Case Name:	Frank D. Brown v. Desert Christian Center		03/17/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT F060139 March 17, 2011 FRANK D. BROWN, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. DESERT CHRISTIAN CENTER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OPINION In this personal injury case, defendant Desert Christian Center was successful in proving its affirmative defense that the injuries alleged by plaintiff Frank D. Brown were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the workers' compensation system. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court had jurisdiction to award costs under the particular circumstances of this case. The total amount of costs claimed in the memorandum was $7,909. 88, the majority of which consisted of deposition costs. The trial court agreed that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs and granted the motion to strike the memorandum of costs.
Note:	A trial court had jurisdiction to award a defendant employer $7,910 in costs it incurred while defending against an employee's civil suit.
Citation:	F060139
WCC Citation:	WCC 37302011 CA

Case Name:	Fred T. Hines v. New United Motors Mfg.		04/30/2001
Summary:	Fred T. Hines, Applicant v. New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. , Great American Risk Management, Defendants W. C. A. B. Nos. Such an award coupled with section 4600 entitles the injured worker to reasonable changes of treating physicians. BACKGROUND Applicant sustained industrial injury to his lower back while employed as a truck conveyer worker on August 18, 1998. On June 29, 2000, Dr. Bernfeld reported that applicant requested chiropractic care and evaluation for his work-related low back injury. The WCJ found that applicant was entitled to the further medical treatment recommended by his newly selected treating physician, Dr. Bernfeld.
Note:	If existing award for treatment, employee does NOT need to follow 4061/4062 for new physician.
Citation:	66 CCC 478 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28152001 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Comp Ins Co vs. Sierra Pine, Ltd.		08/04/2004
Summary:	FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SIERRA PINE, LTD. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Fremont paid Nesmith $125,000 in death benefits pursuant to a Board order, and is obligated for other amounts, such as burial expenses. Code, § 3503), was his actual dependent and would have been entitled to benefits even had they never been married. Because a subrogee stands in the shoes of the subrogor, they argued Fremont had no standing to sue to recoup the benefits. If for some reason he chose not to sue them, Fremont "likewise" could have sued defendants to recoup its payments.
Note:	Carrier has subrogation rights independent of work comp beneficiary.
Citation:	121 Cal. App. 4th 389
WCC Citation:	WCC 30182004 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		03/31/1980
Summary:	FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EMELDA ROCHA; and DOMESTIC LAUNDRY & CLEANING COMPANY, Respondents. OPINION: Petitioner Fremont Indemnity Company (Fremont) contends that respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) has erred in finding Fremont was the workers' compensation insurance carrier for respondent Domestic Laundry & Cleaning Company (Domestic) on March 1, 1977, when Domestic's employee, respondent Emelda Rocha, claims she sustained an industrial injury. Fremont avers the deposition of Henderson is important as therein Henderson testifies concerning the cancellation of Domestic's policy with Fremont. Fremont asserted (1) substantial evidence did not support the findings of coverage by Fremont on the date of injury, and (2) the WCJ failed to comply with Labor Code section 5313. Fremont asserts that the WCJ's report was not served upon Fremont or its counsel as required by WCAB Rules section 10860.
Note:	WCJ's failure to specify reasoning in decision deprives party of meaningful right to petition for recon.; WCJ's Notice of Intention was not sufficient for proper service.
Citation:	45 CCC 391
WCC Citation:	WCC 27361980 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		03/29/1984
Summary:	FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and HENRY H. ZEPEDA, Respondents. OPINION DANIELSON, J. Petitioner Fremont Indemnity Company petitions for review and annulment of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals [153 Cal. App. 3d 968] Board (Board) finding that the applicant sustained an injury to the right hip. Facts Applicant and respondent Henry H. Zepeda (applicant) filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging industrial injury to his back and right leg on March 18, 1976, against Service Greeting Card Company and its insurer Fremont Indemnity. Petitioner, insurance carrier Fremont Indemnity, contested injury to the right hip. Said reports . . . have been stricken due [153 Cal. App. 3d 969] to counsel for Fremont Indemnity Company's objection to the indicated communication and because the record was complete without them. '
Note:	Judge's two phone calls to independent medical examiner denied parties a fair trial.
Citation:	153 Cal.App.3d 965, 49 CCC 288
WCC Citation:	WCC 27971984 CA

