Case Name:	Carpenter v. Universal City Studios L.L.L.P.		01/10/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS L. L. L. P. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Universal's Production Service Representative Bonita Chan explained that Universal and Universal Studios, Inc. are related entities, and UNT is a department within "Universal. Various of the Universal companies share the same address at Universal City Plaza. Silverstein explained that Dragnet "was a Universal show using Universal equipment on the Universal lot. "It's Universal Studios Television, but it's Universal  I work for Universal Studios Productions Services.
Note:	[Unpublished] The evidence supports the jury's special verdict that Defendant was Plaintiff's special employer with the result the trial court did not err in denying Carpenter's three motions. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Citation:	B186031
WCC Citation:	WCC 32982008 CA

Case Name:	Carpenter v. WCAB		04/11/1986
Summary:	The change-of-address form was dated August 23, 1983, but bears a WCAB stamp showing receipt by the Board at 1025 a. m. on August 31, 1983. The Board also found 'applicant's attorney has agreed to receive service of process from the Sacramento office [of the WCAB] in that manner [by mail slot]. 'Petitioner's counsel, as an attorney, is presumed to know that service by 'mail slot' is not authorized by statute or by WCAB regulations. Petitioner is therefore bound by his attorney's agreement to accept service of process at his WCAB 'mail slot. 'n3 It is undisputed that delivery by 'mail slot' does not constitute 'personal service' within the meaning of the Labor Code and WCAB regulations.
Note:	Time limit for filing petition for reconsideration runs from date of actual receipt when WCAB serves findings to attorney at unauthorized address.
Citation:	51 CCC 175
WCC Citation:	WCC 27781986 CA

Case Name:	Carr v. Washington Mut. Bank		04/22/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LARESSIA M. CARR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- Laressia M. Carr sued Washington Mutual Bank (Bank), her employer, claiming that she suffered posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as the result of a take-over robbery of Bank's branch where she worked as a teller. After learning from Nawrocki that Bank would not lower her hours, Carr became extremely stressed and starting having more symptoms. Carr also testified that she still considered herself a Bank employee, and Bank does not dispute her status. Bank argues that Carr failed to prove she was entitled to front pay because Carr is, and considers herself to be, an employee of Bank, and there is no evidence that the reinstatement of Carr is not feasible.
Note:	[Unpublished] An employer failed to accommodate a bank teller's post-traumatic stress disorder pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	F051628
WCC Citation:	WCC 35162009 CA

Case Name:	Carrillo v. Wiberg Corporation of California		02/25/2011
Summary:	ARTHUR CARRILLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WIBERG CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Frank DeLaFuente filled in for Carrillo and was told he would have the position until Carrillo came back to work. Since the release did not state Carrillo could return to driving, the company asked Carrillo to provide a more specific release. Welzel instructed Ortega to call Carrillo and to reinstate him, but Ortega did not have a chance to reinstate Carrillo because he was informed Carrillo was looking for another job. Carrillo Asks for a Job Reference and Does Not Return to Work The Wiberg witnesses, including Welzel, Liczyk, Ortega, and Sylvia Cervantes, the California facility's office manager, all testified the company did not terminate Carrillo.
Note:	A disabled employee who quit his job before his employer had a chance to start the interactive process does not have a cause of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B219431
WCC Citation:	WCC 37222011 CA

Case Name:	Carrillo-Torres v. Bergen Part 1/2		03/28/2018
Summary:	.             A144704 .             (Alameda County Super. .           Once Bergen and KL Construction executed the contract, Bergen wrote an initial deposit check to KL Construction for $1,000. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .           On November 15, 2012, Torres filed a complaint against Bergen alleging one cause of action for premises liability and negligence. .           Bergen’s counsel maintained Bergen was protected from liability under Privette because she hired KL Construction, a licensed and insured contractor, who hired Gonzalez, and because Bergen exercised no control over project safety. .           As noted, Torres also contends Bergen schemed with KL Construction to improperly reduce the costs of the project by having Bergen write checks to workers directly.
Note:
Citation:	A144704
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG12656391

