Case Name:	Grupe Co. v. WCAB (Ridgeway)		09/15/2005
Summary:	Respondent Ruby Ridgeway, while working for petitioner Grupe Company (Grupe) as a computer operator, injured her upper extremities and neck and was awarded temporary disability payments. Petitioners informed the WCAB that a settlement had been offered but Ridgeway declined to reach a settlement until she had completed her vocational rehabilitation program. However, the final judgment rule, ubiquitous in civil appeals, does not hold sway in the arena of WCAB appeals. The Safeway court looked first to the finality required in order to bring a motion for reconsideration before the WCAB. The WCAB granted reconsideration and found for the employee, holding the injury was compensable and remanding for further hearing on other issues.
Note:	Substance of witness testimony not required to be included in pretrial conference statement.
Citation:	132 Cal. App. 4th 977
WCC Citation:	WCC 31192005 CA

Case Name:	Grupe Co. v. WCAB (Ridgeway)		10/14/2005
Summary:	Filed 10/14/05 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* COPY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT GRUPE COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RUBY RIDGEWAY, Respondents. Ridgeway is awarded costs on appeal. Petitioners' petition for rehearing is denied. BY THE COURT: RAYE , Acting P. J. MORRISON , J. ROBIE , J. Opinion Footnotes ---------------------------- * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976. 1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I, II, and IV.
Note:	Substance of witness testimony not required to be included in pretrial conference statement.
Citation:	C041291
WCC Citation:	WCC 31252005 CA

Case Name:	Guajardo v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company		12/04/2012
Summary:	GUAJARDO v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIANA MADRIGAL GUAJARDO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Diana Madrigal Guajardo, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of her employer, defendant, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, on her first amended complaint. The services center is a third-party department that is operated and managed by an independent vendor, Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The position included intensive and substantial typing duties, high volume of telephone calls and interactions with customers. Defendant, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, is awarded its costs on appeal from plaintiff, Diana Madrigal Guajardo.
Note:	An employer did not discriminate against an injured worker by insisting that its third-party administrator handle her request for a reasonable accommodation, failing to let her work the shift that she wanted or threatening to terminate her if she did not follow the company's procedures.
Citation:	B238075
WCC Citation:	WCC 39592012 CA

Case Name:	Gudino v. Kalkat		05/21/2018
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 (Butte) .             MARIA GUDINO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             BHUPINDER SINGH KALKAT, Defendant and Respondent. .             C080625 .             (Super. Ct. No. 161834) .             Amador Gudino fell to his death while working on the framing of defendant Bhupinder Kalkat’s new house. .             Amador Gudino was an employee of JKD and worked on the framing of Kalkat’s house. Kalkat provided a forklift and that forklift was near Gudino when he fell; photographs showed two ladders and a plank on the balcony where Gudino fell near the forklift.
Note:	A California appellate court on Monday ruled that the family of a worker who fell to his death during a home construction project could not proceed with claims against the homeowner, as a matter of law.
Citation:	C080625
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 161834

Case Name:	Guia v. Smart & Final Stores		03/09/2018
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             LORENA GUIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SMART & FINAL STORES, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. .             B276435 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Jackson Lewis, Theresa M. Marchlewski, Sherry L. Swieca and Christopher M. Habashy for Defendant and Respondent.   .             Plaintiff and appellant Lorena Guia appeals a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Smart & Final Stores, LLC (S&F), her former employer. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS  .           EDMON, P. J. .           We concur: .           LAVIN, J.   .           CURREY, J.
Note:
Citation:	B276435
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC554278

Case Name:	Gund v. County of Trinity		06/04/2018
Summary:	Filed 6/4/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION  IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Trinity) .             JAMES GUND et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             COUNTY OF TRINITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             C076828 .             (Super. Ct. No. 11CV080) .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Trinity County, Richard Scheuler, Judge. .             This lawsuit alleges that a Trinity County deputy sheriff phoned citizens James and Norma Gund -- who do not work for the County -- and asked them to go check on a neighbor who had called 911 for help likely related to inclement weather. .           Mrs. Gund went in first while Mr. Gund stayed in the truck.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that the workers’ compensation system provides the only available remedy to two private citizens who suffered horrific injuries in a knife attack while checking on the well-being of a neighbor at the request of a deputy sheriff.
Citation:	C076828
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 11CV080

