Case Name:	Aliano v. WCAB		12/24/1979
Summary:	Aliano contends that the determination by the WCAB of his level of permanent disability resulting from the industrial injury is in error. Petition by Aliano for WCAB to Grant Reconsideration on Its Own Motion or Grant Reopening On October 7, 1974, more than 20 days after the findings and award of August 8, 1974, Aliano filed with the WCAB a 'Petition for Reconsideration on Appeals Board's Own Motion and Alternatively Petition to Reopen. 'In this petition Aliano argued that certain medical reports, which Aliano contended were material, had not been introduced into evidence by his prior counsel. D. Decision of WCAB on Reconsideration of Decision Granting Reopening Canoga/Eldorado sought reconsideration by the WCAB of the WCJ's decision. When the WCAB on reconsideration modified the award upon the petition for reconsideration by Canoga/Eldorado, Aliano could either seek reconsideration by the WCAB or could directly seek judicial review by a petition for writ of review.
Note:	Reopened b/c employer failed to properly present facts in original decision; Service of hospital records not required but their willful suppression is fraud.
Citation:	100 Cal.App.3d 341, 44 CCC 1156
WCC Citation:	WCC 26651979 CA

Case Name:	Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. v. Gaddy		02/07/2008
Summary:	Respondent Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. (Alliant) is an insurance brokerage business that obtains insurance for construction companies. In 2004, Alliant purchased a competing insurance brokerage, Gaddy Ward & Company Insurance Brokers (GWC), for $4. 1 million. He argues it should be limited to only four counties where, according to Gaddy, Alliant has construction clients. Alliant vice president Gregory Zimmer attested in a declaration that defendant worked for Alliant from 2004 until defendant's termination in October 2006. Thus, the supplemental declaration indicated there were two components to GWC's business -- (1) selling insurance to construction clients, and (2) procuring insurance from insurance companies.
Note:	A noncompetitive covenant regarding the sale of a company may only address the geographic location in which the company sold does business. However, the area where a business is 'carried on' is not limited to the locations of its buildings, plants and warehouses, nor the area in which it actually made sales. Here, a company that primarily does business in 4 counties is able to show that they are a California service and may enforce a covenant not to compete in any and all 58 counties in California.
Citation:	C055192
WCC Citation:	WCC 33142008 CA

Case Name:	Allied Interstate, Inc. v. GTS Home Health Services, Inc.		02/14/2013
Summary:	ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC. v. GTS HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC. ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC. , Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GTS HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. Defendant and appellant GTS Home Health Services, Inc. (GTS) appeals an order denying its motion to vacate a default judgment obtained by plaintiff and respondent Allied Interstate, Inc. (Allied). Thereafter, on July 28, 2010, the summons, complaint and related documents were mailed to GTS at the same location. Thereafter, on December 7, 2010, following a default proveup by Allied, the trial court entered a default judgment against GTS. On June 1, 2011, nearly six months after entry of the default judgment, GTS filed a motion to vacate the judgment.
Note:	A home health care provider which admitted having received a copy of the summons and complaint filed by the assignee of a State Compensation Insurance Fund debt was not entitled to have the default judgment against it vacated on the basis of improper service.
Citation:	B237823
WCC Citation:	WCC 39872013 CA

Case Name:	Allied Interstate, Inc. v. Sessions Payroll Management, Inc.		02/16/2012
Summary:	ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC. v. SESSIONS PAYROLL MANAGEMENT, INC. ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC. , Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SESSIONS PAYROLL MANAGEMENT, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. The payroll operations continued under the dba Sessions Payroll Management until 2008, at which time Heffernan returned Sessions to Knight's ownership. The policy identified "Sessions Payroll Management, Inc. " as the insured, stated it covered Sessions' liability to its employees, not "the liability of any [other] employer," and obligated Sessions to inform SCIF immediately when the information contained in the declarations regarding Sessions' operations was no longer accurate. *fn4 To determine the experience rating applicable to the policy, SCIF forwarded Sessions' payroll and operations information to the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (the Rating Bureau). Garcia met with Heffernan and Guido Dito, Sessions' risk manager, examined the company's payroll, employment, and insurance records, and reported her findings to SCIF.
Note:	State Compensation Insurance Fund properly applied a 121% experience modifier to a Burbank payroll company that serves the movie industry.
Citation:	B226134
WCC Citation:	WCC 38592012 CA

