Case Name:	Koch v. Markel Insurance Co., et al.		01/26/2011
Summary:	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS WOODS, J. Blake Koch sued his business liability insurer, Markel Insurance Company (Markel), for refusing to defend or indemnify him in a personal injury lawsuit. Kopstein told Koch that he wanted to sell Koch insurance coverage for Koch's new business and property and represented to Koch that selling garage policies was a specialized area of insurance in which he and Blum were well qualified because of their extensive experience. Had the Blum Defendants advised Koch that he required different or additional coverage, Koch would have purchased it. B. Koch Divides His Business In early 2003, Koch sought to expand his business by purchasing another garage called Adair's Automotive. After Markel denied coverage, Koch asked Kopstein what had gone wrong, and Kopstein replied it appeared Koch had bought the wrong policy.
Note:	The owner of an auto repair shop sufficiently alleged a number of causes of action against his broker and business liability insurer for a coverage gap that left him uncovered against a personal injury suit.
Citation:	B213610
WCC Citation:	WCC 37062011 CA

Case Name:	Kohler vs. Interstate Brands Corp.		11/25/2002
Summary:	RENAE KOHLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. [103 Cal. App. 4th 1098] OPINION ROBIE, J. - In this action for gender-based harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Interstate Brands Corporation (Interstate) on the ground plaintiff Renae Kohler (Kohler) had released Interstate from liability for her FEHA claim by signing a standard workers' compensation compromise and release agreement releasing "all claims and causes of action" against Interstate. Kohler appeals, arguing the broad language of the workers' compensation release was not sufficient to release her civil claims against Interstate. While working at Interstate, she claims she was physically and verbally harassed by fellow Interstate employee Ralph Gallego. 1 Paragraph 3 states "said employee [Kohler] releases and forever discharges said employer [Interstate] .
Note:	Broad settlement language in C&R sufficient to cover previously undisclosed FEHA claim.
Citation:	103 Cal.App.4th 1096
WCC Citation:	WCC 29772002 CA

Case Name:	Konig v. State Bar of California		09/28/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE No. A113742 September 28, 2007 ALAN KONIG, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Plaintiff is a former attorney on the staff of the State Bar of California (State Bar). His complaint alleges that he became aware of unethical and improper conduct by judges of the State Bar Court (Bar Court). For example, plaintiff alleges that, "[b]eginning in or about May 2003, Plaintiff repeatedly advised Defendants of rulings and orders in several State Bar Court matters that violated Defendant STATE BAR's state and federal constitutional rights, violated witnesses' state and federal constitutional rights, and disregarded binding precedent, including that of the California Supreme Court. "The State Bar argues that because the individual defendants obtained a judgment against plaintiff, the State Bar, as employer of those defendants, can assert the preclusive effect of the judgment.
Note:	[Unpublished] A negative employment action motivated by retaliation for an employee's efforts to report unethical or improper judicial behavior would fall outside the exclusive remedy provisions of workers' compensation because such conduct violates public policy. However, the collateral estoppel effect of the district court's decision precludes any claim that defendants' actions were so motivated.
Citation:	A113742
WCC Citation:	WCC 32632007 CA

Case Name:	Kopitske v. WCAB		08/24/1999
Summary:	Victoria Kopitske (Kopitske) petitions for review of the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration of its ruling that the penalty assessed for unreasonable delay in paying PDA should only be against VRMA supplemented by PDA, and not against PD. [74 Cal. App. 4th 627] We annul the order and direct the WCAB to enter a new order assessing the penalty against PD. Kopitske chose to enter vocational rehabilitation (VR) and received vocational rehabilitation temporary disability (VRTD) payments of $372 per week. Because Kopitske had received VRMA of $11,300 and PDA of $5,800 for a total of $17,100, the 10 percent penalty assessed was $1,710. The WCAB denied reconsideration of the decision and Kopitske petitioned this court for review.
Note:	Failure to pay PDA on request while applicant in rehab results in penalty against PD.
Citation:	74 Cal.App.4th 623, 64 CCC 972
WCC Citation:	WCC 3811999 CA

