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Summary:	Note: Superceded by Alvarez v. WCAB (SCIF), B218847, 08/12/2010 Filed 5/14/10 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CARLOS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Note:	[Superceded] Section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel qualified medical evaluator, with the only exception being for communications by the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

Case Name:	Anderson v. Union Oil Co.		07/17/1975
Summary:	GEORGE L. ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Beach, J. , with Fleming, Acting P. J. , and Compton, J. , concurring. )OPINION BEACH, J. Respondent's employee appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent Union Oil Company in a class action for declaratory relief. The provisions for sick pay allowance are contained in the articles of agreement between respondent Union Oil and the appellant's labor union. Appellant received his full salary during the period of illness; $3,420 under the workmen's compensation statute and $2,095. 58 from respondent Union Oil Company pursuant to the company funded sick pay plan. Whether, under the Union Oil plan, sick pay is the equivalent of 'earnings' and a 'benefit' as defined by Labor Code sections 3751 and 3752. .
Note:	Employer can provide in a voluntary benefit plan for credit against work comp. liabilities.
Citation:	49 Cal.App.3d 968, 40 CCC 970
WCC Citation:	WCC 24601975 CA

Case Name:	Andrade v. City of Milpitas		01/04/2013
Summary:	ANDRADE v. CITY OF MILPITAS YVONNE ANDRADE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF MILPITAS, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Yvonne Andrade brought an action against defendant City of Milpitas (City) for failure to accommodate her disability. Though a physical therapist recommended in October 2008 that Andrade work part-time, Andrade never requested permission from the City to work less than 40 hours per week. In order for Andrade to be paid instead of having to take leave without pay, the City permitted Andrade to call her supervisor the day she was too ill to work and use vacation time. Andrade never provided a doctor's recommendation to the City that she should work from home due to her medical condition.
Note:	A municipal employer who allowed an employee to miss more than one out of every 10 days of work over a two-year period because of her fibromyalgia and made arrangements for her to work from home, made sufficient accommodation for the worker's disabilities.
Citation:	H037124
WCC Citation:	WCC 39702013 CA

Case Name:	Angelotti v. Walt Disney Company et al.		02/24/2011
Summary:	ANGELOTTI v. WALT DISNEY COMPANY ANTHONY ANGELOTTI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The court also concluded that The Walt Disney Company (Disney Company) and other defendants owed Angelotti no duty of care. Factual Background Second Mate entered into an agreement with Walt Disney Pictures in which Second Mate agreed to produce and Walt Disney Pictures agreed to finance two movies. Walt Disney Pictures is a subsidiary of Disney Company. Disney Company, Walt Disney Pictures, Buena Vista Productions, Jerry Bruckheimer, Inc. , Golden Oak Ranch Properties, Elliot, Quick, and Rose (collectively Disney defendants) together with Stephan Sports and Stephan filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication in November 2008.
Note:	Exclusive remedy barred a stuntman from suing a film production company because substantial evidence showed that it was his special employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B219946
WCC Citation:	WCC 37182011 CA

Case Name:	Anguiano v. Ormco Corporation		11/04/2011
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Rosalina Anguiano appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Ormco Corporation. Ormco warned Anguiano that her quality of work was "totally unacceptable" and she needed to reduce her M. R. D. R. s to 2. 5 per month or face further disciplinary action. On October 27, 2006, Ormco gave Anguiano a written warning stating that she had received 52 M. R. D. R. s in the previous 12-month period. She asked Anguiano to go immediately to the medical clinic that Ormco uses for industrial injuries. Rodriguez was not Anguiano's supervisor or an agent of Ormco with respect to Anguiano.
Note:	An employer is not liable for disability discrimination because undisputed evidence showed that it terminated a welder for poor performance.
Citation:	B228600
WCC Citation:	WCC 38212011 CA

Case Name:	Antelope Valley Press v. California Ins. Comissioner		02/26/2008
Summary:	Filed 2/26/08 Antelope Valley Press v. California Ins. This case poses the question whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who make deliveries of newspapers for the newspaper publisher Antelope Valley Press (AVP) are independent contractors or employees. AVP publishes a daily newspaper called the Antelope Valley Press (the Press). It is a magazine-type of publication, is delivered with the Press to subscribers of the Press, and comes out on the last Thursday of the month. The various parts of the Press are all delivered to the same location where the carrier normally picks up the Press.
Note:	[Published as of 4/30/08] The carriers are employees for purposes of workers' compensation law, not independent contractors.
Citation:	B198139
WCC Citation:	WCC 33212008 CA