Case Name:	Allied Waste Industries, et al. v. WCAB (Rojas)		12/06/2010
Summary:	ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. , et al. Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ROGELIO ROJAS, Respondents. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Rogelio Rojas (applicant) was seriously injured while working as a garbage truck driver for petitioner Allied Waste Industries, Inc. The ALJ ordered additional medical treatment for applicant and awarded counsel a total of $386,515. 32 in attorney fees. However, the Board rejected respondent's challenge to the COLA calculation, concluding that it too was constrained by the Duncan decision. DISCUSSION Before embarking on our analysis of petitioner's claim, we briefly review some fundamentals of the workers' compensation system.
Note:	A claimant's cost-of-living adjustments should not begin until the January 1 following his date of injury.
Citation:	C064914
WCC Citation:	WCC 36872010 CA

Case Name:	Allison v. WCAB		05/27/1999
Summary:	OPINION CROSKEY, J. - Petitioner Carol Allison (Allison) seeks relief from an order of a workers' compensation judge which directed her to answer deposition questions relating to her general past medical history. Factual and Procedural Background Allison is the applicant in the worker's compensation case entitled Allison v. Del Amo Mobile Homes Estates and bearing case No. POM 234030, which is pending before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). While Allison was recuperating from surgery to her wrist, Del Amo noticed her deposition, which was taken in December 1997. Allison then filed a petition for removal to the WCAB pursuant to section 5310 fn. He argued that without a final order as to admissibility, no irreparable harm or prejudice to Allison [72 Cal. App. 4th 659] has occurred, and he recommended against removal to the WCAB.
Note:	WCJ's have authority to hear and rule on discovery disputes.
Citation:	72 Cal.App.4th 654, 64 CCC 624
WCC Citation:	WCC 26011999 CA

Case Name:	Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services (II)		09/03/2009
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) MARIO ALMARAZ, Applicant, vs. ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY SERVICES (a. k. a. ENVIROSERVE); and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). BACKGROUND In the Almaraz case, applicant sustained a November 5, 2004 back injury, while employed as a truck driver. We granted reconsideration in both the Almaraz and Guzman cases and consolidated them for our February 3, 2009 en banc decision. In both Almaraz and Guzman, we invited any interested person or entity to file and serve an amicus curiae brief by May 1. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (en banc) in Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services, Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), that the Findings of Fact and Award of April 23, 2008 is AMENDED such that Findings of Fact Nos.
Note:	[En Banc] The language of Labor Code section 4660(c) unambiguously means that a permanent disability rating established by the Schedule is rebuttable.
Citation:	ADJ1078163
WCC Citation:	WCC 35632009 CA

Case Name:	Almaraz vs. Environmental Recovery Services (SCIF); Guzman vs. Milpitas Unified School Dist (Keenan)		02/03/2009
Summary:	OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) ===================== Case No.    ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688) JOYCE GUZMAN, Applicant, vs. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured; and KEENAN & ASSOCIATES, Adjusting Agent, Defendant(s). The Almaraz Case Applicant, Mario Almaraz, sustained an admitted industrial injury to his back on November 5, 2004, while employed as a truck driver by Environmental Recovery Services (a. k. a. Enviroserve), insured by defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Guzman Case Applicant, Joyce Guzman, sustained an admitted industrial injury to her bilateral upper extremities during a cumulative period ending on April 11, 2005, while employed as a secretary by defendant, the Milpitas Unified School District (adjusted by Keenan & Associates). In accordance with the discussion above, we specifically conclude that the AMA Guides portion of the 2005 Schedule is rebuttable. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services, Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), and Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District, Case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688), are CONSOLIDATED for the limited purpose of issuing a joint opinion.
Note:	(1) the AMA Guides portion of the 2005 Schedule is rebuttable; (2) the AMA Guides portion of the 2005 Schedule is rebutted by showing that an impairment rating based on the AMA Guides would result in a permanent disability award that would be inequitable, disproportionate, and not a fair and accurate measure of the employees permanent disability; and (3) when an impairment rating based on the AMA Guides has been rebutted, the WCAB may make an impairment determination that considers medical opinions that are not based or are only partially based on the AMA Guides.
Citation:	ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426); ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
WCC Citation:	WCC 34892009 CA

