Case Name:	Caso v. Nimrod Productions, Inc.		05/14/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN CHRISTOPHER CASO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NIMROD PRODUCTIONS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. McNicholas & McNicholas, John P. McNicholas and Robert P. Wargo; Joshua M. Merliss for Plaintiffs and Appellants Christopher Caso and Anna Marie Caso. Caso asserted claims for negligence; Anne Marie Caso alleged loss of consortium. For purposes of this summary judgment motion only, Caso does not dispute he was an employee of Touchstone. For purposes of the consolidated summary judgment motions only, Caso did not dispute he was an employee of Touchstone.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because a special employee relationship was established between plaintiffs and defendant, plaintiffs' cause of action for personal injury is barred by workers' compensation exclusive remedy.
Citation:	B198347
WCC Citation:	WCC 33572008 CA

Case Name:	Castro Valley Unif. School Dist. v. WCAB		05/05/1999
Summary:	rehab. In its Findings and Award on the RU appeal, the WCJ found: 1) that the RU should have approved the voc. rehab. rehab. The WCAB granted reconsideration, reviewed the record, adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and recommendation.
Note:	Employer liable for maintenance allowance absent giving notice confirming lack of modified/alternate work; 139.5 cap does not apply until notice given.
Citation:	64 CCC 668
WCC Citation:	WCC 27931999 CA

Case Name:	Catalina Car Wash vs. DIR		01/08/2003
Summary:	CATALINA CAR WASH, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. On May 3, 2000, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (Division), represented by Deputy Labor Commissioner Diana Chen, conducted an inspection at Catalina Car Wash on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles. The agent's cover letter stated an invoice was enclosed for the deposit premium, and asked Catalina to "[p]lease remit payment within 10 days. "The hearing officer concluded the evidence established Catalina did not have a current workers' compensation insurance policy in effect on May 3, 2000. Page 10} In sum, since Catalina was insured at the time the stop order was issued, no basis exists for a penalty assessment, and the judgment against Catalina must be reversed.
Note:	Coverage exists as matter of law where parties intended and no penalty attaches despite lack of documentation.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 29132003 CA

Case Name:	Catalina Car Wash, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations		01/08/2003
Summary:	CATALINA CAR WASH, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. Chen asked to see proof Catalina had secured workers' compensation insurance coverage, as required by statute. The agent's cover letter stated an invoice was enclosed for the deposit premium, and asked Catalina to "[p]lease remit payment within 10 days. "The hearing officer concluded the evidence established Catalina did not have a current workers' compensation insurance policy in effect on May 3, 2000. Co. v. Department of Industrial Relations, supra, 23 Cal. App. 4th at p.
Note:	Intent to renew a work comp policy sufficient to defeat fine for lack of coverage.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 29082003 CA

Case Name:	Catholic Healthcare West v CIGA		10/05/2009
Summary:	In December 2001, Catholic Healthcare West II merged with its parent corporation, Catholic Healthcare West. Catholic Healthcare West II was the surviving nonprofit public benefit corporation and changed its name to Catholic Healthcare West. Background CIGA's cross-complaint for indemnity alleged that (1) CIGA had mistakenly believed that the claims made by or on behalf of Catholic Healthcare West were covered claims for purposes of section 1063. 1, (2) the claims were not covered claims and CIGA was not authorized to pay them, and (3) Catholic Healthcare West was legally obligated to return the $186,093. 51 paid by CIGA, but had refused to return the payment as demanded by CIGA. Hospital Corporation, then named Catholic Healthcare West Central California, merged with Catholic Healthcare West North State, another subsidiary of Catholic Healthcare West. Catholic Healthcare West II was the surviving corporation and changed its name to Catholic Healthcare West.
Note:	Any claims presented by the corporation that employed the claimant were covered claims despite the fact that the corporation changed its name to a name not listed in the insurance policy.
Citation:	F055842
WCC Citation:	WCC 35692009 CA

Case Name:	Catrell Brown v. Foster Farms Poultry		07/13/2009
Summary:	Filed 7/14/09 Brown v. Foster Farms Poultry CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE 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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CATRELL BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FOSTER FARMS POULTRY, Defendant and Respondent. Catrell Brown, in pro. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiff and appellant Catrell Brown was an employee of defendant and respondent Foster Farms Poultry. Appellant subsequently filed an Amended Complaint to Foster Poultry Farms Special Demurrers.
Note:	A worker who believed his co-workers were spitting into his drink failed to clearly state a specific cause of action in his complaint against his employer,.
Citation:	F056603
WCC Citation:	WCC 35412009 CA

