Case Name:	Crown Appliance vs. WCAB (Wong)		02/05/2004
Summary:	Crown Appliance (Crown) petitions for a writ of review to determine the lawfulness of the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concluding that Crown discriminated against its employee Morton Wong for filing a workers' compensation claim. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORIES Wong sustained an industrial injury to his left elbow and back in August 2000 while employed as a delivery driver and appliance installer for Crown in Modesto, California. The parties settled Wong's underlying disability claim but continued to dispute whether Crown discriminated against Wong under section 132a. At a March 2003 WCAB hearing, Wong testified that he had a very good relationship with the owner of Crown, Mary Sanchez, before his injury. Mathew Burns worked at Crown and described the rapport between Wong and Sanchez before Wong's injury as "friendly. "
Note:	Substantial evidence supporting finding of discrimination will not be reversed on appeal; attorney fees for meritless appeal proper.
Citation:	115 Cal.App.4th 620
WCC Citation:	WCC 29692004 CA

Case Name:	Crumlish v. the Board of Administration of the San Diego City Employees		03/15/2012
Summary:	Deborah Crumlish v. the Board of Administration of the San Diego City Employees, No. D058955 (Cal. App. Dist. 4 03/15/2012) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D058955 March 15, 2012 DEBORAH CRUMLISH, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE SAN DIEGO CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1995 the City of San Diego (the City) Fire Department hired Deborah Crumlish as a 911 dispatcher. In 2004 Crumlish had applied to the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (SDCERS) for an industrial disability pension. The officer then applied to the San Diego City Retirement Board of Administration (retirement board) for industrial disability retirement. Crumlish cites Roccaforte v. City of San Diego (1979) 89 Cal. App. 3d 877, 884, in which this court referred to SDCERS as an "arm of the City. "
Note:	A public employer's pension system is not collaterally estopped from denying an employee an industrial disability pension after the employer has agreed a certain injury was work-related for purposes of workers' compensation benefits.
Citation:	D058955
WCC Citation:	WCC 38742012 CA

Case Name:	Cruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco		09/05/2007
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Case No. SFO 0501425 PAUL CRUZ, Applicant, vs. MERCEDES-BENZ OF SAN FRANCISCO, and AUTO DEALERS COMPENSATION OF CALIFORNIA, administered by INTERCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s). Pursuant to section 4656(c)(1), defendant stopped paying temporary disability indemnity on January 17, 2007, because two years had passed since payment commenced. Labor Code !ý requires liberal construction with the purpose of extending benefits for the protection of persons injured in the course of their employment. "Defendant petitioned for reconsideration, contending that the WCJ erred in awarding additional temporary disability indemnity. If the statute is unfair, it is the job of the legislature to correct it, not the WCAB. "
Note:	'Amputations,' as used in Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C) means the severance or removal of a limb, part of a limb, or other body appendage, including both traumatic loss in an industrial injury and surgical removal during treatment of an industrial injury.
Citation:	72 CCC 1281
WCC Citation:	WCC 32512007 CA

Case Name:	CSAC Excess Ins. Co. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn.		07/17/2017
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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)  .             CSAC EXCESS INSURANCE AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Respondent, .             v. .             CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant. .             C081775 .             (Super. Ct. No. 34-2014-00160890-CU-MC-GDS) .             Plaintiff CSAC Excess Insurance Authority (hereafter CSAC), 1 a joint powers authority (see Gov. Code, § 6500 et seq. ).           CSAC obtained workers’ compensation excess insurance policies from Protective with terms running from November 1981 to November 1984. )  .           BUTZ , J.   .           We concur: .           BLEASE , Acting P. J.
Note:
Citation:	C081775
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 34-2014-00160890-CU-MC-GDS

Case Name:	CSEA v. Vista		12/21/2011
Summary:	CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. , Defendants and Appellants. On December 23, 2008, CSEA sent the District a letter protesting its action of placing Gil on unpaid administrative leave without following the required due process procedures. CSEA requested that the District pay Gil the industrial accident leave benefits owed to her under the relevant collective bargaining and Education Code provisions. Based on Gil's decision to retire, the District cancelled the Skelly hearing and did not continue with the termination process. For convenience, we at times refer to CSEA and Gil collectively as "Gil. "
Note:	California's 6th District Court of Appeal issued a new decision about cost-of-living adjustments that conforms to the state Supreme Court's August decision in Baker v. WCAB (X.S.).
Citation:	D058123
WCC Citation:	WCC 38352011 CA