Case Name:	Alonzo v. Brennan		08/24/2011
Summary:	SHAWNA ALONZO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CASEY BEAR BRENNAN et al. , Defendants and Appellants. At the time of the accident, Alonzo was employed by Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC). The ambulance was being operated by defendants Casey Bear Brennan and Filyn Corporation, doing business as Lynch Ambulance. TRM alleged that CHOC was self-insured for workers' compensation benefits, and that Alonzo was injured as a result of defendants' negligent operation of the ambulance in which she was riding, requiring CHOC to provide benefits to Alonzo. Alonzo's attorney submitted a declaration in support of the motion, indicating that his firm had a 40 percent contingency fee agreement with Alonzo.
Note:	A hospital employee is entitled to $38,169 in attorney fees because she prevailed in a third-party suit that also helped her employer.
Citation:	B222327
WCC Citation:	WCC 37922011 CA

Case Name:	Alvarez v. Seaside Transportation Services LLC		07/20/2017
Summary:	Filed 7/20/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             BERNIE ALVAREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SEASIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LLC et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B275980 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiff and appellant Bernie Alvarez was injured at work when he drove a maintenance van into a shipping container. Evergreen contracted with Marine Terminals Corporation dba Ports America (Ports America), Seaside Transportation Services, LLC (Seaside), and PCMC to provide services at the terminal. * .           WE CONCUR: .           FLIER, J.
Note:
Citation:	B275980
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC538128

Case Name:	Alvarez v. WCAB		05/14/2010
Summary:	Note: Superceded by Alvarez v. WCAB (SCIF), B218847, 08/12/2010 Filed 5/14/10 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CARLOS ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. , Respondents. Carlos Alvarez (Alvarez or petitioner), her widower and guardian at litem of their two minor children, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits, alleging that Parades's death was caused by her work. Alvarez subsequently filed a petition objecting to the ex parte communication between Dr. Miller and defense counsel. )"*fn5 The WCAB added that the ex parte communication related back to an administrative matter discussed at the deposition, which was not ex parte. The WCAB also concluded that section 4062. 3 is concerned with a party initiating an ex parte communication, which did not occur here.
Note:	[Superceded] Section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel qualified medical evaluator, with the only exception being for communications by the employee or deceased employee's dependent in connection with an examination, and in the event of unauthorized ex parte communication permits the aggrieved party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel qualified medical evaluator.
Citation:	B218847
WCC Citation:	WCC 36212010 CA

Case Name:	Alvarez v. WCAB (SCIF)		08/12/2010
Summary:	Carlos Alvarez (Alvarez or petitioner), her widower and guardian at litem of their two minor children, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits, alleging that Parades's death was caused by her work. Alvarez noted that the new qualified medical evaluator regulations also prohibit all ex parte communications and that a single violation may result in a penalty. The WCAB said that even if the determination of the issue was not a final order, it would have denied the petition for removal of the matter to the WCAB. The WCAB also concluded that section . 3 is concerned with a party initiating an ex parte communication, which did not occur here. Alvarez, in seeking judicial review of the order denying reconsideration and dismissing the petition for removal to the WCAB, requests that order be annulled.
Note:	Section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel QME, with no exception based on the initiator of the communication or for 'administrative' matters. Nevertheless, because a certain degree of informality in workers' compensation procedures has been recognized, not every conceivable ex parte communication permits a party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel QME.
Citation:	B218847
WCC Citation:	WCC 36562010 CA