Case Name:	Antonio Giusto v. City of San Mateo Personnel Board		12/16/2008
Summary:	[U] Giusto v. City of San Mateo Personnel Board, No. A120144 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 12/16/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No. A120144 December 16, 2008 ANTONIO GIUSTO, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF SAN MATEO PERSONNEL BOARD, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT, CITY OF SAN MATEO, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND APPELLANT. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Appellants City of San Mateo Personnel Board (Board) and City of San Mateo (City) seek review of the judgment entered following the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Board to set aside its decision to terminate the employment of respondent Antonio Giusto. In her letter referring Giusto to Dr. Reynolds, Chief Manheimer provided background information regarding the Department's relationship with Giusto. *fn2 Additionally, Giusto was observed making an obscene gesture during a City Council meeting while a Council member was speaking. (Giusto v. City of San Mateo, A109567 (March 30, 2006) 2006 Cal. App. Unpub.
Note:	The City of San Mateo Personnel Board made no error in law when it terminated a police sergeant who filed a workers' compensation claim for job-related stress, but was found by a psychologist to have a personality disorder because of his inability to accept constructive criticism.
Citation:	A120144
WCC Citation:	WCC 34682008 CA

Case Name:	Appleby v. WCAB		07/29/1994
Summary:	DONALD APPLEBY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PACIFIC BELL, Respondents. Facts and Procedural History On April 18, 1990, applicant Donald Appleby, a splicing technician, injured his left knee while in the course and scope of his employment at defendant Pacific Bell. 2 On November 30, 1992, the WCJ made findings on the issue of the credit, denying the credit to Pacific Bell. 3 Pacific Bell sent a letter to Appleby on June 26, 1990, shortly after his injury, clearly advising him that Pacific Bell intended to recover Plan benefits paid to him from workers' compensation benefits. The Board concluded that applicant Appleby, by accepting benefits from the Plan after receipt of the letter, had thereby waived his right to object to the credit.
Note:	Employer can credit paid private pension benefits against work comp. liabilities.
Citation:	27 Cal.App.4th 184, 59 CCC 520
WCC Citation:	WCC 24521994 CA

Case Name:	Applied Materials v. WCAB (unpublished)		05/07/2021
Summary:	All parties (Applied Materials, Arrowood, XL Specialty, and Worker) petitioned the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for reconsideration. Arrowood’s petition also names the employer, Applied Materials, as a petitioner. History of Industrial Injuries, Medical Treatment, and Workers’ Compensation Claims Worker began working for Applied Materials in 1996 as an administrative assistant and was eventually promoted to program manager for marketing, communications, and international training programs. (2012) 77 Cal. Comp. Cases 445, 447-448 (Jaramillo) that section 4662 applied to total PD (100 percent) and that section 4660 applied to partial PD (0 percent to 99. 75 percent). 6 [unlike the WCAB’s en banc decisions, WCAB panel decisions are not binding on other WCAB panels or WCJ’s]. )
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a worker who was sexually exploited by her treating physician was not entitled to a permanent total disability award.
Citation:	No. H047148
WCC Citation:	No. H047148

Case Name:	Arboleda v. WCAB		08/11/1967
Summary:	Moss, J. Mccoy [253 CalApp2d Page 482] Avelino Arboleda, an employee of the Trinidad Hotel in Palm Springs, was killed in an automobile accident on Friday, the 13th of May, 1966. The application of his widow, Dorothy Arboleda, for an award of death benefits was denied by the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Mr. Arboleda was provided with a place at the hotel to rest during the afternoon [253 CalApp2d Page 488] interval. It cannot be said, therefore, that the shorter advance notice which he received resulted in greater additional risk to him than the five-day notice given to Mr. Arboleda. It is also true that Mr. Schreifer apparently did not report early for work with the same frequency that Mr. Arboleda worked the night shift.
Note:	Commuting to work 2 a day for split shift is not extraordinary for purposes of special mission.
Citation:	253 Cal. App. 2d 481
WCC Citation:	WCC 30461967 CA

