensation insurance under the LHWCA. Following entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining Lundy from working for SSA, Lundy filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION On appeal, Lundy challenges the trial court's order granting summary judgment for SSA and denying summary judgment for Lundy. Homeport thereafter dismissed its complaint against Lundy without prejudice, and is no longer a party to this action.
Note:	A provision in a settlement agreement for a longshoreman's workers' compensation and personal injury claims which barred him from ever seeking reemployment with his employer was enforceable as a matter of law.
Citation:	B236276
WCC Citation:	WCC 39502012 CA

Case Name:	Honeywell vs. WCAB (Wagner)		12/20/2002
Summary:	Page 2} OPINION CROSKEY, J. - The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that petitioner, Honeywell, formerly known as Allied Signal Aerospace Company (Honeywell), was "reasonably certain" in 1998 that its employee, respondent William Wagner, was psychiatrically injured or was claiming psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 5402. fn. 1 The WCAB therefore determined that Honeywell had a duty to provide a claim form under section 5401, fn. In this case, Honeywell filed for reconsideration with the WCAB. The WCAB also remanded for the record to be further developed, if needed, to determine whether the employees involved had sufficient authority to impute notice or knowledge to Honeywell. Honeywell also asserts that Wagner was not a final adjudication requiring appeal, because the WCAB remanded to the WCJ for a new decision whether Honeywell was "reasonably certain" and the alleged injury should be presumed compensable.
Note:	Employer must have actual notice of knowledge of an injury before duty to provide claim form arises.
Citation:	104 Cal.App.4th 829
WCC Citation:	WCC 29002002 CA

Case Name:	Honeywell vs. WCAB (Wagner) (Cal Sup Crt)		02/10/2005
Summary:	Honeywell obtained a rebuttal medical opinion from psychologist Mory Framer, who concluded Wagner's psychiatric condition was caused by nonindustrial factors or by good faith personnel actions. The WCAB granted Honeywell's petition for reconsideration and issued an en banc decision. On remand, Nyssa Hawkins, the Honeywell disability coordinator, testified she was reasonably certain that Linda Wagner was reporting a work injury in October 1998. At this point, Honeywell "reasonably should have known" an emotional injury arising from events at work was being claimed. [FN 9] We briefly address the estoppel issue to provide guidance to the WCAB on remand and in future cases.
Note:	Injured worker must actually deliver the Claim Form to the employer before the 90 day limitation on investigations in LC 5402 starts to run.
Citation:	35 Cal. 4th 24
WCC Citation:	WCC 30802005 CA

Case Name:	Hong v. Creed Consulting Inc.		12/28/2012
Summary:	HONG v. CREED CONSULTING INC. SOOBOK L. HONG, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CREED CONSULTING INC. , Defendant and Appellant. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION O'LEARY, P. J. Soobok L. Hong hired Creed Consulting Inc. (Creed) to remodel her house. Despite alerting Creed to defects and shoddy workmanship, on December 21, 2010, Creed wrote to Hong the job was finished and demanded she pay the remaining contract balance of $11,430 immediately. Hong subsequently dismissed her remaining causes of action with prejudice, and Creed dismissed its cross-complaint with prejudice, and a judgment for Hong was entered. Creed argues the trial court also erred by allowing Hong to rely upon statements in the written contract and in Creed's unverified cross-complaint to establish as undisputed facts that: Creed and Hong entered into a contract; Creed agreed all work would be performed by properly licensed persons; the contract period was September 1, 2010, to October 31, 2010; and Hong paid Creed $85,000.
Note:	A contractor which allegedly lost its license due to its failure to carry workers' compensation coverage is getting a second chance to defend its entitlement to payment for work it performed on a homeowner's property.
Citation:	G046954
WCC Citation:	WCC 39692012 CA

Case Name:	Hooker v. Department of Transportation		01/31/2002
Summary:	ROSEANNE HOOKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Respondent. He was employed by a general contractor hired by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to construct an overpass. Shortly before the fatal accident, Hooker retracted the outriggers and left the crane. When Hooker returned, he attempted, without first reextending the outriggers, to swing the boom. The evidence produced on summary judgment showed that California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) employees had permitted construction traffic on the overpass where plaintiff's decedent was working, and had driven Caltrans's own vehicles on the overpass.
Note:	A hirer of an independent contractor is not liable to an employee of the contractor merely because the hirer retained control over safety conditions at a worksite, but that a hirer is liable to an employee of a contractor insofar as a hirer's exercise of retained control affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries.
Citation:	27 Cal.4th 198
WCC Citation:	WCC 31042002 CA