Case Name:	Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories		09/28/2001
Summary:	ROSS C. GUNNELL et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. METROCOLOR LABORATORIES, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs Ross C. Gunnell, James L. Walters, and Ronald J. Cohen sued, among other defendants, Metrocolor Lab, Inc. (Metrocolor) and Warner Brothers, Inc. (Time Warner). In 1989, Gunnell, Walters, and Cohen worked for four and one-half months at Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc. , which owned a facility to process and develop television and movie film. Cleaning the interior walls and ceiling of the Metrocolor film lab exposed Gunnell, Walters, and Cohen to the blue-green cleaning substance. Gunnell cites the jury's findings that Metrocolor specifically intended to injure Gunnell, who did not consent to contact with harmful chemicals which caused his injuries, and that in committing a battery on Gunnell, Metrocolor acted with oppression, malice, and fraud.
Note:	Neither battery nor willful physical assault provides an exception to exclusive remedy rule.
Citation:	92 Cal.App.4th 710
WCC Citation:	WCC 28622001 CA

Case Name:	Guptill v. WCAB		03/07/1991
Summary:	Lois Guptill, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, et al. , Respondents Civil No. B051580 Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 6 CCC 184 March 7, 1991 DISPOSITION: Proceeding to review decision. On October 7, 1987, she informed the Employment Development Department (EDD) her workers' compensation claim had 'verbally' been denied by the employer. In November 1987 EDD sent applicant a letter stating she might be entitled to workers' compensation benefits instead of disability insurance. EDD explained she needed to file an application with the Board and provide the Board case number to EDD to receive disability insurance benefits. On April 2, 1988, defendants filed an answer denying applicant sustained industrial injury to the low back.
Note:	When approving a C&R or reinstating order of dismissal, WCAB examines applicant's understanding of rights to benefits, significance of dismissal.
Citation:	56 CCC 184
WCC Citation:	WCC 25731991 CA

Case Name:	Gutierrez v. Girardi		08/13/2017
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             LUIS GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             THOMAS V. GIRARDI et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B271272 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Appellant/plaintiff Luis Gutierrez (Gutierrez) appeals from a judgment following an order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of respondents/defendants Thomas V. Girardi and Girardi & Keese (collectively G&K). (See Gutierrez v. Girardi (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 925 [reversing summary judgment]; Gutierrez v. Girardi (Jan. 12, 2015, B251857) [nonpub. Defendants Thomas V. Girardi and Girardi & Keese are awarded their costs.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a worker was time-barred from pursuing a lawsuit against his former attorneys in a toxic tort action for their alleged mishandling of settlement proceeds.
Citation:	B271272
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC400560

Case Name:	Gutierrez v. Girardi		04/27/2011
Summary:	GUTIERREZ v. GIRARDI LUIS GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THOMAS V. GIRARDI et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought by plaintiff and appellant Luis Gutierrez on behalf of himself and all other persons who were represented by defendants and respondents Thomas V. Girardi and his law firm Girardi & Keese (collectively G&K) in a previous lawsuit by employees of Lockheed Corporation (Lockheed) against Lockheed and other defendants (Lockheed Action). According to Gutierrez, G&K did not have a fee agreement with Gutierrez in connection with the Lockheed Action. From October 1991 to February 2001, Gutierrez received 13 settlement checks from G&K totaling $81,310. 41. On April 18, 2002, three defendants in the Lockheed Action (the non-settling defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment against Gutierrez. Breach With respect to the element of breach, G&K argues that Gutierrez cannot prove G&K misappropriated settlement funds because at his deposition, Gutierrez testified that there was no written fee agreement between G&K and Gutierrez.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal resuscitated an injured worker's malpractice suit, which charges that his famous former attorneys misappropriated more than $20 million from a $131 million class-action settlement with Lockheed Corp.
Citation:	B226614
WCC Citation:	WCC 37572011 CA