Case Name:	Argonaut Ins. Co. v. IAC		02/08/1961
Summary:	ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and BUDDY D. SHELTON, Respondents. * Argonaut Insurance Company, as compensation carrier for an employer of one Shelton, seeks annulment of two decisions of the Industrial Accident Commission. At the time of the first two injuries applicant was employed by an employer for whom petitioner was the compensation carrier. Argonaut petitioned for reconsideration in proceedings Numbers 59 SBR 2781 and 59 SBR 3327. The commission having granted reconsideration, the findings and award of the referee were not the findings and award of the commission.
Note:	IAC had power to grant recon. of its own decision as to all of consolidated cases.
Citation:	189 Cal.App.2d 23, 26 CCC 40
WCC Citation:	WCC 27001961 CA

Case Name:	Argonaut Ins. Co. v. IAC (Harries)		12/09/1964
Summary:	ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and EARLY C. HARRIES, Respondents. * Petitioners, Argonaut Insurance Company and its assured Arntz Brothers, seek annulment of a permanent disability award to Early C. Harries, an employee of Arntz Brothers. Argonaut Insurance Company was the employer's workmen's compensation insurer for the period July 1, 1955, through April 1, 1962. The onset of pain was not sudden and there was no specific incident of pain associated with his employment. Therefore, under the well-known rule applicable to review of Industrial Accident Commission determinations, we are bound by the commission's findings.
Note:	Where employer has more than one insurer, apportionment of liab. is proper.
Citation:	231 Cal.App.2d 111, 29 CCC 279
WCC Citation:	WCC 26311964 CA

Case Name:	Argonaut Ins. Co. v. IAC (Montana)		05/08/1962
Summary:	ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and FRED MONTANA, Respondents. Describing Montana's preaccident condition, he stated: 'There was some increase in the lumbosacral angle with mild scoliosis. I mean, there was nothing unusual about the x-rays for a man of this build . . . and age. They are not too far away from normal, about what you would expect with his build and age. '[1] Whether a disability results in whole or in part from 'the normal progress of a preexisting disease' (Industrial Indem.
Note:	IAC may use its general knowledge to forecast and weigh facts relevant in compensation award.
Citation:	57 Cal.2d 589, 27 CCC 130
WCC Citation:	WCC 25361962 CA

Case Name:	Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n		10/11/1963
Summary:	No. 238 October 11, 1963 ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION AND LOLA LEE CUDDY, RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for death of claimant's husband. James J. Cuddy died November 10, 1961, as the result of an automobile accident near Shaver Lake in Fresno County. Petitioner Hermreck, Inc. , was insured as to liability for injuries arising under the workmen's compensation laws by petitioner Argonaut Insurance Company. Hearings were held before Referee Rolf V. Gadebusch, of the Industrial Accident Commission, on the claim for a death benefit filed by respondent Lola Lee Cuddy. 2d 509, 513 [159 P. 2d 625], it is said: "The test is stated in Employers' etc. Corp. v. Industrial Acc.
Note:	Injury compensable if sustained while traveling to pick up paycheck at location specified by employer.
Citation:	221 Cal. App. 2d 140
WCC Citation:	WCC 30471963 CA

Case Name:	Argonaut Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Lopez)		02/22/1971
Summary:	ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RICHARD LOPEZ, Respondents (Opinion by Fleming, J. , with Herndon, Acting P. J. , and Compton, J. , concurring. )Under this section permanent disability must be apportioned between two injuries producing the disability. [2] However, the board awarded Lopez 11 1/2 percent permanent disability without regard to its prior awards or findings. Nevertheless, the board did not follow the logic of its finding, but instead awarded Lopez compensation for an additional 11 1/2 percent permanent disability. Lopez's employer reported the following hours worked by Lopez during the 12 months which followed his second injury: Tabular Material Omitted
Note:	Insurer entitled to specific finding on amount of PD relied on by WCAB, can controvert finding through legal process.
Citation:	15 Cal.App.3d 436, 36 CCC 89
WCC Citation:	WCC 26491971 CA

Case Name:	Argonaut Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Thompson)		05/09/1972
Summary:	[n3] Counsel for Argonaut prepared a settlement agreement on a printed WCAB form captioned 'Third Party Compromise and Release. 'On May 11, counsel for Argonaut sent the settlement agreement to WCAB for its approval. After Argonaut petitioned for reconsideration, the WCAB on April 6, 1971, affirmed the referee's action. The second error was committed by Argonaut when it was led into the precise error invited by the WCAB form. By ordering Argonaut, rather than Thompson or Cayocca, to pay the $ 1,404, WCAB attempted to take from Argonaut money which had never been in its hands.
Note:	Settlement of 3rd party liability not set aside for superseding, unsatisfied lien.
Citation:	37 CCC 324
WCC Citation:	WCC 27491972 CA