Case Name:	French Valley Aviation, Inc. v. Superior Court of Riverside County		10/17/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO No. E046169 October 17, 2008 FRENCH VALLEY AVIATION, INC. , PETITIONER, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, RESPONDENT; AIR PETRO CORP. , REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. The opinion of the court was delivered by: McKINSTER Acting P. J. McKaye himself answered interrogatories indicating ATW was his employer, although in a deposition he stated that both entities were employers. The Supreme Court noted as an additional factor that the worker believed his employment relationship was with the maintenance company. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to set aside its order denying FVA's motion for summary judgment and to issue a new order granting the motion.
Note:	[Unpublished] Under Labor Code section 3864 real party in interest is barred from seeking contribution or indemnity from employer.
Citation:	E046169
WCC Citation:	WCC 34362008 CA

Case Name:	Fresno Unif. School Dist. v. WCAB		11/22/2000
Summary:	* ] FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DANIEL HUMPHREY, Respondents. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW Respondent Daniel Humphrey was employed as a custodian for petitioner Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) between September 15, 1982, and August 20, 1997. FUSD filed a timely petition for reconsideration with the WCAB on December 9, 1999. Although FUSD argues that all three apply in this instance, the WCJ and WCAB found that none do. (Dills v. Redwoods Assocs. , Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 888, 890, fn. 1. ) DISPOSITION The judgment (order) of the WCAB is affirmed.
Note:	Unrelated noncompensable injury means a disabling event which, had it been work-related, would be compensable under the worker's compensation laws; Apportionment requires pre-existing labor disability.
Citation:	84 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 65 CCC 1232
WCC Citation:	WCC 4042000 CA

Case Name:	Fruehauf Corp. v. WCAB		07/13/1967
Summary:	FRUEHAUF CORPORATION et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and THOMAS C. STANSBURY, Respondents. OPINION MOSK, J. Petitioners, Fruehauf Corporation and its insurance carrier, seek review of a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter board) awarding compensation to Thomas C. Stansbury, an employee who suffered an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of his employment by Fruehauf. Stansbury was employed by Fruehauf from July 21, 1962 to July 5, 1964, as an assembler. It persisted while he was at home and when he was in bed at night, as well as at work. He did not work for Fruehauf after July 2, 1964.
Note:	Statute of limitations begins on date of last exposure for cumulative injuries.
Citation:	68 Cal.2d 569, 33 CCC 300
WCC Citation:	WCC 25301967 CA

Case Name:	Fuentes v. WCAB		02/02/1976
Summary:	JOHN FUENTES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, PACIFIC STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al. , Respondents In Bank. However, in 1971 the Legislature amended section 4658, establishing a different method for computing the number of weekly benefits to be awarded. From this figure is subtracted the dollar value (§ 6,422. 50) of the 24. 25 percent of the noncompensable, nonindustrial disability. [16 Cal. 3d 6] [1a] We have concluded that formula A is the proper one, and accordingly affirm the decision of the Board. As we have previously noted, the purpose of that statute is to encourage employers to hire physically handicapped persons.
Note:	4658 is limited by 4750 only where employee had preexisiting disability.
Citation:	16 Cal.3d 1, 41 CCC 42
WCC Citation:	WCC 25101976 CA

Case Name:	Fuller v. County of Los Angeles		01/22/2013
Summary:	FULLER v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DOUGLAS FULLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. PERLUSS, P. J. Douglas Fuller, a former firefighter trainee with the Los Angeles County Fire Department, appeals the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County of Los Angeles and County employees Dave Saran and Pitt Gilmore (collectively the County defendants) on Fuller's claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation and related torts. Under County Civil Service Rules, either termination was sufficient by itself to disqualify Fuller from employment with the County Fire Department. On March 17, 2007 the Board of Supervisors denied the claims on the merits, informing Fuller its investigation of the matter "fail[ed] to indicate any liability on the part of the County of Los Angeles. "Fuller's Lawsuit On April 25, 2007 Fuller filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court asserting claims for (1) violation of his federal civil rights (42 U. S. C. § 1983) (against County only); (2) interference with prospective economic advantage (against County and Saran); (3) retaliatory conduct in violation of Los Angeles County Code section 5. 02. 060 and Labor Code section 1102. 5 (against County, Saran and Gilmore); and intentional infliction of emotional distress (against County, Saran and Gilmore).
Note:	A California appellate court has rejected a former firefighter trainee's claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation and related torts based on the conduct of the fire department and its officials after he boiled his foot during a training exercise.
Citation:	B228815
WCC Citation:	WCC 39742013 CA