Case Name:	Guzman v. WCAB (Sun Garden Packing)		07/26/1991
Summary:	Maria Guzman, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, and Sun Garden Packing, Respondents. At a joint hearing in June 1990, the two cases were consolidated and SJ 102401 was designated as the master file. . . . RE-SERVED BY MAIL ON PERSONS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD [¶] Date: OCT 31 1990' (Emphasis in original. )The substance of the petition was that the record did not support the WCJ's findings and award. The board then agreed with the substance of Citation's petition and remanded the matter back to the trial level for further proceedings.
Note:	No presumption of proof of service when order is not signed by person making service; statutory period begins with proper service/actual receipt.
Citation:	56 CCC 472
WCC Citation:	WCC 27881991 CA

Case Name:	H.B. Fuller Co., etc. v. WCAB		09/17/1998
Summary:	H. B. Fuller Company, American Motorists Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Eric Weaver, Respondents. However, the parties disputed whether Applicant had made a good faith demand for vocational rehabilitation services. Defendants dispute this as not being a good faith request because, only a few days earlier, Applicant had indicated that he wanted voc. The WCJ recommended that the WCAB deny reconsideration, stating: 'In analyzing the testimony, it appeared that very shortly after being terminated with H. B. Fuller, Applicant was faced with a decision of whether he should pursue vocational rehabilitation. Applicant's main focus was eventually obtaining another position with H. B. Fuller because he wanted to continue his employment there.
Note:	Employer must clarify applicant's willingness to participate in rehab. if request conflicts with statements made by applicant; entitlement to maintenance allowance begins when employer receives application.
Citation:	63 CCC 1287
WCC Citation:	WCC 27961998 CA

Case Name:	Hall v. Curran		05/11/2011
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Respondent Scott Hall (Hall) hired appellant Martin Gerard Curran*fn1 (Curran) to undertake a remodeling project. After disputes arose about workmanship and payment, Curran brought an action against Hall to foreclose on a mechanic's lien. BACKGROUND While only Hall and Curran are parties to this appeal, the underlying action was filed by Coastside Lumber Supply, Inc. (Coastside). Curran filed its own mechanic's lien for $58,109, and in March 2007, filed a cross-complaint against Hall to foreclose on the lien. Hall then dismissed his remaining cause of action against Curran, and the court ordered judgment entered against Curran for $102,740--which represented the entire amount he had been paid for the remodeling project, minus the amount Hall received in settlement from Curran's bonding company, plus $240 in costs.
Note:	A homeowner was able to recoup $102,740 he had paid to a construction firm after discovering that the firm had failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance for some of its workers.
Citation:	A127542
WCC Citation:	WCC 37632011 CA

Case Name:	Hall v. Goodwill Industries of Southern California		03/16/2011
Summary:	MICHAEL HALL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and Appellant Michael Hall filed suit against Goodwill Industries of Southern California (Goodwill) alleging a retaliation claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, 12900 et seq. According to Hall, after Goodwill terminated his employment he was unable to find new work. On December 30, 2005, Hall filed a civil complaint against Goodwill for retaliation in violation of FEHA and wrongful termination. Hall filed a motion for reconsideration but the trial court entered judgment in the case before the motion was heard.
Note:	A worker's Fair Employment and Housing Act suit was untimely because his attorney filed his complaint more than a year after the state issued his right-to-sue notice, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in a published decision.
Citation:	B215860
WCC Citation:	WCC 37272011 CA

Case Name:	Halliburton v. Remington College-Denver Campus, Inc.		04/28/2008
Summary:	According to Halliburton, Cisneros had previously "falsely" stated that Halliburton was sexually harassing her. Halliburton presented deposition testimony from other Halliburton employees including Katrina Shdeed, Manuel Gallegos and Terrence Peterson. Gallegos heard Halliburton complaining about these matters several months before his termination, and he believed Halliburton complained too much and there was no other reason he could think of as to why Halliburton would be fired. Remington thereafter moved for clarification, correction and/or reconsideration of the court's March 2006 order, arguing Remington was not named as a party to Halliburton's defamation cause of action. Background In March 2005, Halliburton served discovery on Remington including special and form interrogatories and a request for production of documents.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because causes of action based on defamation are not barred by the exclusive remedy provision, summary judgement was improper in response to claimant's wrongful discharge and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
Citation:	D049223
WCC Citation:	WCC 33502008 CA