Case Name:	Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles		04/22/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE RORY CUIELLETTE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. Ct. No. BC311647) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amy D. Hogue, Judge. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant. INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant the City of Los Angeles (defendant or City) appeals from a judgment of $1,571,500 in favor of plaintiff and respondent Rory Cuiellette (plaintiff), a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer, on his claims of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900, et seq. Accordingly, we quote from the trial court's statement of decision at length as follows: "The case arises out of plaintiff Rory Cuillette's [sic] employment with the City of Los Angeles as a peace officer.
Note:	The city of Los Angeles had a duty to determine whether it could reasonably accommodate a police officer who had been placed in a light-duty position, even though he was 100% disabled, because it had a longstanding policy of placing disabled officers in light-duty positions.
Citation:	B224303
WCC Citation:	WCC 37502011 CA

Case Name:	Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles		04/07/2009
Summary:	Over defendant's objection, the trial court instructed the jury with a "Special Instruction in lieu of CACI 2541 (Reasonable Accommodation)" that provided: "From 1984 through 1998, Plaintiff Rory Cuiellette worked as a Los Angeles Police Officer for the Defendant, City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles claimed he could not work at the Los Angeles Police Department due to a ruling by the Workers' Compensation Board. CACI 2541 would have provided: "Rory Cuiellette claims that City of Los Angeles failed to reasonably accommodate his medical restrictions. The Special Instruction in lieu of CACI 2541 provided: "From 1984 through 1998, Plaintiff Rory Cuiellette worked as a Los Angeles Police Officer for the Defendant, City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles claimed he could not work at the Los Angeles Police Department due to a ruling by the Workers' Compensation Board.
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff's 100 percent total permanent disability rating was not, as a matter of law a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for defendant's adverse employment action.
Citation:	B203820
WCC Citation:	None

Case Name:	Cumbre, Inc. et al. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund		11/09/2010
Summary:	ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. (Cumbre, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (May 14, 2007, E040219) [nonpub. BACKGROUND Cumbre, including its wholly owned subsidiary Coachella Valley Insurance Service, Inc. , is an insurance brokerage focusing on workers' compensation insurance. (Cumbre, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, supra, E040219 at p. (Cumbre, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, supra, E040219 at p. 29 [italics added]. )
Note:	State Fund gave Cumbre Insurance Services a fair chance to appeal its decision to terminate the brokerage from its preferred brokerage program, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	E048799
WCC Citation:	WCC 36812010 CA

Case Name:	Curah v. California State Personnel Board		04/09/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO No. B194431 April 9, 2008 CLETUS CURAH, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT; CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND RESPONDENT. On August 4, 1997, Curah received a 30-day suspension that the California State Personnel Board (the Board) adopted. That time, Curah was charged with violating Government Code section 19572, subdivisions (d), (e), (m), (o), (p) [misuse of state property], and (t). Bennett then watched Curah enter his state work truck, at which time Bennett wrote down the truck's license plate number. According to Curah, "Megag was going to testify about the personal relationships between and among the accusatory witnesses and [Curah]. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff's employment was not terminated because he complained about racial discrimination or about mistreatment. Rather, plaintiff's employment was terminated because he littered, urinated in public, and intimidated his co-workers.
Citation:	B194431
WCC Citation:	WCC 33382008 CA

Case Name:	Currie v. WCAB		02/26/2001
Summary:	LORNE CURRIE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Respondents. On October 14, 1998, the WCAB awarded petitioner backpay of around $200,000, with interest from the date of the June 25, 1997, decision. On reconsideration, however, the WCAB found, relying on section 5800, that only postjudgment interest was allowable on section 132a awards. Here the WCAB reasoned that 'Labor Code section 5800 clearly and explicitly sets forth the interest that is allowable on compensation payments. We decline to address the issue in the first instance, but our decision does not preclude the WCAB from doing so on remand.
Note:	Pre-judgment interest included in 132a awards; accrues after wrongful conduct.
Citation:	24 Cal. 4th 1109, 66 CCC 208
WCC Citation:	WCC 24442001 CA