Case Name:	Furtado v. State Personnel Board		01/07/2013
Summary:	FURTADO v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD BRUCE FURTADO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Alvin Gittisriboongul for Defendants and Respondents California State Personnel Board and Suzanne Ambrose. INTRODUCTION Bruce Furtado appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate directing the California State Personnel Board (SPB) to set aside its order sustaining the decision of California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) to medically demote Furtado to a non-peace officer position, and not to place Furtado in a newly-created administrative correctional lieutenant peace officer position. The instructor who tested Furtado concluded that Furtado had failed multiple aspects of the test. The instructor gave Furtado an overall rating of "Fail," and noted that Furtado had "very little control over [the] baton when both hands [were] required. "
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to medically demote an injured guard to a non-peace officer position as a result of his physical limitations from an off-duty car accident.
Citation:	D059912
WCC Citation:	WCC 39712013 CA

Case Name:	Gaiera v. WCAB		03/28/1969
Summary:	EMILIO GAIERA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ROSALIE GAIERA et al. , Respondents. We have concluded that when the appeals board denies a petition for reconsideration, its order may incorporate and include therein the report of the referee. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753 [68 Cal. Rptr. 825, 441 P. 2d 633], wherein the appeals board issued its order granting reconsideration. Dr. Gaiera, the son of petitioner, stated that petitioner's 'major complaint is irremediable. '[4] The referee's instructions to the Permanent Disability Rating Bureau are, in effect, findings of fact on these issues.
Note:	Selection of factors for disability rating and percentage are sole discretion of WCAB.
Citation:	271 Cal.App.2d 246, 34 CCC 182
WCC Citation:	WCC 25381969 CA

Case Name:	Gallamore v. WCAB		03/26/1979
Summary:	JIM D. GALLAMORE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAN RAMON GLASS COMPANY et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Richardson, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Carrier did not inform applicant of his right to reimbursement for any transportation expenses related to necessary medical examinations. Applicant's attorney advised carrier in late August 1976 that such payments should be made "to avoid the possibility of a penalty. "Thus, as of September 1976, applicant had sought three separate 10 percent penalties pursuant to the two petitions then pending before the board. The question of delay and the reasonableness of the cause therefor shall be determined by the appeals board in accordance with the facts.
Note:	Multiple penalties proper for multiple delinquencies in benefits.
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 815
WCC Citation:	WCC 28731979 CA

Case Name:	Gallo v. WCAB		10/31/2007
Summary:	The WCJ admittedly declined to consider new medical evidence proffered by Gallo at trial after discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference and concluded Gallo did not sustain any additional industrial injuries. Gallo petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration on April 19, 2007, primarily contending the WCJ refused to consider his medical evidence. The WCAB's order indicates the WCAB served Gallo by mail at his current post office box. On May 29, 2007, Gallo wrote a "To Whom it May Concern" letter to the WCAB stating he "received a letter of order denying reconsideration. "There is no indication Gallo petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration on the supplemental award.
Note:	[Unpublished] When a party fails to seek review within the time allotted, both the WCAB and the court is without jurisdiction to hear future challenges to the decision.
Citation:	F053819
WCC Citation:	WCC 32752007 CA

Case Name:	Galloway v. WCAB		05/05/1998
Summary:	Galloway selected Dr. John Kayvanfar as the qualified medical examiner to examine him and evaluate his status following the surgery. Insurer objected to the preliminary rating report in that Galloway had made no claim for a neck injury. As a result, a rating was made by the disability evaluation unit, a copy of which was sent to Galloway. On March 29 and April 1, 1993, Galloway, who was not represented by counsel, telephoned Insurer to discuss his status. In reversing that decision, the WCAB found that Galloway knew or should have known by at least April 1, 1993, making the claim untimely.
Note:	Failure to notify applicant of time limits for filing injury comp. claim tolled statute of limitations.
Citation:	63 Cal.App.4th 880, 63 CCC 532
WCC Citation:	WCC 3751998 CA