Case Name:	Halverson v. Orange County Employees Retirement System		01/27/2011
Summary:	JANET R. HALVERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION The Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS) adopted a referee's recommendation made following an administrative hearing and denied the application of Janet R. Halverson for service-connected and nonservice-connected disability retirement. Halverson began working for the County of Orange in September 1980. Dr. Savarirayan found Halverson to be anxious and depressed, prescribed Paxil, and placed Halverson on disability for one month. (Curtis v. Board of Retirement (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 293, 297, quoting Mansperger v. Public Employees' Retirement System (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 873, 876. )
Note:	Substantial evidence that a public guardian was able to return to work supported the Orange County Employees' Retirement System's denial of her request for disability-related retirement benefits.
Citation:	G042276
WCC Citation:	WCC 37082011 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton v. WCAB		05/04/1979
Summary:	In 1975, two years after his retirement, Hamilton entered Kaiser hospital for a routine examination. Instead he said 'lay off the booze,' and recommended a 'dry-out clinic' to which Hamilton went for three or four days. But Hamilton did not stop drinking, at least until about a year after he had filed his claim for workers' compensation. 'Review of records: I reviewed all of the records that were sent to me regarding Mr. Hamilton. These records confirm the fact that Mr. Hamilton did indeed begin to have intermittent hypertension since the middle of the 1960's.
Note:	Presumption must be supported by evidence of causal connection between employment and injury.
Citation:	93 Cal.App.3d 587, 44 CCC 520
WCC Citation:	WCC 4141979 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton vs. Lockheed Corp.		04/30/2001
Summary:	Applicant sustained admitted cumulative industrial injury to the psyche from December 1990 through September 30, 1992. After applicant's evaluation by an A m , the matter was submitted for decision "on the record' at the hearing of July 25, 2000. Filed behind the minutes is a large collection of documents with numbered tabs, which include medical reports and deposition transcripts. There is no way to ascertain which, if any of them, were admitted into evidence. In reliance upon same the Court is of the opinion that applicant is totally (100%) disabled due to her employment at Lockheed Corporation from 12/90 to 9/30/92.
Note:	Minimum necessary to be in Board file for case to be submitted for decision.
Citation:	66 CCC 473
WCC Citation:	WCC 29052001 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton vs. Martinelli & Assoc.		07/23/2003
Summary:	BARBARA ANN HAMILTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARTINELLI & ASSOCIATES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Introduction Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Ronald Martinelli (Martinelli) and Martinelli & Associates Justice Consultants, Inc. (Martinelli & Associates) (collectively defendants), on plaintiff's complaint for personal injuries based on negligence and intentional tort. Defendant Martinelli instructed the course on behalf of Martinelli & Associates. Martinelli and one of his assistants instructed the course through Martinelli & Associates, under contract with the Department. She said Martinelli "harbored bitter feelings against [her] based on a prior dispute" and displayed "reckless and vindictive" indifference to her safety.
Note:	No duty owed to a peace officer who is engaged in training to meet an emergency situation.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 1012
WCC Citation:	WCC 29512003 CA

Case Name:	Hamp v. Harrison Patterson O'Connor & Kinkead, LLP		12/18/2012
Summary:	HAMP v. HARRISON PATTERSON O'CONNOR & KINKEAD, LLP RICHARD HAMP, SR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HARRISON PATTERSON O'CONNOR & KINKEAD, LLP et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Richard Hamp, Sr. , (Hamp) sued Harrison Patterson O'Connor & Kinkead, LLP, its successor Harrison Patterson & O'Connor, LLP, and Harry W. Harrison (collectively Harrison) for alleged deficiencies in Harrison's representation of Hamp in an employment action. Hamp subsequently hired Harrison to represent him in an employment action against Hanson. After a failed settlement attempt, Harrison withdrew from representing Hamp in May 2010 and Hamp obtained new counsel. Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 658, upon which Harrison relies, is distinguishable.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal revived an injured worker's malpractice claim against his former attorney, ruling that the action was not subject to dismissal as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Citation:	D061276
WCC Citation:	WCC 39582012 CA