Case Name:	Currie v. WCAB		02/26/2001
Summary:	In making an award of backpay under Labor Code section 132a 1 to an employee wrongfully denied reinstatement because of an industrial injury, may the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) include prejudgment interest on the lost wages so awarded?Harmonizing the Civil Codes mandate of entitlement to prejudgment interest on damages due on a particular day (Civ. Code,  3287, subd. (a)) with the provisions of the Labor Code governing WCAB awards, we conclude such an award is permitted, and indeed required, when the criteria of Civil Code section 3287 are met. Click here for full opinion in PDF format.
Note:	Prejudgment interest per Civil Code section 3287 must be included in 132a Award.
Citation:	2001 (Sup. Ct. S085652)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3582001 CA

Case Name:	Custard v. WCAB		08/10/1992
Summary:	Ardie Faye Custard, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, A. C. OPINION: In this case, we hold that petitioner Ardie Faye Custard (applicant) effectively instituted supplemental proceedings for an increased permanent disability award within the five-year period of limitations set forth in Labor Code sections 5410 and 5804. In the WCJ's opinion, however, counsel's letter of February 13, 1986, requesting advisory ratings for the medical reports of Drs. 'II Section 5410 [n8] governs an injured employee's supplemental request for new and further disability, including an increase in permanent disability. Together with section 5405. 5, [n10] these sections cover the entire spectrum of the Board's continuing jurisdiction over workers' compensation matters.
Note:	Letter requesting advisory PD rating is valid petition to reopen; procedural rules construed informally.
Citation:	57 CCC 545
WCC Citation:	WCC 27701992 CA

Case Name:	Cutter v. Greenwich Ins.		01/16/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT STEVE CUTTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. * * * * * * Steve Cutter appeals from a judgment entered in favor of respondent Greenwich Insurance Company (Greenwich). *fn1 In September 2003, Greenwich sent other correspondence to the insured reiterating the basis for the denial. Rather, appellant alleged Greenwich failed to investigate and was obliged to defend its insured in the underlying action. [Appellant] would require Greenwich to investigate facts that the insured never saw fit to provide to Greenwich.
Note:	[Unpublished] When there is no potential for coverage, and no duty to defend under the policy terms, there can be no action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because the covenant is based on the contractual relationship between the insurer and its insured.
Citation:	B194892
WCC Citation:	WCC 33002008 CA

Case Name:	Czarnecki v. Golden Eagle Ins. Company		06/08/1998
Summary:	======================== Kathleen Czarnecki, Applicant v. Golden Eagle Insurance Company, Permissibly Self Insured, Defendants. W. C. A. B. Nos. Defendant, Golden Eagle Insurance Company, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award, issued March 6, 1998, in which a workers' compensation referee (WCR), following an expedited hearing, ordered defendant to provide applicant, Kathleen Czarnecki, the medical treatment recommended by her treating physician, Dr. James McClurg. In a January 13, 1997 report, applicant's treating physician, Dr. McClurg, requested authorization from defendant to perform arthroscopic surgery on applicant's right shoulder. On March 25, 1997, applicant filed a request for an expedited hearing, citing defendant's failure to respond to Dr. McClurg's recommendation. On October 15, 1997, Dr. McClurg sought authorization to perform a second surgery, an open Mumford's procedure, on applicant's shoulder.
Note:	Utilization Review medical reports are not sufficient evidence for benefits determinations.
Citation:	63 CCC 742 (Panel Dec. After Recon)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3761998 CA

Case Name:	D'Angona v. County of LA		07/10/1980
Summary:	LINDA D'ANGONA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Mosk, J. , with Bird, C. J. , Tobriner, Clark, Richardson and Newman, JJ. , concurring. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the present action against Los Angeles County, seeking damages for the aggravation of her disease. After an award of benefits was made in her favor for disability arising from these injuries, she filed the present action in the superior court for damages against the county, fn. However, she served the complaint only upon the county, which is the sole respondent on this appeal. The county in its answer admitted it is engaged in operating the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center.
Note:	Hospital treating injured employee is not an employer; dual capacity exception to exclusive remedy applies.
Citation:	27 Cal.3d 661, 45 CCC 722
WCC Citation:	WCC 24191980 CA