Case Name:	Kopping v. WCAB		09/11/2006
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1996, Kopping injured his spine while working as a traffic officer for the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The parties stipulated that the injury caused permanent disability of 29 percent, and Kopping was awarded $20,357. 50 in permanent disability benefits. Kopping filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board challenging the WCJ's construction of section 4664(b). Thus, the Board returned this case to the WCJ to determine whether Kopping had disproved (or could disprove) overlap, not to allow Kopping to prove medical rehabilitation from the disabling effects of his earlier injury. Kopping petitioned this court for a writ of review of the Board's decision after reconsideration, which we granted to consider the intended meaning of section 4664(b).
Note:	If section 4664(b) is understood as representing the Legislatures common sense recognition that there can be no recovery from a permanent disability, then there is no inconsistency between that statute and section 4664(a).
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 1099
WCC Citation:	WCC 31812006 CA

Case Name:	Koscki v. Herbert		10/12/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAURA C. KOSCKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GERALD HENRY HERBERT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Laura C. Koscki was seriously injured when her coworker, Gerald Henry Herbert, negligently operated a tractor-trailer rig, causing it to leave the roadway. Koscki sued Herbert and their employer, Consolidated Freightways Corporation (Consolidated), for her injuries. Herbert requested the trial court take judicial notice of these documents to establish that Koscki had filed a workers' compensation claim. Koscki admitted in her moving papers that her injuries arose out of her employment and that Herbert was her coemployee.
Note:	[Unpublished] It is reasonably probable that the claimant could have have cured the defect in her complaint through amendment.
Citation:	F051098
WCC Citation:	WCC 32662007 CA

Case Name:	Koscki v. Herbert		05/26/2010
Summary:	Plaintiff Laura Koscki appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted the summary judgment motion of defendants Gerald Henry Herbert (Herbert) and Consolidated Freightways Corporation (Consolidated). From our nonpublished opinion (Koscki v. Herbert et al. (Oct. 12, 2007, F051098), to be discussed below, it appears that Koscki filed a form complaint alleging that Herbert's negligent operation of the tractor caused her injuries. It also objected to various exhibits submitted by Koscki as lacking in relevance, as inadmissible hearsay, and on the ground that Koscki failed to provide a foundation to establish the documents were as claimed by Koscki. And, as Koscki admitted, attempts were made to reimburse Koscki for these payments, although Koscki found the attempts unsatisfactory. Koscki did not allege her action against Herbert was not precluded by Labor Code section 3601, subdivision (a).
Note:	[Unpublished] Claim barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, because injury occurred within course and scope of employment while employer was actively insured.
Citation:	F057422
WCC Citation:	WCC 36312010 CA

Case Name:	Kosowski v. WCAB		07/25/1985
Summary:	RICHARD KOSOWSKI, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF SANTA ROSA et al. , Respondents. Kosowski was paid full salary, in lieu of temporary disability, beginning August 4, 1980, pursuant to section 4850. When an orthopedic surgeon, after an examination of Kosowski at the request of City, reported he was permanent and stationary and could not return to work, City instituted disability retirement proceedings. Kosowski was involuntarily retired for disability on April 6, 1981, and payment of his full salary was terminated on April 30, 1981. Kosowski sought reconsideration, which the Board granted for further study of 'an issue of first impression. '
Note:	Employer may credit amounts independently earned by employee during leave against disability liabilities.
Citation:	170 Cal.App.3d 632, 50 CCC 427
WCC Citation:	WCC 24591985 CA

