Case Name:	Demkowski v. Lee		08/30/1991
Summary:	LAWRENCE DEMKOWSKI, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOON KEUN LEE, Defendant and Appellant; CITY OF SAN JOSE, Claimant and Respondent. Statement of the Case Plaintiff Lawrence Demkowski filed an action against defendant Soon Keun Lee for personal injuries he suffered when her car collided with his. Demkowski's employer, the City of San Jose (City), filed a complaint in intervention against Lee to recover the workers' compensation benefits it had paid Demkowski as a result of the accident. After a trial, the jury found in favor of Demkowski and the City, awarding them $40,000 and $19,397. 21, respectively. In short, the instructions did not require the jury to segregate damages, and standing alone, they permit the jury to award Demkowski all of his damages and the City all of the benefits it paid to Demkowski, even though the combination of such awards would constitute a double recovery from Lee.
Note:	Jury verdict on civil subrogation case ambigous so judgment as to damages reversed.
Citation:	233 Cal.App.3d 1244
WCC Citation:	WCC 31511991 CA

Case Name:	Denny's Inc. vs. WCAB (BACHMAN)		01/17/2003
Summary:	In November 2001, the WCAB denied Denny's petition for reconsideration and adopted the WCJ's reasoning as its own. DISCUSSION Denny's contends the WCAB erred by dismissing CIGA as a party to the workers' compensation proceedings and requiring Denny's to pay the full amount of Bachman's disability award. The WCAB will hold the multiple employers or insurance carriers in the chain of causation jointly and severally liable for the entire award and allow them to apportion their relative liabilities in separate WCAB {Slip Opn. In summary, the WCAB concluded that Denny's and HIH America were jointly and severally liable for Bachman's disability award. The WCAB therefore properly dismissed CIGA as a party to the workers' compensation proceedings.
Note:	CIGA not liable for portion of CT where employer self-insured for other portion.
Citation:	104 Cal.App.4th1433
WCC Citation:	WCC 29072003 CA