Case Name:	Dalen v. WCAB		06/27/1972
Summary:	STEPHEN JOE DALEN, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ALLSTATE EXCAVATORS AND DEMOLITION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Sims, J. , with Molinari, P. J. , and Elkington, J. , concurring. )He testified as to the duties generally of Group 1 occupations as follows: 'Laborer -- heavy -- unskilled in any particular. . . . ' In an opinion attached to his findings and award, the referee stated, 'Applicant's testimony supports the finding of occupation. Permanent disability indemnity is awarded in accordance with the recommended permanent disability rating filed and served herein. 'In a report dated January 2, 1969, Dr. Hurley observed, 'At the present time, I feel that it would be well to have Mr. Dalen register in a school for rehabilitation.
Note:	4651.2 applies only to rehab programs initiated by employer or ins. carrier
Citation:	26 Cal.App.3d 497, 37 CCC 393
WCC Citation:	WCC 24821972 CA

Case Name:	Daniel Ordorica v. WCAB		03/14/2001
Summary:	DANIEL ORDORICA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LANCE CAMPERS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondents. OPINION ORTEGA, J. - During the initial 30-day period of medical control by the employer following an industrial injury, Daniel Ordorica refused care by the employer's doctor and instead began treatment with a physician he chose. Ordorica further contends the relief afforded by the WCAB is not provided by statute. The same day Lance Campers referred Ordorica to Daniel Mongiano, M. D. , who diagnosed a wound to the forehead which required sutures. However, Dr. Ha'Eri concluded the compression fracture was not work-related because Ordorica had instead hyperextended his spine in the industrial injury.
Note:	Obligation to accept employer treatment w/in 30 days of injury.
Citation:	87 CA 4th 1037, 66 CCC 333
WCC Citation:	WCC 28112001 CA

Case Name:	Daniel v. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co.		03/28/2011
Summary:	MICHELE DANIEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS BOREN, P. J. Michele Daniel (Employee) appeals from the summary judgment entered following the grant of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication by Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Employer). Thus, I would affirm the trial court's order awarding summary judgment to defendant and respondent Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro). On or about March 27, 2009, Tesoro filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of issues. She claims that she was qualified for numerous other positions at Tesoro, but Tesoro refused to even allow her to interview for them.
Note:	A worker's Fair Employment and Housing Act suit should go to trial because triable issues of fact existed about whether the employer ever actually sought to accommodate the plaintiff's work-related disability.
Citation:	B218935
WCC Citation:	WCC 37382011 CA

Case Name:	David Lopez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Yellow Roadway)		11/20/2008
Summary:	Lopez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No. F056266 (Cal. App. Dist. 5 11/20/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. F056266 November 20, 2008 DAVID LOPEZ, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, YELLOW ROADWAY CORPORATION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. No appearance by Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION THE COURT*fn1 David Lopez petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). BACKGROUND Lopez worked as a truck driver for Yellow Roadway between May 1989 and August 2004, during which time he filed three different workers' compensation claims.
Note:	A truck driver who filed three workers' compensation claims alleging specific and cumulative injuries to various body parts failed to disprove a workers' compensation judge's decision that he had hurt himself not at work, but after a night of beer drinking.
Citation:	F056266
WCC Citation:	WCC 34632008 CA

Case Name:	David Maxwell v. Home Depot USA		12/22/2010
Summary:	David Maxwell (Maxwell) tested positive for methamphetamine and was terminated from his job at Home Depot USA, Inc. (Home Depot). In 2000, Home Depot hired Maxwell to work with the night crew in its store in Monrovia. Home Depot terminated Maxwell because of his physical disability and his requests for medical leave and accommodation. Regardless, Home Depot argued that Maxwell could not prevail because he could not prove that Lipich unlawfully harassed him. Maxwell alleged that Home Depot and Lipich "engaged in outrageous conduct and an abuse of authority by subjecting [Maxwell] to illegal discrimination, harassment and retaliation. "
Note:	Home Depot defeated a former employee's suit alleging disability discrimination and other causes of action by showing that it terminated him for violating its longstanding drug policy, according to a decision from the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	B222844
WCC Citation:	WCC 36952010 CA