Case Name:	Horangic v. Ebara Technologies Inc.		10/26/2007
Summary:	Plaintiff, Craig Horangic, appeals from a judgment of dismissal following an order granting summary judgment to defendants Ebara Technologies Incorporated (Ebara) and Raymond Campbell (Campbell). On April 18, 2003, plaintiff met with Moyle and Michael Kelly, another Ebara attorney, regarding an April 17 memorandum he had prepared. Kelly indicated "Ebara was making an illegal decision, that other companies were being fined regularly for not paying overtime, and that this issue would expose Ebara to a great deal of liability. "Two weeks after plaintiff's meeting with Ebara's counsel, Ebara contacted Speer Associates, an employment law and employment relations counseling firm. Speer was also engaged to "provide information that could help Ebara take steps to improve problems affecting the Human Resources Department. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Whether a termination in violation of public policy is sufficiently outrageous to support an intentional infliction claim is a material issue of fact for remand and therefore, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgement.
Citation:	C053199
WCC Citation:	WCC 32722007 CA

Case Name:	Horizon Med. Group v. WCAB		06/27/1996
Summary:	Horizon Medical Group, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Constitution State Service Company, Target Stores, Respondents, (Aileen Angulo), Real Party in Interest. Still suffering pain and dissatisfied with her treatment at Foothill, Angulo contacted an attorney, who referred her to petitioner Horizon Medical Group (Horizon). Horizon continued to treat Angulo through November 16, 1992, then returned her to unrestricted duty. Constitution referred Horizon to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) if it disagreed with Constitution's position. Again, Constitution referred Horizon to the WCAB if it had any disagreement with Constitution's position.
Note:	Lien claimant denied due process when applicant fails to notify of medical objection; should be cured by amending pleadings.
Citation:	61 CCC 654
WCC Citation:	WCC 25251996 CA

Case Name:	Hotel Del Coronado, etc. v. WCAB		03/10/1998
Summary:	Hotel Del Coronado, PSI, Wear & Wood, Inc. (Third Party Administrator), Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Salvacion Managuit, Respondents. Applicant appealed and the WCJ found that the termination order was not supported by substantial evidence and, thus, it must be vacated. The WCAB denied reconsideration and Defendant petitioned for a writ of review, claiming: 1) that Defendant had complied with Code Sec. The findings and conclusions of the WCAB on questions of fact are conclusive and final and are not subject to review. Under these circumstances, the WCAB acted reasonably in deciding the worker was not required to respond to the offer of alternative work.
Note:	Failure/refusal to accept offer of alternative work during statutory time period does not terminate rights to benefits absent evidence on whether applicant could physically perform the job.
Citation:	63 CCC 1077
WCC Citation:	WCC 28011998 CA

Case Name:	Housing Authority v. WCAB		01/14/1998
Summary:	[60 Cal. App. 4th 1079] OPINION MASTERSON, J. - Petitioner Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (L. A. Housing Authority) challenges two findings made by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) in favor of Roger Chandler, the L. A. Housing Authority's Chief of Police: that the Appeals Board had jurisdiction to determine whether Chandler was an employee within the meaning of Labor Code section 4850 as part of Chandler's application for workers' compensation benefits, and that the L. A. Housing Authority was collaterally estopped from denying that Chandler was entitled to the benefits of Labor Code section 4850 because that issue had been resolved against the L. A. Housing Authority in a previous workers' compensation case. We find that the Appeals Board properly concluded that it had authority to determine the jurisdiction issue, and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the L. A. Housing Authority from denying section 4850 benefits in this case. The collateral estoppel issue emanated from the Appeals Board's opinion and order in Chappell v. Housing Authority, City of Los Angeles (1993) W. C. A. B. No. PAS 16292, which held that an L. A. Housing Authority police officer came within the definition of section 4850. Collateral Estoppel [3a] The Appeals Board found that the L. A. Housing Authority was estopped from asserting that Chandler was not entitled to the benefits of section 4850 as a result of the Appeals Board's opinion and order in Chappell v. Housing Authority, City of Los Angeles, supra, W. C. A. B. No. PAS 16292. 4 However, the L. A. Housing Authority has not offered, nor can we imagine, any reason why these distinctions should make a difference to the question of whether a peace officer employed by the L. A. Housing Authority is entitled to the benefits of section 4850.
Note:	WCAB had jurisdiction over whether housing authority's chief of police was an employee.
Citation:	60 Cal.App.4th 1076, 63 CCC 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 26801998 CA

Case Name:	Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc.		08/18/2011
Summary:	HOWELL v. HAMILTON MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC. REBECCA HOWELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HAMILTON MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Rebecca Howell was seriously injured in an automobile accident negligently caused by a driver for defendant Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (Hamilton). At trial, Hamilton conceded liability and the necessity of the medical treatment plaintiff had received, contesting only the amounts of plaintiff's economic and noneconomic damages. Hamilton moved in limine to exclude evidence of medical bills that neither plaintiff nor her health insurer, PacifiCare, had paid. Had Howell been uninsured, or had Howell's providers donated their services, Howell would be entitled to recover the reasonable cost of her medical care.
Note:	Personal injury plaintiffs may not collect the undiscounted portion of a provider's bill that was never paid for by the plaintiff or their health insurer, the Supreme Court of California ruled on Thursday.
Citation:	S179115
WCC Citation:	WCC 37912011 CA