Case Name:	Galt v. WCAB		09/21/2007
Summary:	Filed 9/21/07 City of Galt v. WCAB (Ramos) CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) CITY OF GALT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CONCEPCION RAMOS, Respondents. As we will explain, we agree with petitioner City of Galt (the city) that the WCJ used the wrong schedule. While that petition was pending, the WCAB (sitting en banc) decided Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 95. The three dissenting members of the WCAB concluded that the "plain language" of sections 4061 and 4660(d) required a different result.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because a medical report submitted by the plaintiff did not contain an indication of permanent disability, the 2005 schedule applies.
Citation:	C055118, SAC327100
WCC Citation:	WCC 32602007 CA

Case Name:	Galvan v. WCAB		12/20/1990
Summary:	Marcus Galvan, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, and Ford Motor Company, Respondents. Accordingly, we will annul respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision in this case. Facts and Procedural History Petitioner Marcus Galvan (employee) was employed as a paint mixer by respondent Ford Motor Company (Ford) when the plant closed on July 15, 1983. 1990) 569 A. 2d 697; Dugan v. W. C. A. B. (Fuller Co. ) (Pa. Comwlth. We agree with the board's assessment that MacDonald is distinguishable from the case at bar based on this factual finding. These factual findings will determine whether employee became entitled to receive temporary disability indemnity after his decision to retire.
Note:	Receiving voluntary retirement benefits does not terminate right to disability indemnity.
Citation:	55 CCC 483
WCC Citation:	WCC 24871990 CA

Case Name:	Galvao v. WCAB		12/19/2008
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Petitioner Lavender Galvao (Galvao) petitions for review of an order by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board). Galvao did not return to work at Kinko's, but began working at a less physically-demanding job for a different employer. Specifically, Zurich did not send Galvao a Notice of Potential Eligibility (NOPE) for vocational rehabilitation, did not provide an appropriate written offer of modified work, and did not send Galvao a denial of vocational rehabilitation services. Zurich concludes that allowing Galvao to receive both VRMA and her wages would result in a windfall to Galvao. Galvao should not be penalized for obtaining work to support her family, nor should Zurich be rewarded for its delays in providing services to Galvao.
Note:	Employers are not entitled to credit against vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits for wages earned by an employee because VRMA benefits are not wage replacement benefits.
Citation:	A122284
WCC Citation:	WCC 34712008 CA

Case Name:	Gamble v. WCAB		09/21/2006
Summary:	We agree with Gamble and conclude the Board's finding is unsupported by the statutory or case law. He noted, there was unrebutted trial testimony Gamble and his family were dependent on his two incomes, and concluded Gamble should not be penalized for his continuing work in a much less physically demanding occupation with the School District. United again disputed Gamble was a Qualified Injured Worker and reasserted it should be given credit for wages earned by Gamble at the School District. United did not file a petition to challenge the Board's determination Gamble was a Qualified Injured Worker or its finding Gamble was entitled to receive VRMA benefits. Simply stated, Gamble is entitled to all components of VRMA benefits because he a Qualified Injured Worker.
Note:	An employee's earnings from his second job are not a proper consideration in calculating an employer's liability for VRMA benefits.
Citation:	143 Cal. App. 4th 71
WCC Citation:	WCC 31822006 CA

Case Name:	Gapusan v. Jay		09/09/1998
Summary:	EDMUND GAPUSAN et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DAVID PATRICK JAY et al. , Defendants; CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Intervener and Appellant. Factual and Procedural Background In 1994, Gapusan and McGee were seriously injured when a drunk driver, David Patrick Jay, caused his pickup truck to collide with their patrol car. 3 Jay had liability insurance of $100,000 per injured person and apparently no ability to pay additional damages. 4 City and plaintiffs accepted the policy limits in settlement of their respective claims against Jay, but failed to agree on any apportionment of the funds. In sum, we conclude the court erred in equitably distributing a portion of the settlement proceeds to Gapusan and McGee.
Note:	Employer no subrogation rights to loss of consortium claim.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.4th 734, 63 CCC 1144
WCC Citation:	WCC 23891998 CA