Case Name:	Hanford Ready Mix, Inc. v. Dominguez		12/27/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) HANFORD READY MIX, INC. , Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. DANIEL DOMINGUEZ, Cross-defendant and Respondent. Gray's decedents filed a wrongful death and negligence action against Daniel Dominguez, Hanford Ready Mix, Inc. (Hanford), and Gray's employer, L. L. & W. Supply, Inc. , doing business as Cen-Cal Wallboard (Cen-Cal). Hanford filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against Cen-Cal and Dominguez, alleging their negligence caused or contributed to the accident. Hanford contends there are triable issues of fact concerning whether Dominguez and/or his agents breached a duty of care to Gray and caused the accident. Hanford cross-complained against Cen-Cal and Dominguez, alleging that Gray's death was caused in whole or in part by cross-defendants.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the evidence failed to show negligence on the part of Defendant, summary judgement was warranted and the issue of whether this action was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law is not addressed.
Citation:	C052180
WCC Citation:	WCC 32932007 CA

Case Name:	Haniff v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County		03/01/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/1/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION  IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             MOHAMMED HANIFF, Petitioner, .             v. .             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; .             JAMES HOHMAN et al. , Real Parties in Interest. .             H043345 .             (Santa Clara County Super. .             Haniff challenged the order by filing a petition for writ of mandate in this court. .           In September 2013 Haniff filed a personal injury complaint naming Hohman and Kim as defendants. v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 180, 185-186; Raytheon Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 683, 686.
Note:
Citation:	H043345
WCC Citation:	Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 2013-1-CV25

Case Name:	Hanna v. Dental Board of California		12/13/2012
Summary:	HANNA v. DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA SOHAIR HANNA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION CHAVEZ, J. Sohair Hanna (appellant) appeals from a judgment of the superior court denying her petition for writ of mandate. Through the writ of mandate, appellant sought to overturn a decision of the Dental Board of California (the Board) revoking appellant's dental license. In April 2001, George Hanna was convicted of felony Medi-Cal fraud, a violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 14107, subdivision (b)(1). Administrative proceedings In April 2010, Richard DeCuir (complainant), in his official capacity as the Executive Officer of the Board, brought an accusation against appellant.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal has upheld the revocation of a Los Angeles-area dentist's license based on her no-contest plea to a felony count of Medi-Cal fraud.
Citation:	B239336
WCC Citation:	WCC 39642012 CA

Case Name:	Hanna v. LA Co. Sheriff's Dept.		09/17/2002
Summary:	On May 17, 2000, Hanna demanded the Department return her "to her usual and customary job at another station. "The Department responded, stating the Retirement Board's decision denying her disability application was not final because Hanna had filed an appeal. On August 11, Hanna sent a letter to the Retirement Board withdrawing her request for a hearing before a Board-appointed referee. The first amended application states there is no position Hanna "would be able to perform with the County that would not result in a loss of income to [Hanna]. "The Department claims it offered to place Hanna in another position "consistent with" her work restriction, but Hanna "refused to cooperate. "
Note:	Injured county worker must be reintstated despite disability when retirement board denies claim.
Citation:	102 Cal.App.4th 887
WCC Citation:	WCC 28852002 CA

Case Name:	Hanna v. LA Co. Sheriff's Dept.		09/17/2002
Summary:	On May 17, 2000, Hanna demanded the Department return her "to her usual and customary job at another station. "The Department responded, stating the Retirement Board's decision denying her disability application was not final because Hanna had filed an appeal. On August 11, Hanna sent a letter to the Retirement Board withdrawing her request for a hearing before a Board-appointed referee. The first amended application states there is no position Hanna "would be able to perform with the County that would not result in a loss of income to [Hanna]. "The Department claims it offered to place Hanna in another position "consistent with" her work restriction, but Hanna "refused to cooperate. "
Note:	Injured county worker must be reintstated despite disability when retirement board denies claim.
Citation:	102 Cal.App.4th 887
WCC Citation:	WCC 28862002 CA