Case Name:	HSR Inc. v. WCAB		09/24/2007
Summary:	On September 6, 2006, HSR Inc. filed a petition for reconsideration with the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board (hereafter WCAB). In denying reconsideration, the WCAB concurred with the WCJ's reasons for her findings and award and adopted and incorporated her report. HSR Inc. now petitions this court to annul, vacate and set aside the WCAB opinion and order denying reconsideration. We shall annul the order and direct WCAB to issue a new decision consistent with this opinion. )*fn3 WCJs hear and decide compensation claims as trial judges, and the WCAB functions as an appellate body.
Note:	[Unpublished] A medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on an inadequate history, speculation or guess.
Citation:	H030998, SJO 0250601
WCC Citation:	WCC 32592007 CA

Case Name:	Huange vs. L.A. Haute		02/14/2003
Summary:	Filed 2/14/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT AI ZHEN HUANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. L. A. HAUTE et al. , Defendants and Respondents. On August 9, 2000, Huang filed this negligence action against Hunter and L. A. Haute (hereafter, Hunter). The next day, Hunter told Huang to damp-mop the grout from new limestone floors after the construction crew left. Instead, she brought a hose into the house to fill the pail and overfilled it, covering the floor with water. After Huang and Hunter got the water out of the newly paved rooms at around 11:30 p. m. , Hunter fired Huang.
Note:	Presumption of negligence in LC 3708 does not extend to presumption of injury AOE/COE.
Citation:	106 Cal.App.4th 284
WCC Citation:	WCC 29182003 CA

Case Name:	Huantes v. Built Right Construction, Inc.		03/07/2012
Summary:	HUANTES, an Incompetent Person, etc. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BUILT RIGHT CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Oscar Huantes (hereafter plaintiff) suffered a workplace injury which left him disabled and mentally incompetent. On March 18, 2005, he was working on a theater room in one of the homes of the development, when a two-by-four joist or scaffolding member, constructed by defendant Built Right Construction, Inc. , gave way. SCIF also waived its right to reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits already paid. As a result of counsel's extensive development of facts, O'Neill was willing to provide testimony in support of liability against defendant Built Right Construction, Inc. , the framer which had constructed the facility that gave way.
Note:	An attorney was entitled to nearly half of his client's recovery in a workers' compensation case as his contingency fee.
Citation:	E053259
WCC Citation:	WCC 38682012 CA

Case Name:	Hubbard v. WCAB		11/03/1993
Summary:	Cyril Hubbard, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Southern California Rapid Transit District, Respondents. OPINION: Applicant, Cyril Hubbard, petitioned this court for a writ of review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) deeming applicant's petition for reconsideration denied by operation of law after applicants case file was lost at the Board. On May 5, 1992, the Board stated that applicant's petition for reconsideration was deemed denied by operation of law. In the present case, applicant's petition was not brought to the Board's attention within the prescribed sixty[-]day period. Accordingly, the present petition must be deemed to have been denied by operation of law pursuant to Labor Code section 5909.
Note:	No automatic denial upon expiration of statutory period when claim file is lost by Board through no fault of applicant.
Citation:	58 CCC 739
WCC Citation:	WCC 27851993 CA

Case Name:	Huffman vs. City of Poway		11/13/2000
Summary:	DAVID W. HUFFMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF POWAY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Foundation (AAF), was injured while rehearsing the play at a facility owned and operated by respondent City of Poway (City). Second, the trial court ruled City was not liable under Government Code section 835 because Huffman was injured on property that City did not own or control. The Workers' Compensation Claim Within weeks following the accident, Huffman filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits with City, claiming he was an employee of City. There Is Substantial Evidence City Owned or Controlled the Property City argued, and the trial court found, that City did not own or control the property that caused Huffman's injury.
Note:	Failure to secure compensation will defeat exclusive remedy doctrine.
Citation:	84 Cal.App.4th 975, 65 CCC 1280
WCC Citation:	WCC 3612000 CA

Case Name:	Hughes v. Argonaut Insurance Co.		04/16/2001
Summary:	The third amended complaint of appellant Michelle Hughes reveals the following: Hughes was an employee of Southern Auto Supply. Respondent Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut) provided workers' compensation insurance to the employer. The parties settled for the sum of $12,104. 75. Argonaut asserted a lien against the settlement; the settlement check was endorsed to Hughes, Argonaut and Hughes's attorney. Hughes tendered $3,549. 38 to Argonaut, representing the full value of the insurer's workers' compensation lien ($5,324. 07) reduced by one-third withheld for attorney fees. D. Argonaut is Not Estopped From Asserting the WCAB's Jurisdiction Hughes also maintains that Argonaut is estopped from asserting the WCAB's jurisdiction.
Note:	Carrier cannot be sued by injured worker for mishandling of its lien on the claimant's settlement with a third party tortfeasor.
Citation:	88 Cal.App.4th 517, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 877
WCC Citation:	WCC 31232001 CA