Case Name:	Garau v. Department of Industrial Relations		10/30/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             OLGA H. GARAU, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B276212 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Christopher G. Jagard, Chief Counsel, Christopher Frick, Assistant Chief Counsel, Marilyn Bacon, Counsel, State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Office of the Director, Legal Unit, for Defendants and Respondents. Facts .           Plaintiff worked as an attorney for the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), a division within the State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations (Department). .           ______________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           We concur: .           _________________________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           _________________________, J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that former Division of Occupational Safety and Health attorney who agreed to settle her disability discrimination action could not back out of the deal after cashing the check covering part of the settlement and demanding additional money.
Citation:	B276212
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC483476

Case Name:	Garcia v. Becker Bros. Steel Co.		04/18/2011
Summary:	GARCIA v. BECKER BROS. STEEL CO. ELIAS GARCIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BECKER BROS. STEEL CO. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The original slitter line was sold to Becker Brothers Steel Supply Company in 1973, and Becker Brothers operated the line for 26 years. *fn5 Three years later, Garcia amended his complaint to add Becker Brothers and Shama LLC as defendants. Warren Becker and Sheldon Becker are both principals of both Becker Brothers and Shama and operated the businesses on a day-to-day basis. Garcia filed a non-opposition to Becker Brothers' and Shama's demurrer to Garcia's strict liability claim as to these defendants.
Note:	A steel business that sold its used steel-cutting machinery did not owe a duty of care to the employees of future businesses that bought the machinery.
Citation:	B221096
WCC Citation:	WCC 37452011 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. ESS Prisa II, LLC		09/13/2011
Summary:	ANDREW GARCIA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ESS PRISA II, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Andrew Garcia was seriously injured when he fell through a skylight while performing rooftop air conditioning repairs for his contractor/employer on a building owned by defendant and respondent ESS Prisa II, LLC (ESS). On the day of the injury, Garcia met with ESS manager, Von K. Stroff, who told him there was a problem with one of the air conditioning units. ESS never instructed Garcia about how to do his job and did not supply him with tools or equipment. Here, even if Garcia is correct that ESS maintained control over the premises a dubious point there is no evidence ESS exercised the type of control of the worksite that affirmatively contributed to Garcia's injury.
Note:	The California Supreme Court's decision in Seabright v. US Airways barred another independent contractor's employee from suing the party that hired the contractor.
Citation:	B222128
WCC Citation:	WCC 38002011 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Industrial Accident Commission		11/13/1953
Summary:	2d 689; 263 P. 2d 8 November 13, 1953 EVERARDO GARCIA ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission granting lien. Schauer [41 Cal2d Page 691] Everardo Garcia, an applicant for workmen's compensation, and Pacific Indemnity Company, carrier of the workmen's compensation insurance of Garcia's employer, seek review of an Industrial Accident Commission award of a lien (allowed pursuant to Lab. On August 3, 1950, the employe filed with the commission his application for adjustment of claim for an allegedly industrial injury which was sustained March 17, 1950. The final determinations whether an employe is entitled [41 Cal2d Page 694] to workmen's compensation, the amount of such compensation and the period during which he is eligible therefor, must be made by the Industrial Accident Commission. In such circumstances, the Industrial Accident Commission properly might infer that the disability was work connected and determine that the Department of Employment had established a prima facie case for the amount of its claim.
Note:	The employee and the insurance carrier, if they object to allowance of the lien, must show that it should be disallowed.
Citation:	41 Cal. 2d 689, 263 P.2d 8
WCC Citation:	WCC 33421953 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Oceans Sports Bar, Inc.		04/28/2010
Summary:	FACTS Plaintiffs' father, Reyes A. Garcia (Garcia) worked as a doorman/bouncer at Oceans, located at 14302 Telegraph Road in a strip mall in the City of Whittier. Plaintiffs alleged that while Garcia was working at Oceans on February 9, 2007, a group of men in gang attire attempted to enter Oceans. Plaintiffs alleged that when the men attempted to enter Oceans, Garcia told them to leave the bar and parking lot. While Garcia was in the parking lot, Nunez, who was one of the men who Garcia had kept out of the bar, shot and killed Garcia. They sought adjudication that Garcia was not an employee of Oceans; Oceans did not own or control the property on which Garcia was killed; Oceans did not owe Garcia a duty to protect him from Nunez's unforeseeable criminal acts; Oceans did not breach any duty to Garcia; and Oceans' acts or omissions were not the proximate cause of Garcia's death.
Note:	A bar did not owe a bouncer a duty of care to protect him from a parking lot shooting because it was not foreseeable.
Citation:	B217207
WCC Citation:	WCC 36182010 CA