Case Name:	Argonaut Ins. Exch. v. IAC (Bellinger)		02/14/1958
Summary:	ARGONAUT INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and M. FRANCES BELLINGER et al. , Respondents. The panel set aside the referee's approval of the compromise and release agreement and substituted its own findings and award. Petitioner first challenges the jurisdiction of respondent commission to annul the referee's order approving the parties' compromise and release agreement. In 1951, the Legislature amended section 115 of the Labor Code so as to grant referees authority to issue original decisions. However, no authority was given to referees to render an original decision approving a compromise or release agreement.
Note:	IAC not required to take further evidence and could redetermine case on existing record.
Citation:	49 Cal.2d 706, 23 CCC 34
WCC Citation:	WCC 26521958 CA

Case Name:	Arkius Inc. v. Hyundae Health Center et al.		09/27/2011
Summary:	ARKIUS, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant,v. HYUNDAE HEALTH CENTER, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Arkius provided all services pursuant to the agreements but Yeh failed to pay for the work. Arkius filed a complaint alleging causes of action for breach of contract and common counts against several defendants. Defendants called Alex Valles, who had worked for plaintiff on several projects simultaneously, one of which was Ardmore Plaza. Respondents also called Mr. Yeh, who testified he was unaware of any cash payments made to employees working at Ardmore Plaza.
Note:	The license of a general contractor is not suspended by operation of law because it underreported payroll to State Compensation Insurance Fund.
Citation:	B228093
WCC Citation:	WCC 38042011 CA

Case Name:	Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co.		12/30/2011
Summary:	ARNOLD v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY KIMBLY ARNOLD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Kimbly Arnold worked as a nonexclusive insurance agent for Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (Mutual). During her appointment with Mutual, Arnold did not receive performance evaluations, and he did not monitor or supervise her work schedule. At the time Arnold terminated her appointment in March 2008, she owed Mutual approximately $2,288 for such expenses. Her appointment with Mutual was nonexclusive, and she in fact solicited for other insurance companies during her appointment with Mutual.
Note:	An insurer proved that it was entitled to summary judgment against a worker's suit by proving that she was an independent contractor, a California appellate court ruled in a published decision.
Citation:	A131440
WCC Citation:	WCC 38392011 CA

Case Name:	Arnulfo Aldridge v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority		12/18/2008
Summary:	[U] Aldridge v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, No. B202578 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 12/18/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT No. B202578 December 18, 2008 ARNULFO ALDRIDGE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tricia Ann Bigelow, Judge. Raymond G. Fortner, Jr. , County Counsel, and Richard P. Chastang, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent. (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 1112, 1126; see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318. )(Williams v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles (2004) 121 Cal. App. 4th 708, 714; see 4 Witkin, Cal.
Note:	A lower court properly dismissed a self-represented worker's fourth attempt to state a proper cause of action against his former employer, which he charged had harassed and fired him after he filed a workers' compensation claim.
Citation:	B202578
WCC Citation:	WCC 34692008 CA

Case Name:	Arp v. WCAB		05/05/1977
Summary:	CHRIS P. ARP, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CHRIS ARP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. , et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Richardson, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Astrid Arp, petitioner's deceased wife, was an employee of Chris Arp Construction Company, Inc. She was fatally injured in an industrial accident and petitioner applied for and received temporary disability payments accrued by Astrid before her death, and expenses for Astrid's medical care. Astrid Arp earned $6,000 per year as an employee of the construction company wholly owned by her husband. Petitioner asserted a claim for maximum death benefits founded upon the conclusive presumption of section 3501, subdivision (a). Petitioner filed a timely petition for reconsideration with the board, challenging the constitutionality of section 3501's gender-based classification.
Note:	The conclusive presumption of total dependency under section 3501, subdivision (a), is invalid and that, pending action by the Legislature, all applicants must be left to establish proof of dependency under section 3502.
Citation:	19 Cal.3d 395
WCC Citation:	WCC 33881977 CA