Case Name:	Dept of Rehab vs. WCAB (Lauher)		06/26/2003
Summary:	William A. Herreras and Susan Silberman for California Applicants' Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent Ronald Lauher. The WCJ denied a petition for reconsideration, as did the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or the Board). The WCJ thereafter denied a petition for reconsideration; the WCAB, over one dissent, affirmed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the WCAB, finding Lauher had not met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of discrimination under section 132a. In this way, society supports the program as a[n] integral element of commerce and industry, rather than through tax-supported plans. "
Note:	No TD for time off for post P&S treatment; not discrimination if require use of sick/vacation time.
Citation:	30 Cal. 4th 1281
WCC Citation:	WCC 29402003 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. WCAB		09/10/2008
Summary:	After considering this history, the WCAB here concluded that section 4663(e) was in effect as of the effective date of section 4663. Petitioner, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department), contends that the WCAB erred and section 4663(e) applies only prospectively from the date of its enactment. On September 25, 2007, Judge Robinson recommended in writing that the WCAB deny the petition. On October 4, 2007, WCAB Presiding Judge Cuneo issued an order and decision denying reconsideration and incorporating Judge Robinson's report and recommendation. Section 3212. 2, which applies to custodial, supervisory, and security officers and employees of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of Youth Authority, and Atascadero State Hospital, covers heart trouble.
Note:	Section 4663(e), when enacted, declared existing law. Section 4663 was not intended to repeal the non-attribution presumptions of sections 3212 through 3213.2 and did not do so by implication.
Citation:	C057410
WCC Citation:	WCC 34182008 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Corrections v. WCAB		02/01/1979
Summary:	The California Department of Corrections petitions for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (hereafter WCAB) awarding death benefits to respondent Deanna Antrim. This court must decide whether the WCAB had the authority to award death benefits under Labor Code section 4701 et seq. Further, the WCAB has been granted broad powers in Labor Code section 4704 to reassign or reapportion any death benefit 'in a just and equitable manner. 'A second claim for death benefits was filed with the WCAB by the deceased's minor daughter from a prior marriage, Deanna Antrim. Nevertheless, our inquiry does not end here since the Legislature also expressly granted the WCAB discretion in awarding death benefits.
Note:	PERS benefits provide additional compensation and are construed liberally due to hazards of public employment.
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 197
WCC Citation:	WCC 24661979 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Corrections v. WCAB		02/01/1979
Summary:	The California Department of Corrections petitions for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (hereafter WCAB) awarding death benefits to respondent Deanna Antrim. This court must decide whether the WCAB had the authority to award death benefits under Labor Code section 4701 et seq. Further, the WCAB has been granted broad powers in Labor Code section 4704 to reassign or reapportion any death benefit 'in a just and equitable manner. 'A second claim for death benefits was filed with the WCAB by the deceased's minor daughter from a prior marriage, Deanna Antrim. Nevertheless, our inquiry does not end here since the Legislature also expressly granted the WCAB discretion in awarding death benefits.
Note:	Death benefits may be awarded to dependents otherwise denied if
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 197, 44 CCC 114
WCC Citation:	WCC 3911979 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Education v. WCAB (Gill)		03/16/1993
Summary:	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DIVISION OF STATE SPECIAL SCHOOLS, CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and THELMA SWAIN GILL, Respondents. 4 work, expert vocational testimony that applicant was not feasible for vocational rehabilitation pursuant to LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. On November 5, 1991, the WCJ submitted to the Board his report on petition for reconsideration, recommending that the petition be denied. The Fuentes approach is used where apportionment is justified by the evidence, the Wilkinson one where it is not. Thus, when the WCAB in Harold found that Harold's 1971 injury and 1973 injury became permanent and stationary at the same time the WCAB was still properly exercising its continuing jurisdiction over the 1971 injury.
Note:	Method of converting PD rating to a number of weeks of workers' comp.
Citation:	14 Cal.App.4th 1348
WCC Citation:	WCC 25071993 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Highway Patrol v. WCAB		04/18/1995
Summary:	DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Petitioner, v. WORKERS'COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SUSAN R. BENSON, as Executor, etc. , et al. , Respondents. He had been employed for 25 years as a traffic officer, from September 1954, until his retirement on September 9, 1979, by defendant Department of the California Highway Patrol, insured by the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). Dr. Goldfarb expressed the opinion that Sills's employment with the highway patrol had been very stressful and had aggravated and accelerated Sills's heart conditions. There was slight improvement, and home care was then provided by licensed vocational nurses and by his fianc'e, Kathryn Compton. 2 Proceedings were held at the Board concerning Sills's workers' compensation claim; benefits accrued pursuant to that claim survived his death.
Note:	WCJ erred by using last date of work for dependency status of children rather than date of injury.
Citation:	33 Cal.App.4th 1828, 60 CCC 308
WCC Citation:	WCC 25311995 CA

Case Name:	Dept. of Indus. Rel. v. WCAB (Tessler)		06/14/1979
Summary:	DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, JEREMY SHANNON TESSLER et al. , Respondents. Younger and George Deukmejian, Attorneys General, Robert L. Bergman, Assistant Attorney General, and B. Franklin Walker, Deputy Attorney General, for Petitioner. Tessler had resided with decedent for approximately three to four months at the time of his death. * California Administrative Code, title 8, section 10870, relating to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's procedures, provides: 'Approval of Compromise and Release. The petition of respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 8, 1979.
Note:	Balance of death benefit payable to state cannot be avoided by C&R.
Citation:	94 Cal.App.3d 721, 44 CCC 591
WCC Citation:	WCC 25981979 CA

Case Name:	Derrick v. WCAB		09/23/1984
Summary:	DEBORAH FAITH DERRICK, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents. After initial emergency hospital care, applicant was treated by several physicians, including one who referred her to Theodore Gray, D. C. , in February 1981 for chiropractic treatment. Dr. Jones submitted his first report to the Department in May 1981 and regularly submitted reports thereafter through March 1982. The Department paid Dr. Jones for applicant's treatment for a period in 1981 before terminating payments. The Department withdrew the issue of the lien and self-procured treatment and agreed, before decision, to satisfy the lien of Dr. Jones.
Note:	Change of doctor issue not properly before WCAB because 4603 procedure not followed.
Citation:	159 Cal.App.3D 451, 49 CCC 621
WCC Citation:	WCC 24341984 CA