Case Name:	Garcia V. Paramount Citrus Association, Inc.		07/21/2008
Summary:	on rehearing) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IGNACIO GARCIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PARAMOUNT CITRUS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. Similarly, in the present case, this court's original opinion and judgment were vacated automatically upon the grant of rehearing. In both of those cases, an appeal had been decided by a three-member panel of the federal circuit court of appeals. We set forth our opinion and judgment in this case, as follows: Facts and Procedural History This is an appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent Ignacio Garcia and against appellant Paramount Citrus Association, Inc. On April 2, 2001, Andrade had a crew picking oranges on the Burdick Ranch, which was adjacent to appellant's Abercrombie Ranch, which also consisted of citrus groves.
Note:	Appellant owed no legal duty to respondent.
Citation:	F050528
WCC Citation:	WCC 34002008 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Paramount Citrus Association, Inc.		03/26/2008
Summary:	Filed 3/26/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IGNACIO GARCIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PARAMOUNT CITRUS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- This is an appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent Ignacio Garcia and against appellant Paramount Citrus Association, Inc. On April 2, 2001, Andrade had a crew picking oranges on the Burdick Ranch, which was adjacent to appellant's Abercrombie Ranch, which also consisted of citrus groves. At about 7 a. m. , Andrade drove west on Abercrombie Road at about 35 miles per hour, looking for Road 172. Without slowing appreciably, he rammed a van in which respondent and other farm workers were being transported to a worksite.
Note:	The foreseeability of the type of negligent act at issue in the present case does not outweigh the high burden the proposed duty would place upon rural landowners to prevent such conduct.
Citation:	F050528
WCC Citation:	WCC 33312008 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. The Vons Co. (WCAB En Banc)		03/14/2001
Summary:	On or about March 10, 1999, Valley Subrogation served the Board with notice that it was now representing La Mirada. On March 23, 1999, the matter came on for trial on all pending issues, including La Mirada's lien. On May 20, 1999, the Board served notice of the June 21, 1999 lien trial on La Mirada. On July 9, 1999, Valley Subrogation filed a letter objecting to the June 21, 1999 notice of intention to disallow La Mirada's lien. The July 16, 1999 order also set the issue of La Mirada's lien for another trial on August 31, 1999.
Note:	Duty on petitioner to apprise WCAB of correct address; WCAB service of decision is effective, petition untimely.
Citation:	66 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 27862001 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. The Vons Co. (WCAB En Banc)		03/14/2001
Summary:	On or about March 10, 1999, Valley Subrogation served the Board with notice that it was now representing La Mirada. On March 23, 1999, the matter came on for trial on all pending issues, including La Mirada's lien. On May 20, 1999, the Board served notice of the June 21, 1999 lien trial on La Mirada. On July 9, 1999, Valley Subrogation filed a letter objecting to the June 21, 1999 notice of intention to disallow La Mirada's lien. The July 16, 1999 order also set the issue of La Mirada's lien for another trial on August 31, 1999.
Note:	Sanctions may be awarded for frivolous Reconsideration.
Citation:	66 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 3552001 CA

Case Name:	Garcia-Laverentz v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services		04/17/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             KARLA GARCIA-LAVERENTZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. .             B267176 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiff Karla Garcia-Laverentz filed a complaint against her employer Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (Sedgwick), alleging myriad disability-related claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .           Sedgwick provides workers’ compensation and disability claims administration and related services to large employers throughout the United States. .           On April 20, 2010, Sedgwick retained engineers to conduct an air quality study, which did not uncover any dangerous air contaminants.
Note:
Citation:	B267176
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC485324