Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Osbun v. WCAB | 05/17/1979 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | STEPHEN C. OSBUN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, TOM VETERAN et al. , Respondents. Upon arrival at the construction site, petitioner, accompanied by Harding, was directed by Martinez to begin hanging drywall in certain units. First, a [93 Cal. App. 3d 166] process called 'stocking' involves unloading sheetrock from trucks and placing it inside the buildings. On this job Hintz was responsible for stocking and on the particular day his general laborers were occupied elsewhere. Nevertheless, on this Thursday, petitioner and Harding did comply with Martinez's request and stocked as well as hung the drywall. | ||
| Note: | Where deposition testimony wasn't before WCAB it would not be considered by reviewing court. | ||
| Citation: | 93 Cal.App.3d 163 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 27101979 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Otis vs. City of Los Angeles, etc. et. al. | 10/02/1980 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Since the grant of reconsideration in Otis, various panels of the Appeals Board have granted reconsideration in cases involving the interpretation of Section 4601. 5. Some involved the same issue as in Otis others involved different issues presented by the statute. n5 Prior to its enactment there were no sanctions for non-payment of medical-legal costs by way of penalty and interest. A OTIS V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES 77 MON 13155 and 77 MON 13128 n7 An application was filed on April 18, 1977 alleging injury to the back and assigned case number 77 MON 13128. On October 28, 1977, approximately four months following the filing of the reports, the City of Los Angeles filed a document entitled Petition for Disallowance of Medical-Legal Costs. | ||
| Note: | Appropriate procedure to follow when contesting medical-legal lien. | ||
| Citation: | 45 CCC 1132 (En Banc) | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 28711980 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Ott v. WCAB | 05/06/1981 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | LUNETTE OTT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondents. Petitioner Lunette Ott (hereinafter Ott) was employed with respondent Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter Pacific Telephone) as a marketing representative. Subsequent activity centered upon the permanent disability compensation due to Ott and any credit to be allowed for benefits paid by Pacific Telephone. Oral testimony was adduced from Robert D. Harless, a personnel manager in the San Francisco office of Pacific Telephone's employees' benefits department, and Ott. In the case of Mrs. Ott, was her case submitted to the committee? | ||
| Note: | Employer bears burden of proving voluntary nature of wage payments for credit against indemnity. | ||
| Citation: | 118 Cal.App.3d 912 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 3381981 CA | ||