Case Name:	Koszdin v. SCIF		07/06/2010
Summary:	Ct. No. BC392986) KENTON KOSZDIN et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. [Kenton Koszdin et al. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company (No. BC393290); Gilbert Lipman v. Explorer Insurance Company (No. BC393291); Gilbert Lipman v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (No. BC393292); Kenton Koszdin et al. v. Marriot Claims Services (No. BC393295); Gilbert Lipman v. Stater Bros. Markets (No. BC393296). Kazandjieff & Traney and Nick Kazandjieff; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich; Novak & Ben-Cohen and Pejman Ben-Cohen for Plaintiffs and Appellants Kenton Koszdin and Gilbert Lipman. In this case, the attorney fee awards ordered by the WCAB expressly directed the payment of attorney fees to either Koszdin or Lipman. [3] In the complaints where both Koszdin and Lipman were named as plaintiffs, relief was sought on behalf of both proposed sub-classes.
Note:	A trial court did not have jurisdiction over a suit seeking unpaid interest on Workers' Compensation Appeals Board attorney fee awards because the board did not specify that the awards should include interest, an appellate court ruled.
Citation:	B214481
WCC Citation:	WCC 36472010 CA

Case Name:	Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co.		01/19/1979
Summary:	THOMAS L. KOWALSKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Bird, C. J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Plaintiff, Thomas L. Kowalski, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant, Shell Oil Company, in an action for personal injuries. This court must decide whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that plaintiff was not Shell Oil Company's special employee. On February 1, 1974, Kowalski filed a complaint against Shell and other defendants seeking damages for personal injuries. Shell could also request Peterson to remove an employee whose work Shell found unsatisfactory.
Note:	Since there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Kowalski was not Shell's special employee, the trial court erred in granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Therefore, that judgment is reversed and the trial court is directed to enter judgment for plaintiff.
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 168
WCC Citation:	WCC 39361979 CA

Case Name:	Krause v. WCAB		07/23/2010
Summary:	NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION THE COURT*fn1 Cynthia Krause petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (Krause v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (F049301) (Krause I). )By way of a petition for writ of review, Krause contended the WCAB erred in finding she did not also sustain a psychological injury and by not authorizing a referral for a gastric bypass evaluation. The WCJ also recommended the WCAB impose sanctions against Krause for improperly trying to "`backdoor'" evidence refuting the existence of Wal-Mart's MPN that had not been submitted at trial. As the WCAB concluded, Krause "cannot claim to be aggrieved by the inclusion of AHA at this time. "
Note:	The 5th District Court of Appeal denied an applicant's petition for a writ of review that attempted to continue treatment outside of an insurer's medical provider network.
Citation:	F058778
WCC Citation:	WCC 36512010 CA

Case Name:	Kreigsman v. WCAB		04/10/1993
Summary:	Therefore, our summary of those events is based on the petition for writ of review, the answer to the petition, and the return. As the Stump case progressed, it appeared that the trial was not going to be finished until late in the afternoon. At 3 p. m. , the WCJ referred counsel for Zenith and Attorney Sparagna to PWCJ Bate for a discussion of the situation. On April 15, 1992, PWCJ Bate issued an order allowing Dr. Kriegsman $ 6,895. 06 of his lien claim and denying $ 5,554. 44 of the lien claim. We must therefore remand this matter for further proceedings including a trial on the merits of Dr. Kriegsman's lien claim.
Note:	Lien claimant denied due process by lien reduction with no opportunity to argue for full amount due to scheduling conflict.
Citation:	58 CCC 244
WCC Citation:	WCC 27761993 CA

Case Name:	Kroger Co. v. WCAB (Rodriguez)		10/30/2012
Summary:	KROGER CO. v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD THE KROGER CO. et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, Respondents. The employer, The Kroger Company (Kroger), through its adjustor, Sedgwick CMS (Sedgwick), filed its notice of appeal on November 27, 2007. He apparently sustained a second injury on December 30, 1999; both injuries were admitted and involved as employer a predecessor or subsidiary of petitioner Kroger. According to the WCJ, there was no clear indication that the DOR had ever been filed with the WCAB. We are not bound by determinations of questions of law by the WCAB (Dimmig v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	A Declaration of Readiness to Proceed does not need to be filed along with a notice of appeal challenging a vocational rehabilitation award for the appeal to be effective.
Citation:	B239771
WCC Citation:	WCC 39472012 CA