Case Name:	Diamond International Corp. v. WCAB		07/30/1984
Summary:	Diamond International Corporation, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Kenton Wills, Respondents. COUNSEL: For respondent employee--Leep, Asbill, & Tescher, by M. K. Tescher, Jr. OPINION BY: Puglia, P. J. OPINION: I Petitioner Diamond International Corporation (Diamond) seeks review of an order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration. The conference was called at the request of Wills' attorney after Diamond filed a 'request for closure. 'At the time of the conference, Andreasen told Skamser that he did not have any information about Wills' employment and seniority status with Diamond. Diamond advances two more arguments which require only brief consideration. D Our attention is directed to certain orders entered in Edith Whitley v. Diamond International, WCAB No. 80 FRE 43947.
Note:	Amendments made to conform pleading to proof allowed at any time if opposing party would not be surprised by evidence.
Citation:	49 CCC 592
WCC Citation:	WCC 27751984 CA

Case Name:	Diaz v. Carcamo		06/23/2011
Summary:	DIAZ v. CARCAMO DAWN RENAE DIAZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE CARCAMO et al. , Defendants and Appellants. But another driver, who was the only nonparty witness to the collision between Carcamo and Tagliaferri, testified that Carcamo had not accelerated. The jury found that defendants Tagliaferri and Carcamo had driven negligently, that defendant Sugar Transport had been negligent in hiring and retaining Carcamo as a driver, and that the retention was a cause of plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, had the trial court not made the errors noted above, it is reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a result more favorable to both Carcamo and Sugar Transport on the question of whether Carcamo drove negligently. Second, both Carcamo and the only nonparty witness to the accident testified that Tagliaferri pulled into Carcamo's lane without signaling, and that Carcamo never changed speed.
Note:	The Supreme Court of California clarified what type of claims a plaintiff may pursue when that plaintiff has been injured by someone driving a car in the course of employment.
Citation:	S181627
WCC Citation:	WCC 37772011 CA

Case Name:	Diaz v. S & R Farm Labor Contractor, Inc.		05/23/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             MAURA CABRERA DIAZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             S & R FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. .             D073115 .             (Super. .             Horton, Oberrecht, Kirkpatrick & Martha, Kimberly S. Oberrecht for Defendant and Respondent. BACKGROUND .           Decedent worked with multiple farm labor contracting companies, which hire employees to pick fruit in fields. .           WE CONCUR: .           HALLER, J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an employer that loaned a supervisory employee to another company could not be held vicariously liable for the electrocution of an agricultural worker who was following the supervisor’s instructions to pick fruit from a tree near a live power line.
Citation:	D073115
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. RIC1209850

Case Name:	Diaz v. West Coast Laboratories, Inc.		10/15/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN MARIA DIAZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WEST COAST LABORATORIES, INC. , et. Maria Diaz sued West Coast Laboratories ("WCL") and Charles Shad for disability discrimination and wrongful termination. WCL allegedly fired Diaz for improperly weighing capsules and misrepresenting her time; however, Diaz claims that WCL concocted this reason to fire her when she continued to require medical attention and accommodations for her injury. According to Diaz, Shad repeatedly pressured her to sign the Receipt and Acknowledgment form included within the employee handbook as a condition of her continued employment. On January 26, Diaz turned in a signed copy of the Receipt and Acknowledgment form.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the contract at issue has both procedurally and substantively unconscionable elements, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to compel arbitration.
Citation:	B195232, BC356498
WCC Citation:	WCC 32682007 CA

Case Name:	Dickey v. WCAB		11/05/1990
Summary:	WILLIAM H. DICKEY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF MORRO BAY et al. , Respondents. About two months after that injury, applicant was hired as a fire extinguisher serviceman by defendant Wayco Fire Extinguishers (Wayco). Applicant claimed workers' compensation benefits, including temporary disability indemnity for the three industrial injuries. They also stipulated applicant was an active fire fighter as defined in Labor Code section 4458 'at the time of his claimed injuries. 'If temporary disability indemnity were awarded at the maximum rate here, the rate would be $224 a week, rather than $120. 68 a week.
Note:	Firefighter entitled to max TD rate despite multiple injuries.
Citation:	224 Cal.App.3d 1460, 55 CCC 410
WCC Citation:	WCC 23801990 CA