Case Name:	Alvis v. McIntyre		07/30/2008
Summary:	The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the employers (Pat Thomaselli, Thomaselli Construction, Robert McIntyre and McIntyre Enterprises), and Alvis timely appealed from the ensuing judgment. Robert McIntyre, doing business as McIntyre Enterprises (collectively, McIntyre) answered in part by denying he was Alvis's employer; he also alleged he had compensation insurance and Alvis had filed a compensation claim, therefore this suit was barred by the workers compensation remedy. For example, Alvis claimed McIntyre did not post proper workplace notices, and did not timely give Alvis a claim form. Alvis filed a "supplement," describing a form McIntyre filed with SCIF in which he said Alvis was not his employee but was working "per subcontract" for Thomaselli; Alvis asserted that Thomaselli had variously claimed to be Alvis's employer, that McIntyre was Alvis's employer and that Thomaselli was Alvis's "special employer," and argued that this raised a triable issue as to who was his employer. Alvis describes the following purported violations by McIntyre: (1) McIntyre did not post the appropriate compensation notices at the jobsite; (2) McIntyre did not promptly give Alvis a claim form after learning of the injury; (3) McIntyre failed to return a completed form to Alvis; (4) McIntyre failed to ensure prompt payment to Alvis of his benefits; (5) McIntyre failed to tell Alvis his rights under the compensation system; and (6) McIntyre failed to provide a safe jobsite.
Note:	[Unpublished] In an effort to avoid the exclusivity provisions of the workers compensation scheme, there is no theory in which plaintiff can prevail against defendants listed as employers on plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff could have, but did not, move to amend his complaint; his failure to do so means he is stuck with the complaint as pleaded.
Citation:	C055102
WCC Citation:	WCC 34042008 CA

Case Name:	Amalgamated Transit Union vs. LA Co MTA		03/28/2003
Summary:	AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 1277, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent. Appellant Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1277 (the Union) appeals from the trial court's denial of a petition to compel the employer, respondent Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (the MTA), to arbitrate pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement. The grievance alleged that she wanted to go back to work but that the MTA acted in bad faith. Approximately six months later, on June 1, 2000, after a second-step hearing on Sutherland's grievance, the MTA again denied the grievance. On June 7, 2000, the Union requested that the MTA arbitrate the grievance.
Note:	132a claim may be part of union requested employee arbitration.
Citation:	107 Cal.App.4th 673
WCC Citation:	WCC 29242003 CA

Case Name:	Amborn v. WCAB		09/08/1971
Summary:	HOWARD AMBORN, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Respondents (Opinion by Rattigan, Acting P. J. , with Christian, J. , and Elkington, J. , concurring. )OPINION RATTIGAN, Acting P. J. Howard Amborn, the applicant in a workmen's compensation proceeding, petitioned this court for review of the final award made therein. The Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter the 'appeals board') adopted the referee's 'Findings and Award,' in all respects, after proceedings upon reconsideration thereof. 3 Section 4800 makes no distinction between temporary and permanent disability, or between temporary and permanent 'disability payments. '3, ante), limits a disabled highway patrolman's salaried leave of absence to the period of his temporary disability.
Note:	Patrolman entitled to leave of absence without loss of pay for 1 yr. as well as PD benefits.
Citation:	19 Cal.App.3d 953, 36 CCC 544
WCC Citation:	WCC 26761971 CA

Case Name:	Amer. Intern. Adj. Co., Inc. v. Crawford		01/09/1997
Summary:	On December 3, 1993, the superior court (Judge Stock) issued a TRO freezing Professional's assets and setting a contested hearing. The next day the court dissolved the TRO and declined to issue a writ of attachment or preliminary injunction. The court's statements at the December 14 hearing indicated the court's displeasure with 'a plaintiff contesting this matter in two forums. On February 25, 1994, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the ground the WACB had exclusive jurisdiction. The court conceded American had argued 'with some degree of persuasion' that 'there's dual jurisdiction over these kinds of matters . . .
Note:	WCAB has jurisdiction over bad faith or fraud claims against carriers or medical/legal lien claimants.
Citation:	51 Cal. App. 4th 1489, 62 CCC 22
WCC Citation:	WCC 24851997 CA

Case Name:	Amer. Psych. Consultants, Inc. v. WCAB		07/21/1995
Summary:	Defendant Republic did not contest the bill as unreasonable or unnecessary within the 60-day period permitted in Labor Code section 4622. 4 The WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, on the ground that APC's petition for reconsideration had not been verified. Applicant underwent surgery on November 20, 1990, and was released by Dr. Najafi to return to work in January 1991. Applicant obtained counsel and signed a claim form on December 5, 1990, which was received by defendant employer on December 12, 1990. Defendants responded the services rendered by Apex were not medical-legal expenses subject to the statutory provisions cited by Apex.
Note:	When both parties equally mistaken where money was paid, restitution not available.
Citation:	36 Cal.App.4th 1626, 60 CCC 559
WCC Citation:	WCC 24401995 CA