Case Name:	Cavanaugh v. WCAB		10/18/1967
Summary:	GEORGE W. CAVANAUGH, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ORANGE COUNTY BUS SYSTEM et al. , Respondents. The Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board filed an order March 9, 1967, in its Santa Ana office, denying George Cavanaugh's petition for commutation. The referee's opinion on the Petition for Reconsideration found the order was served on the parties on March 9, 1967. [1] Under Labor Code, section 5903, a party may petition for reconsideration within 20 days after service of a final order. The court reasoned absent a showing of service of the order, it 'cannot presume' (p. 472) service.
Note:	No presumption of proof of service when endorsement does not contain the date of actual service.
Citation:	255 Cal.App.2d 181, 32 CCC 445
WCC Citation:	WCC 27871967 CA

Case Name:	Cedeno v. American Nat. Ins. Co., etc.		07/21/1997
Summary:	For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the lien claimants' assertion that they were denied due process. The lien claimants alleged that they provided services to applicant and that their liens were served upon defendants in 1991 and 1992. On May 31, 1996, applicant filed an Application for Adjudication and a mandatory settlement conference was held on August 15, 1996. However, neither Neurologic Orthopedic Associates nor the other lien claimants received notice of the mandatory settlement conference. There was insufficient time to complete all of the testimony on September 20 so the matter was continued to October 28, 1996.
Note:	Request for WCJ disqualification denied absent declaration of grounds for request, record of bias.
Citation:	62 CCC 939 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 27681997 CA

Case Name:	Cedillo vs. WCAB		02/14/2003
Summary:	A workers' compensation judge concluded as an unlicensed contractor, Mr. Cedillo was not an independent contractor; hence, Mr. Cedillo was an employee of Mr. Reyes; and Mr. Rodriguez was an employee of the homeowner, Mr. Reyes. The board held: "[A]s between Cedillo, the alleged contractor, and Reyes, (homeowner), Cedillo would be an employee under Labor Code section 2750. 5. However, because Cedillo has no claim against Reyes and does not meet the hour requirement of Labor Code section 3352(h), anymore than the applicant meets the 52 hour requirement, under Division 4, Cedillo cannot be an employee. Therefore, we are not required to revert to the definition of Cedillo, as an employee, as set forth in Labor Code section 2750. 5. [P] Therefore, Cedillo is the employer of applicant. "Mr. Cedillo reasoned as follows: Mr. Reyes was the statutory employer of Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Cedillo; this employment relationship arose from the provision of section 2750. 5; and Mr. Cedillo could not both be an employee of Mr. Reyes, the homeowner, and the employer of Mr. Rodriguez.
Note:	Employee of unlicensed contractor must meet criteria of 3352(h) before customer becomes statutory employer.
Citation:	106 Cal.App.4th 227
WCC Citation:	WCC 29172003 CA

Case Name:	Ceradyne, Inc. v. Argonaut Insurance Co.		06/02/2009
Summary:	Relevant to this case, insurance companies providing workers compensation policies are required by law to disclose and seek pre-approval from the Insurance Commissioner and WCIRB of the insurance plan being purchased. )*fn1 In this case, Argonaut Insurance Company provided a workers' compensation plan to a large corporation, Ceradyne Inc. After several years, Ceradyne filed a lawsuit against Argonaut, having concluded the insurance company was liable for mismanaging the workers' compensation claims and finances. It determined the IPA was unenforceable and void because Argonaut did not comply with section 11658, requiring submission of insurance contracts and endorsements to the Department of Insurance. Argonaut argues the IPA does not look like an "insurance policy," and therefore, the insurance commissioner did not need to review or approve it. Argonaut cites one tax law case to support its theory the IPA contract was not an insurance policy requiring review by the Insurance Commissioner.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the Insurance Program Agreement (IPA) contains a severability clause, we conclude the trial court had authority to sever the void arbitration clause, deny arbitration, and deny the stay/dismissal request.
Citation:	G039873
WCC Citation:	WCC 35292009 CA