Case Name:	Dickinson v. Allstate Insurance Co.		04/19/2013
Summary:	DICKINSON v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ERIC DICKINSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ballard Spahr, Naomi Young, Lawrence J. Gartner and John R. Carrigan, Jr. , for Defendant and Appellant Allstate Insurance Company and Defendants and Respondents Allstate Insurance Company and Eric Jentgen. Dickinson was "grandfathered" into the Allstate workforce when Allstate bought the auto insurance lines of CNA Insurance. *fn15 At a posttrial hearing, Allstate asked to have the judgment entered only against Allstate on the ground that Allstate, not Jentgen personally, was responsible for firing Dickinson, and so only Allstate, not Jentgen personally, could be responsible for self-publication regarding the reason Dickinson was fired. Dickinson appealed this ruling, arguing that Jentgen should be personally liable, along with Allstate, for the $2,000 in damages Dickinson obtained on the self-publication claim.
Note:	A former field claims adjuster's failure to introduce into evidence a right-to-sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing was fatal to his Fair Employment and Housing Act claims.
Citation:	G045033
WCC Citation:	WCC 40052013 CA

Case Name:	Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron		09/17/2009
Summary:	I INTRODUCTION In January 2004, Attorney William K. Dietz filed this action against Meisenheimer & Herron and Meisenheimer, Herron & Steele (Meisenheimer). Dietz further alleged that Meisenheimer breached an agreement between Meisenheimer and Dietz to pay Dietz 25 percent of any contingency fee that Meisenheimer might receive in the Vital matter. Dietz claimed that Meisenheimer paid Dietz only $50,000 rather than the $310,000 that Dietz alleged Meisenheimer owed him. Dietz claimed that as a result of these actions, Meisenheimer had breached a contract with Dietz. In December 2006, Dietz filed the operative first amended complaint in which he alleged that Meisenheimer had breached an oral contract with Dietz to pay Dietz 25 percent of any contingency fee Meisenheimer might receive in the Vital matter.
Note:	It was not improper for the trial court to balance the competing interests of the parties in determining whether to dismiss appellant's action in its entirety. Dismissal of a plaintiff's claim based on the due process concerns espoused in General Dynamics and its progeny is reserved for the rarest of cases.
Citation:	D052463
WCC Citation:	WCC 35672009 CA

Case Name:	Diggle v. Sierra Sands Unified Sch. Dist.		10/07/2005
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. BAK 0138299 WILMA DIGGLE, Applicant, vs. SIERRA SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured; and SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). An en banc decision of the Appeals Board is binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and WCJs. On August 21, 1997, a stipulated Award issued which determined, among other things, that this injury caused permanent disability of 12%. Applicant was awarded permanent disability indemnity in the total sum of $3,994. 45 (payable at the rate of $104. 43 per week for 38. 25 weeks). At trial, the parties stipulated that applicant's overall spinal permanent disability is now 70%, after adjustment for age and occupation, but before apportionment.
Note:	En banc decision is binding precedent on all Appeals Board Panels and WCJs.
Citation:	70 CCC 1480
WCC Citation:	WCC 31262005 CA

Case Name:	Dimmig v. WCAB		03/31/1972
Summary:	MARTHA R. DIMMIG et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE, Respondents In Bank. There is some dispute, however, over petitioners' claim that Dimmig was "required" to obtain his bachelor's degree as a condition of his employment. The executives indicated that Dimmig was hired because of his previous job experience in contract administration and because he was considered promotable. Respondents did not contradict, however, the substantial testimony that Dimmig believed a bachelor's degree was required for his continued employment with Memorex. Keith D. Chapel, a friend of Dimmig's, testified that Dimmig had indicated to him that "he [Dimmig] had been hired on the premise that he would finish his degree, because the job required a degree. "
Note:	Going and coming: commuting to and from work not in scope of employment.
Citation:	6 Cal. 3d 860
WCC Citation:	WCC 28511972 CA

Case Name:	DIR v. California State Personnel Board		10/05/2011
Summary:	CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; OLGA H. GARAU, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Proc. , §§ 1094, 1094. 5. )*fn1 The petition seeks to set aside the decision of the California State Personnel Board (the Board) reinstating respondent Olga H. Garau to her former position with the Department. In our decision Garau v. California State Personnel Board (Oct. 14, 2009, B210335 [nonpub. (California Department of Industrial Relations v. California State Personnel Board (B230790). )In her respondent's brief and at oral argument, Garau made repeated references to documents included in the record of her pending appeal (California Department of Industrial Relations v. California State Personnel Board (B230790)), without identifying them as such or requesting that we take judicial notice of them.
Note:	The Department of Industrial Relations is not procedurally barred from challenging a decision ordering it to reinstate a Division of Occupational Safety and Health attorney, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in an unpublished decision.
Citation:	B228794
WCC Citation:	WCC 38092011 CA