Case Name:	California Self-Insurers\' Security Fund v. The Superior Court of Orange County (Activcare Living)		01/26/2018
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .   FILED: 01/26/2018 .   CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND et al. , Petitioners,   .   v. .   THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; ACTIVCARE LIVING et al. , Real Parties in Interest .   G054981 .   (Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00690574) .   OPINION .         Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, William D. Claster,  Judge.   Petition granted.   *                    *                    *   .       Petitioners California Self-Insurers’ Security Fund (the Fund) and Nixon Peabody LLP (Nixon Peabody or the firm) seek a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying Nixon Peabody from representing the Fund in the instant case. (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 17, 23-24;3 Frazier v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal. App. 4th 23, 30. .                                                                                 MOORE, J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a law firm was not automatically disqualified from representing the state Self-Insurers’ Security Fund in an action for reimbursement.
Citation:	G054981
WCC Citation:

Case Name:	California v. Industrial Accident Commission and Gust Erickson		04/19/1957
Summary:	2d 355 April 19, 1957 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION AND GUST ERICKSON ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING by the Subsequent Injuries Fund to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission apportioning liability against several named employers and the Subsequent Injuries Fund. We have concluded that respondent Industrial Accident Commission erroneously applied the section retrospectively, and that the award should be annulled. In the subsequent proceedings the commission found, in accordance with statutory law, that "said date accordingly constitutes the date of injury herein. "The employe initiated proceedings before the Industrial Accident Commission to obtain an award solely against Central Eureka Mining Company, one of his employers during the period when he was contracting silicosis. *fn5 The issue of constitutionality is discussed in the companion case of Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Acc.
Note:	The question here is not what the Legislature might have done with respect to providing for retrospective application of the portions of section 5500.5, which are here involved, but what it did do. It used no language showing that it intended retrospective effect and, therefore, under the rules carefully stated and followed in the Aetna case, no such effect will be given under the guise of construction.
Citation:	48 Cal. 2d 355
WCC Citation:	WCC 33591957 CA

Case Name:	CALSTAR v. SCIF		05/13/2011
Summary:	The medical treatment costs subject to the workers' compensation system include medical treatment travel expenses, as expenses incidental to medical treatment. Judicial review of WCAB decisions or other judicial relief is available only from the appellate court or California Supreme Court. In addition to this court's lack of any subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute, most of the causes of action alleged by CALSTAR here seek remedies not available under California law. CALSTAR therefore has no claim for compensation for its services other than the compensation available through the workers' compensation system. Therefore, CALSTAR cannot seek recovery under causes of action such as breach of implied contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or open book account.
Note:	The defendants' demurrers are sustained, as the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Citation:	FCS036792
WCC Citation:	WCC 37622011 CA

Case Name:	Camacho v. Target Corp.		06/08/2018
Summary:	Filed 6/8/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION  COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             ADRIAN CAMACHO, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. .           In March 2015, Camacho settled his workers' compensation case with Target. Camacho and Target also executed an addendum (Addendum A) that includes additional terms. 2 Addendum A was attached to the C&R. .           The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order approving the settlement between Camacho and Target approximately a week after the parties executed the C&R and Addendum. .           In April 2015, Camacho received a right-to-sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).
Note:	A compromise and release does not constitute a global release of all possible civil claims against an employer unless settlement language explicitly mentions the intent to settle both the civil and workers’ compensation causes of action, California’s 4th District Court of Appeal said in a decision published Friday.
Citation:	D073280
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. RIC1507049

Case Name:	Camper v. WCAB		10/05/1992
Summary:	Background This case arises out of a workers' compensation claim, alleging specific and cumulative back injuries, filed by Ronald Camper (Camper) in 1989. On July 24, 1991, the WCAB filed its opinion following reconsideration, which was served upon Camper by mail on the same date. On September 12, 1991, 50 days after the WCAB filed its opinion, Camper filed a petition for writ of review in the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District. The procedure for obtaining judicial review of an opinion of the WCAB is set forth in Labor Code section 5950. Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1421, was decided on October 7, 1991, after Camper filed his petition.
Note:	45-day time limit is jurisdictional and commences on filing therefore no extension under Code Civ. Proc. 1013.
Citation:	3 Cal.4th 679, 57 CCC 644
WCC Citation:	WCC 27061992 CA

