Case Name:	Cervantes v. El Aguila Food Products		11/19/2009
Summary:	ADJ3675309 (SAL 0081669) ADJ2967795 (SAL 0101259) ADJ3517685 (SAL 0077391) ADJ1962561 (SAL 0077392) JESUS CERVANTES, Applicant, vs. EL AGUILA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. ; SAFECO INSURANCE CO. OF ILLINOIS; SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. , In Liquidation; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; and BROADSPIRE (Servicing Facility), AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant, Jesus Cervantes, sustained several industrial injuries to his low back in 1996, , and 1998, while employed by El Aguila Food Products, Inc. (El Aguila). El Aguila was insured by Safeco for two of these injuries. In the January 16, 2009 report, Dr. Dureza said: "I do feel somewhat confident that the patient would benefit from surgery . . . Accordingly, the implicit legislative purpose in establishing UR was to create an expeditious and inexpensive method to assess treating physician's medical treatment recommendations.
Note:	[En Banc] The procedures and timelines governing objections to a treating physician's recommendation for spinal surgery are contained in Labor Code sections 4610 and 4062 and in Administrative Director (AD) Rules 9788.1, 9788.11, and 9792.6(o).
Citation:	ADJ3675309
WCC Citation:	WCC 35812009 CA

Case Name:	Cervantes vs. Great American Ins. Co.		03/14/1983
Summary:	JESUS CERVANTES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Although the injury required medical care, including surgery, Great American refused to pay or extend Cervantes any benefits. Otherwise, Great American neither requested to [140 Cal. App. 3d 766] have Cervantes examined by a physician of its choice nor contacted Cervantes' treating physician. When Cervantes refused to settle, Great American then paid the award in full. Great American contends, because Cervantes alleged physical as well as mental and emotional injuries, that his suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred.
Note:	Wilful delay in payment of benefits does not remove action from exclusive remedy of comp.
Citation:	140 Cal.App.3d 763
WCC Citation:	WCC 29951983 CA

Case Name:	Chambers v. WCAB		11/14/1968
Summary:	Chambers, a machinist with a third grade education, was employed by an iron company from 1952 until early 1964. Chambers then consulted a Dr. Dickstein, who attributed the emphysema to his constant exposure to dust over a period of many years. *FN 5 Dr. Wasserman, who first diagnosed Chambers' condition, [69 Cal. 2d 562] advised him to stop smoking and he did so. Dr. Dickstein did not refer to cigarettes as a cause of emphysema or of Chambers' disability although his report shows that he was aware of the fact that Chambers had smoked for a number of years. The question is unclear since it cannot be ascertained whether the word "this" refers to Chambers' tiredness or to his emphysema.
Note:	It is the employer's burden of proof to show the employee's knowledge.
Citation:	69 Cal.2d 556
WCC Citation:	WCC 31001968 CA

Case Name:	Chan v. City & County of San Francisco		04/19/2011
Summary:	CHAN v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ALBERT LAP CHAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS LAMBDEN, J. Albert Lap Chan, plaintiff below, appeals from the trial court's grant of the motion for summary judgment brought by respondent, the City and County of San Francisco (City). Chan sued the City for sex discrimination and harassment under FEHA and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Heller said D. told her on September 18 that Chan was "a pervert," but would not elaborate, and told her on September 30 that Chan had touched her sexually. Also, Dere repeated her accusations about Chan to a San Francisco Police Inspector on September 30.
Note:	A former swimming instructor did not show that the City and County of San Francisco's reasons for terminating him were a pretext for sex-based discrimination, an appellate court ruled.
Citation:	A124330
WCC Citation:	WCC 37532011 CA

Case Name:	Chang v. WCAB		07/24/2007
Summary:	Filed 7/24/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COPY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT RACHEL CHANG, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Respondents. Marks for California Workers' Compensation Institute as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund. FACTS The applicant, Rachel Chang, while employed as a typist by respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund, sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury to her back and upper extremities during a period ending in July 2004. The schedule is based on new legislation that requires the use of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th ed. )for both the "descriptions and measurements" and the "percentages of impairments" as the basis for a disability award.
Note:	The 'liberality rule,' which is found in section 3202 and obligates the court to liberally construe the workers' compensation law in favor of the injured worker, 'cannot supplant the intent of the Legislature as expressed in a particular statute.' If the Legislature's intent appears from the language and context of the relevant statutory provisions, then [the court] must effectuate that intent, 'even though the particular statutory language 'is contrary to the basic policy of the [workers' compensation law].'
Citation:	153 Cal. App. 4th 750; 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 219, 72 CC
WCC Citation:	WCC 32392007 CA