Case Name:	Ameri-Medical Corp. v. WCAB		02/27/1996
Summary:	On May 7, 1990, Lizzi filed an employee's claim alleging an industrial injury to her psyche due to stress. Subsequently, Lizzi sought a psychological examination and evaluation for medical-legal purposes at the Eleventh Street Clinic, owned by Ameri-Med. Franco and Kreman were independent contractors and if Ameri-Med charged respondents an amount in excess of the physicians' direct charges. In Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, WCAB No. LBO 218124, the February 18, 1994, order of the Board is annulled. Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, WCAB No. LBO 218124.
Note:	Defendants objecting to bill have interest in impermissable charges but not unfettered access to doctor's business records; Disclosure of identity of medical reports preparers is essential.
Citation:	42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 61 CCC 149
WCC Citation:	WCC 24421996 CA

Case Name:	American Cargo Express v. Superior Court of Sacramento County		10/13/2017
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             AMERICAN CARGO EXPRESS, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, .             v. .             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; .             CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS’ SECURITY FUND, Real Party in Interest. .             C081125 .             (Super. .           Filed 10/13/17 .           CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION .           IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT .           (Sacramento) .           AMERICAN CARGO EXPRESS, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, .           v. .           THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; .           CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS’ SECURITY FUND, Real Party in Interest. Ct. No. 34201100113628) .           ORDER MODIFYING OPINION, DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING, AND GRANTING REQUEST TO PUBLISH .           [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] .           ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate and/or prohibition. .           FOR THE COURT: .           /S/ BLEASE, Acting P. J.
Note:	The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that the California Self-Insurers’ Security Fund can proceed with its claim for reimbursement from the former clients of a defunct staffing company.
Citation:	C081125
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 34201100113628

Case Name:	American Casualty v. Miller		01/29/2008
Summary:	The CGL Policy Plaintiff and respondent American Casualty Company of Redding, PA. (American Casualty), provided Miller, doing business as Stripper Herk, with a CGL policy, which was effective from April 26, 2002 to April 26, 2003. In May 2004, Miller tendered the Valenzuela action and re-tendered the Zurich action to American Casualty. On May 28, 2004, American Casualty refused to defend or indemnify Miller with respect to the lawsuits. In January and February 2005, Miller again requested that American Casualty defend and indemnify him for damages resulting from Valenzuela's injuries. American Casualty Files For Declaratory Relief On June 7, 2005, American Casualty filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Miller, doing business as Stripper Herk, and Valenzuela (defendants).
Note:	The injured worker's injuries arose from an event commonly thought of as environmental pollution. An ordinary insured would reasonably expect that the release of methylene chloride into a public sewer is environmental pollution.
Citation:	B192216
WCC Citation:	WCC 33092008 CA

Case Name:	American Home Assurance v. WCAB (Wuertz)		09/11/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, Petitioners, v. WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DONALD WUERTZ, Respondents. Mullen & Fulippi, LLP, Bruce K. Wade for Petitioner, American Home Assurance. -ooOoo- American Home Assurance (AHA) petitions this court for a writ or review on behalf of its insured, RR Donnelley, from a decision of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Safety meetings, meanwhile, occur during regularly scheduled shifts and no one is called in to the worksite from home. The WCAB summarily denied the petition for reconsideration, adopting and incorporating the WCJs report and recommendation.
Note:	A worker who was injured while riding his motorcycle to a rare work-related meeting on his day off was performing a 'special mission' at the time, and is entitled to compensation for his injuries.
Citation:	F057906
WCC Citation:	WCC 35662009 CA