Case Name:	Campos v. WCAB		06/25/2010
Summary:	JUAN CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. , Respondents. At the time petitioner had been employed by respondent Expert Tree Service for less than six months. This subdivision shall not apply if the psychiatric injury is caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition. "An employee must demonstrate that an employment condition is sudden and extraordinary by a preponderance of the evidence. We remand this cause to the Board for further consideration consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Note:	An incident in which a tree cutter was struck by a falling tree trunk while suspended about 40 feet in the air constitutes a 'sudden and extraordinary employment condition' that allows compensation for a psychiatric injury.
Citation:	A125998
WCC Citation:	WCC 36432010 CA

Case Name:	Canton Poultry v. Stockwell, Harris, et. al.		06/05/2003
Summary:	CANTON POULTRY & DELI, INC. , etc. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WIDOM & WOOLVERTON, et al. , Defendants and Respondents. OPINION ALDRICH, J. - Plaintiff Canton Poultry & Deli, Inc. ("Canton Poultry"), and two of its officers, Shiu Lit Kwan and Cho Wah Kwan (collectively with Canton Poultry, "plaintiffs"), appeal from an order of dismissal entered after a demurrer was sustained to their complaint without leave to amend. We hold that when Canton Poultry was dismissed from the workers' compensation case by operation of law, whatever duties Stockwell had to Canton Poultry ended at that point in time, absent facts to conclude otherwise; here, no such extenuating facts were alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. Additionally, defending the civil suit required the Kwan plaintiffs to spend time on the civil suit and deprived plaintiff Canton Poultry of their services. Thus, Canton Poultry suffered damages in excess of $20,000 because no global settlement was made.
Note:	Defense attorney owes duty to carrier, not employer, after carrier assumes liability.
Citation:	109 Cal.App.4th 1219
WCC Citation:	WCC 29392003 CA

Case Name:	Cantrell v. WCAB (Wal-Mart Stores)		07/16/2009
Summary:	(§ 5908. 5) BACKGROUND Shortly before midnight on November 24, 2004, 30-year-old Cantrell injured his right knee while working as a stocker for Wal-Mart in Turlock. Cantrell was taken by ambulance to the local hospital, treated for the injury, and released in the early morning hours on Thanksgiving Day. In November 2005, Cantrell filed two petitions with the WCAB for increased compensation for discriminating against him under section 132a. One petition alleged Wal-Mart representatives "wrongfully assigned Mr. Cantrell to take a post-accident drug test after Mr. Cantrell had claimed a work injury. "Cantrell petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, claiming the WCJ "failed to appropriately address the legal issues . . . " presented in his discrimination petitions.
Note:	[Unpublished] The WCAB did not make a finding whether a drug testing policy itself discriminated against employee for sustaining an industrial injury and if so, whether employer demonstrated that its conduct was necessary and directly linked to the realities of doing business. Under 132a, the WCAB was required to make this inquiry.
Citation:	F057606
WCC Citation:	WCC 35452009 CA

Case Name:	Canty v. WCAB (DMV)		05/31/1996
Summary:	Bertha Canty, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, State of California Department of Motor Vehicles et al. , Respondents. Rather than proceed to hearing and submit the issues for decision on the basis of the medical opinions of Drs. Floyd and Masem, the parties selected Leonard Gordon, M. D. , orthopedic hand specialist, to evaluate applicant as an agreed medical examiner (AME). Dr. Gordon examined applicant in the capacity of an AME on March 22, 1995, and issued his report on that same date. n3 The report begins as follows: 'I am responding to a request to provide a specific date that Bertha Canty became permanent and stationary.
Note:	Supplemental medical report not shown to be 'newly discovered evidence'; good illustration of warranted dismissal.
Citation:	61 CCC 559
WCC Citation:	WCC 27291996 CA

Case Name:	Carpenter v. Universal City Studios		10/30/2008
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. INTRODUCTION After plaintiff Christopher Carpenter suffered serious injury to his hand while working as a grip on the set of the Universal Network Television, L. L. C. (UNT) series Dragnet, he sued defendant Universal City Studios L. L. L. P. (UCS) in tort alleging that UCS was liable as the landlord of the soundstage where he was injured. 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. "
Note:	[unpublished] The evidence supports the jury's special verdict
Citation:	B186031
WCC Citation:	WCC 34492008 CA