Case Name:	Hansen Mechanical, Inc. v. Sup. Court		11/29/1995
Summary:	HANSEN MECHANICAL, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NORTHRIDGE EQUIPMENT CO. , INC. , Real Party in Interest. Factual and Procedural Background The complaint herein arises out of an April 1990 construction accident involving personal injuries to Sam Martinez, an employee of Hansen. Northridge filed a cross-complaint against Hansen and others; the third and fourth causes of action of the cross-complaint were based on the theory of express indemnity. 1 The cross-complaint alleged that Hansen, through its 'authorized agent, employee, or representative, executed the agreement attached hereto . . . , which provides that Hansen . . . defend, indemnify and hold harmless cross-complainant. 'After hearing, the trial court denied Hansen's motion for summary adjudication as to Northridge's causes of action for express indemnity.
Note:	Indemnity provision unenforceable because it was not signed before employee's injury.
Citation:	40 Cal.App.4th 722, 60 CCC 1177
WCC Citation:	WCC 23991995 CA

Case Name:	Hansen Mechanical, Inc. v. Superior Court		11/29/1995
Summary:	HANSEN MECHANICAL, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NORTHRIDGE EQUIPMENT CO. , INC. , Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. MC000806, Ross Amspoker, Temporary Judge. 1 The cross-complaint alleged that Hansen, through its 'authorized agent, employee, or representative, executed the agreement attached hereto . . . , which provides that Hansen . . . defend, indemnify and hold harmless cross-complainant. 'After hearing, the trial court denied Hansen's motion for summary adjudication as to Northridge's causes of action for express indemnity. (See, e. g. , Regan Roofing Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 425, 436-437 [29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 413]. )
Note:	Indemnity provision unenforceable because it was not signed before employee's injury.
Citation:	40 Cal.App.4th 722
WCC Citation:	WCC 23971995 CA

Case Name:	Hansen v. WCAB		06/07/1989
Summary:	JAMES HANSEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and KATY RADIO et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Gilbert, J. , with Stone (S. We review a decision of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying applicant James Hansen's petition for removal. 1 We conclude the Board erred in determining the ordered examination complied with section 4051. By letter counsel for defendant insurer notified applicant a medical examination of applicant by Dr. Markovitz in Los Angeles had been arranged. The order included a provision it would be void if good cause to the contrary were stated in writing.
Note:	Ordering a worker to attend a medical exam 185 miles from home violates Sec. 4051.
Citation:	211 Cal.App.3d 717, 54 CCC 193
WCC Citation:	WCC 24021989 CA

Case Name:	Hardesty, et. al. v. McCord & Holdren, etc.		03/17/1976
Summary:	The defendant insurance carrier filed an answer, placing in issue, among other things, the fact of injury and raising the defense of intoxication. Unfortunately for the applicant, there is little information as to the precise manner in which Mr. Hardesty met with this accident. Denial of these discovery remedies would unfairly prejudice the applicant in the presentation of her case. 'We infer from the contents of the pleadings filed subsequent to the order that counsel for both parties agree with our interpretation. In our opinion, good cause for discovery of the employer's report is not established at this time.
Note:	Trial judge has power to invoke liberal pre-trial discovery orders to effect efficient processes.
Citation:	41 CCC 111
WCC Citation:	WCC 3681976 CA

Case Name:	Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. WCAB		07/31/1967
Summary:	HARDWARE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and HENRY W. HARGROVE, Respondents. While working for the other firm he incurred a back injury, for which he was compensated. After his return to John Geer the foreman favored him with lighter work because of his back condition. [253 Cal. App. 2d 64] Hargrove was pushing a car on February 25, 1966, when he slipped in an oil slick and fell. He had been unemployed since the time he left John Geer and had earned no money.
Note:	Separate cause of inability to work is separately evaluated, specific findings required.
Citation:	253 Cal.App.2d 62, 32 CCC 291
WCC Citation:	WCC 25021967 CA