Case Name:	American Medical Response v. WCAB (Westerman)		04/24/2012
Summary:	AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RONALD WESTERMAN, Respondents. Petitioners American Medical Response and Ace American Insurance Company sought reconsideration, principally on the basis that Westerman did not undergo a critical diagnostic test. FACTS Respondent Westerman was employed as a paramedic by petitioner American Medical Response. According to his wife, Westerman gained weight while employed by American Medical Response. The WCJ's report stated: "In addition, the medical reporting itself does not require reasonable medical certainty as the defendant states here. "
Note:	Substantial evidence existed to prove that a stroke which rendered a 50-year-old paramedic permanently and totally disabled arose out of and in the course of employment, even though the applicant had allegedly refused to undergo a medical test that might have disproved his treating physician's causation theory.
Citation:	B235468
WCC Citation:	WCC 38882012 CA

Case Name:	American Modern Home Ins. Co. v. Fahmian, et al.		04/08/2011
Summary:	Fahmian tendered the matter to his homeowners insurance company, American Modern Home Insurance Company (American Modern), which accepted the defense of the personal injury lawsuit, subject to a reservation of rights. The jury also found that Fahmian did not have sufficient time to make a reasoned reply to American Modern. American Modern did not receive any communication from Fahmian or any attorney purporting to represent him after July 5. Did American Modern expressly notify Sohail Fahmian of American Modern's intent to accept the settlement offer made on behalf of Mr. Rudy Montoya?Co. (1977) 66 Cal. App. 3d 981, 994); because American Modern Home did not give Fahmian a reasonable amount of time to decide, Fahmian is not liable to American Modern Home. "
Note:	A homeowners insurance company is entitled to a $300,000 reimbursement from an insured employer after proving that its policy excluded any coverage for his private business.
Citation:	G042799
WCC Citation:	WCC 37422011 CA

Case Name:	American Safety Casualty Ins. Co. v. Mothershead		05/12/2009
Summary:	Respondent American Safety Casualty Insurance Company (American Safety) filed an action to recover workers' compensation benefits it had paid to Reynoso. Prior to trial, appellants served Code of Civil Procedure section 9981 offers to compromise on both Reynoso and American Safety. The sole issue on appeal is the validity of appellants' offers to compromise made to Reynoso and American Safety. Briskin, Latzanich & Pene, Katherine B. Pene for Plaintiff and Respondent American Safety Casualty Insurance Company and for Intervener and Respondent Salvador Reynoso. The offer was served February 11, 2005 and read, "To Plaintiff, American Safety Casualty Insurance Company and its attorneys of record: [¶] Defendants/Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendants Terease Mothershead and John Mothershead offer to compromise in the above-entitled action filed by Plaintiff, American Safety Casualty Insurance Company, pursuant to Section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, in exchange for a waiver of costs.
Note:	[Unpublished] Two plaintiffs who did not accept pretrial settlement offers are not liable for a defendant's expert witness fees, because the offers were unclear and conditional.
Citation:	B206494
WCC Citation:	WCC 35212009 CA

Case Name:	Amerigas Propane, LP v. Landstar Ranger, Inc.		05/18/2010
Summary:	Introduction Defendant and cross-complainant Amerigas Propane, L. P. (Amerigas) appeals summary judgment entered on Amerigas's cross-complaint, in favor of cross-defendant Landstar Ranger, Inc. (Landstar). This action arises from Amerigas contracting with motor carrier, Landstar Ranger, Inc. (Landstar), for the transportation of 30 Amerigas propane tanks. King leased to Landstar a tractor and "drop-deck" trailer, referred to as a flatbed trailer, he had recently obtained for hauling loads for Landstar. Amerigas seeks to recover, based on comparative fault, a portion of what Amerigas paid to settle the Kings's underlying lawsuit. Amerigas alleges it is entitled to equitable indemnity from Landstar for a portion of the settlement proceeds, based on Landstar being partially at fault for King's injuries.
Note:	A trial court should not have granted a defendant's motion for summary judgment because a factual question existed about whether an injured trucker was an employee, and whether a company owed him a duty as an independent contractor.
Citation:	E048536
WCC Citation:	WCC 36232010 CA