Case Name:	Carrillo-Torres v. Bergen Part 2/2		03/28/2018
Summary:	.           _________________________ Schulman, J. [¶] . [¶] . Because Bergen did not adequately explain the relevance of that ruling, and because the information is unnecessary to our analysis, we deny the request.   Elsewhere in his opening brief, Torres submits Bergen had a right under the contract to reject subcontractors. We reject Torres’s contention that Bergen must have hired Gonzalez (and thus must have been his employer) simply because she wrote two checks paying him.
Note:
Citation:	A144704
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG12656391

Case Name:	Carter v. County of LA (En Banc)		06/19/1986
Summary:	Carolyn Carter v. County of Los Angeles John Weatherspoon v. St. Ferdinand's School Elaine Constancio v. Los Angeles County W. C. A. B. Nos. On this ground we will dismiss defendant's petition in 84 LA 504567. (Labor Code 5310) In Constancio v. County of Los Angeles (84 POM 95786), a C&R dated January 23, 1986 was submitted for approval. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration filed in Carter v. County of Los Angeles (84 LA 504567) on February 28, 1986 be, and it is hereby, DISMISSED. 83 LA 504567 (Carter ), 84 POM 95786 (Constancio ) and 85 VN 142848 (Weatherspoon ), be, and they are hereby, REMANDED for further proceedings and decision consistent with the opinion expressed herein.
Note:	No release for subseq. injury in rehab. unless it is a 'compensable consequence' of prior injury.
Citation:	51 CCC 255
WCC Citation:	WCC 25711986 CA

Case Name:	Carver v. WCAB		02/20/1990
Summary:	WILLIAM CARVER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Racanelli, P. J. , with Newsom and Stein, JJ. , concurring. )On September 12, 1988, in response to petitioner's subsequent petition for reconsideration, the Board issued a second opinion affirming its July 21 result. Thus, we must conclude that there was no compliance with the Board rules requiring notice to a party. CIGA was created in 1969 to protect policyholders and claimants under policies of insurance issued by insurers who later become insolvent. The Board also expressed concern over CIGA's ability to defend such claims when employees of the insolvent may become unavailable.
Note:	Nonpayment penalties are benefits, not damages; UEF has burden of seeking reimbursement.
Citation:	217 Cal.App.3d 1539, 55 CCC 36
WCC Citation:	WCC 24471990 CA

Case Name:	Cascade Forest Products, Inc. v. WCAB		10/06/1998
Summary:	Cascade Forest Products, Inc. , Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, William R. Hines, Respondents. Workers' Compensation Judge Robert Kutz (WCJ) imposed a 10 percent penalty on the entire temporary disability award because Cascade Forest Products, Inc. (employer), terminated temporary disability prematurely. Dr. Soong stated employee was not a candidate for vocational rehabilitation and could return to work as a laborer without restrictions. Based upon Dr. Soong's report, employer, on October 4, 1996, filed and served by mail a petition to terminate liability for temporary disability. Employee's counsel objected by letter dated October 10, 1996, to termination, alleging Dr. Soong's opinion was based on inaccurate facts.
Note:	Employer may terminate benefits, then file petition to terminate benefits w/i 10 days; rebuttable presumption that TD extends 1 week following filing petition.
Citation:	63 CCC 1205
WCC Citation:	WCC 27731998 CA

Case Name:	CASE v. Brown		05/05/2011
Summary:	After briefing and argument, the court agreed with CASE that section 11873 prohibits the Governor from furloughing State Fund employees. Defendants argue that they have been prejudiced because the trial court's ruling in this action conflicts with the ruling in CASE I and the conflicting rulings create irreconcilable adjudications of the Governor's authority to furlough CASE employees at State Fund. Because the claims of State Fund employees were not adjudicated in CASE I, there is no conflicting adjudication as to those employees. That petition alleges that "CASE is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of legal professionals in State Bargaining Unit 2 . The order explained that CASE I raised issues "regarding the Governor's authority to order furloughs of [CASE] members, as employees of executive branch agencies.
Note:	A state governor does not have the authority to furlough employees of an autonomous, self-supporting organization.
Citation:	A125292
WCC Citation:	WCC 37592011 CA