Case Name:	Chavez v City of Los Angeles		01/14/2010
Summary:	Filed 1/14/10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT CHAVEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Los Angeles County Defendants and Respondents. (Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1467, 1474; Steele v. Jensen Instrument Co. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 326, 331. )In November 1989, defendant City of Los Angeles (City) hired plaintiff Robert Chavez as a police officer in the Los Angeles Police Department (Department). (Dorman v. DWLC Corp. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 1808, 1816-1817; Valentino v. Elliott Sav-On Gas, Inc. (1988) 201 Cal. App. 3d 692, 702; Greenberg v. Pacific Tel. Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): Lisa R. Jaskol S. Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 (213) 637-3851 Beth D. Orellana Deputy City Attorney North Main Street, 700 City Hall East Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 978-8291 ==========Footnotes========== .
Note:	Code of Civil Procedure section 1033(a) gives a trial court discretion to deny attorney fees to a plaintiff who prevails on a FEHA claim but recovers an amount that could have been recovered in a limited civil case.
Citation:	S162313
WCC Citation:	WCC 35902010 CA

Case Name:	Chavez v. City of LA		07/21/2008
Summary:	On February 13, 2004 Dr. Samuel Miles, the AME psychiatrist, issued his report and diagnosed Chavez with depression not otherwise specified. The judgment in favor of the City is reversed, as is the November 28 2006 order awarding the City its costs. Chavez and the City are each to bear his and its own costs on appeal. The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment in an unpublished memorandum of decision (see Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. The City insists Chavez admitted in his deposition the City's decision was the product of disability discrimination, not retaliation for his prior lawsuits.
Note:	[Unpublished] Chavez's discrimination claim fails in light of his concession that his disability, either actual or perceived, played no role in the city's employment actions.
Citation:	B196255
WCC Citation:	WCC 34012008 CA

Case Name:	Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (DCA opinion)		02/22/2008
Summary:	Filed 2/22/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ROBERT CHAVEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. BC324514) APPEAL from a post-judgment order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Chavez, a Los Angeles Police Department officer, sued his employer, the City of Los Angeles (City), and three supervisors for violation of FEHA. According to Chavez, the City made no offer to settle except to waive its costs in full satisfaction of Chavez's claims. The City urged the trial court to exercise its discretion to deny or at least substantially reduce Chavez's fee request.
Note:	The trial court erred by basing its denial of plaintiff's request for attorney fees upon Civil Code of Procedure Section 1033.
Citation:	BC324514
WCC Citation:	WCC 35372008 CA

Case Name:	Chavira v. WCAB		10/21/1991
Summary:	ERNEST CHAVIRA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. Facts Ernest Chavira, applicant, was employed by Johns-Manville Sales Corporation (Manville) from October 24, 1952, through May 23, 1958. Dr. Campisi concluded: 'There is a [235 Cal. App. 3d 467] mild restrictive ventilatory defect without evidence of air flow obstruction. Dr. Herman Schoen examined applicant on February 7, 1986, and obtained new chest X-rays and pulmonary function studies. Petitioner, Ernest Chavira, shall recover his appellate costs.
Note:	Asbestos claim not barred by SOL when he did not yet have disability.
Citation:	235 Cal.App.3d 463, 56 CCC 631
WCC Citation:	WCC 25351991 CA

Case Name:	Chevron, Inc. v. WCAB		01/25/1999
Summary:	On May 18, 1995, the Board issued an opinion and order denying reconsideration, and Chevron sought review in the Court of Appeal. Except in certain situations not applicable here, the death benefit is a dependent's exclusive remedy against the employer for the employee's work-related death. A total dependent relies on the now-deceased employee for substantially all of his or her support. (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 674, 677 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 825, 854 P. 2d 117]; ARCO, supra, 31 Cal. 3d at p. Chevron did not raise this argument prior to its briefing in this court and promptly abandoned it at oral argument.
Note:	No limitation on type of income for partial dependent's death benefits; for such benefits use date of injury not of death.
Citation:	19 Cal.4th 1182, 64 CCC 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 25761999 CA