Case Name:	Amico vs. WCAB		12/02/1974
Summary:	SAM AMICO, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, LEUNING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Sims, Acting P. J. , with Elkington, J. , and Bray, J. , concurring. )'As a general rule, the board "must accept as true the intended meaning of [evidence] both uncontradicted and unimpeached. "A second report made after a review of medical reports and files, without reexamination of petitioner, on May 15, 1973, states: "The history I obtained from Mr. Amico indicates that he was never symptom-free following this original laminectomy. These X-rays were later referred to by Dr. Cappeller as follows: "Lumbar Spine dated 3-30-72 -- There are five lumbar bodies. There was also presumably an injury to the right knee, and he developed a hernia in the right inguinal region.
Note:	Prior rating or award does not necessarily evidence prior level of disability.
Citation:
WCC Citation:	WCC 30271974 CA

Case Name:	An Independent Home Support Service, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego, State Compensation Insurance Fund		12/21/2006
Summary:	Filed 12/21/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN INDEPENDENT HOME SUPPORT SERVICE, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Real Party in Interest. AIHSS obtained workers' compensation insurance from State Fund on behalf of the two office workers. State Fund denied the appeal, finding that the domestic workers were considered employees of AIHSS for workers' compensation purposes. We conclude that compliance with the requirements of section 1812. 5095 does exempt AIHSS from maintaining workers' compensation insurance for its domestic workers. We conclude that the plain language of section 1812. 5095 demonstrates that it was intended to apply to workers' compensation insurance, not, as State Fund asserts and the court found, only unemployment insurance.
Note:	A referral agency that provides domestic workers to individuals and entities is deemed not to be the employers, for the purposes of workers' compensation, of the domestic workers they refer.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 1418
WCC Citation:	WCC 32002006 CA

Case Name:	Andersen v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		04/19/2007
Summary:	Filed 4/19/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX d Civil No. B191064 (W. C. A. B. No. GOL 0093796) JOHN ANDERSEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF SANTA BARBARA et al. , Respondents. Proceeding to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. No appearance for Respondents Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and JT2 Integrated Resources. He also argued that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) improperly applied the apportionment provisions of Senate Bill No. 899 (2003-2004 Reg. Statutory Interpretation We independently interpret workers' compensation statutes to ascertain the intent of the Legislature and effectuate the purpose of the workers' compensation scheme.
Note:	Employer violated section 132a by requiring claimant to use his earned vacation time rather than sick leave to attend medical appointments to care for his industrial injuries.
Citation:	149 Cal. App. 4th 1369, 72 CCC 389
WCC Citation:	WCC 32172007 CA

Case Name:	Anderson v. Catholic Healthcare West		04/11/2013
Summary:	ANDERSON v. CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST JANET ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, Defendant and Respondent. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 115 MARGULIES, Acting P. J. Janet Anderson appeals from a judgment after a court trial in favor of her former employer, Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) doing business as Mercy Medical Center (Mercy). The subject of alternative positions in the OR was discussed with Anderson, including an open position as a circulating nurse. Anderson discussed the latex allergy with her supervisor at the outpatient surgery center who then designated one of the rooms as a latex-free area for Anderson to perform many of her duties. Due to fears of latex exposure, Anderson turned down a number of positions in the healthcare field.
Note:	A hospital made reasonable efforts to accommodate a nurse with a severe latex allergy and its decision to fire her when a suitable modified duty position could not be found did not violate the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	A127934
WCC Citation:	WCC 40022013 CA

Case Name:	Anderson v. Denham Contracting		03/30/2009
Summary:	Filed 3/30/09 Anderson v. Denham Contracting 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 THREE D. CRAIG ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DENHAM CONTRACTING, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. His workers' compensation claim and personal injury claims against other subcontractors have been resolved, but he now appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his negligence complaint against an additional subcontractor on the job, defendant Denham Contracting, Inc. (Denham). Plaintiff filed a complaint for negligence*fn1 against Denham, alleging that Denham was responsible for safety conditions at the location where plaintiff fell and/or [was] responsible for creating the hole and unsafe condition which caused plaintiff to fall and be injured. According to the trial court, The work performed on the roof by Denham was to build a parapet wall around the perimeter of the building.
Note:	[Unpublished] A subcontractor did not owe a project foreman a duty of care to prevent him from falling through a hole in the roof.
Citation:	A119834
WCC Citation:	WCC 35092009 CA