Case Name:	Kroger Co. v. WCAB (Velasquez)		06/04/2012
Summary:	KROGER COMPANY v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD THE KROGER COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GEORGE VELASQUEZ, Respondents. In practice, parties aggrieved by an award of the Rehabilitation Unit had 20 days within which to file a notice of appeal, which went to the WCAB. The Rehabilitation Unit acknowledged, in writing, that the notice of appeal had been filed with the WCAB. Rather, it was the WCAB position that the award was final because petitioners' appeal was defective and of no effect. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the cause is remanded with directions to proceed with petitioners' appeal to the WCAB as deemed timely filed.
Note:	An employer's failure to file a declaration of readiness to proceed along with its notice of appeal of an administrative ruling did not invalidate its timely filed appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
Citation:	B236608
WCC Citation:	WCC 39022012 CA

Case Name:	Kunz vs. Patterson Floor Coverings		12/05/2002
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SJO 0224503 SCOTT KUNZ, Applicant, vs. PATTERSON FLOOR COVERINGS, INC. ; and GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CO. In the August 9, 2002 decision, the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, Scott Kunz, sustained industrial injury to his left knee on February 3, 2000, while employed as a carpet installer by Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc. , the insured of Golden Eagle Insurance Company ("Golden Eagle"). On April 4, 2001, applicant had left knee surgery, performed by Michael Butcher, M. D. , at Alpine's outpatient surgery center. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 57, 67 [50 Cal. Comp. Cases 411, 418]; Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acc. (Obernier) (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 1204, 1210 [60 Cal. Comp. Cases 289, 291-292]; Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Failure to make specific objection does not waive it; OFMS applies to services prescibed by DR at outpatient center; Outpatient fees must be reasonble.
Citation:	67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588
WCC Citation:	WCC 28982002 CA

Case Name:	L.A. Co. Professional Peace Officers Assoc. v. Co. of L.A.		02/11/2004
Summary:	LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION et al. , Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Respondents. [FN 2] Under the applicable County ordinances, D. A. investigators may accumulate up to 320 hours in current and deferred vacation time. (L. A. County Code, § 6. 20. 070F. 1. ) When Kupper and Layne retired, each was paid back for all accumulated vacation hours. Kupper, Layne, and their union, the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Association (the Association) brought a mandate petition (Code Civ. By failing to make the payment, they alleged, the County violated its obligation to fully compensate them during that period (Lab.
Note:	Accrued vacation time does not count towards 4850 calculation.
Citation:	115 Cal.App.4th 866
WCC Citation:	WCC 29702004 CA

Case Name:	L.A. County Dept. of Parks v. WCAB		06/06/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MERRELL LEE CALVILLO, Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Merrell Lee Calvillo, a cashier/clerk for the Los Angeles County Department of Parks & Recreation (County), injured her neck, back and right knee in a fall at work on September 24, 1997. *fn10 The County petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration and contended that the March 9, 1999, order transformed the March 8, 1999, stipulation into a formal award under Huston v. Workers' Comp. However, the award of attorney's fees under section 5814. 5 should be vacated as contended by the County. The WCAB has original jurisdiction to award temporary total disability indemnity more than five years from the date of injury under State of California v. Ind.
Note:	[Unpublished] The stipulations and order to comply was not a formal award requiring a petition for continuing jurisdiction under the Labor Code.
Citation:	B200215
WCC Citation:	WCC 33812008 CA

Case Name:	L.A. Unified School Dist. v. WCAB		01/11/1984
Summary:	LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RUSSELL L. MATTHEWS, Respondents. Respondent Russell Matthews, employed as a custodian for petitioner Los Angeles Unified School District, suffered industrial injuries during the period of his employment from 1949 through September 22, 1978. Petitioner appealed the order, claiming it was entitled to a credit for retirement disability payments against rehabilitation temporary disability indemnity. In Gorman, an industrially injured police officer took a one-year leave of absence with pay pursuant to section 4850 fn. Respondent, a retired school custodian, is clearly not a 'safety' employee under the terms of sections 4850 et seq. , but rather a school member of PERS whose occupational functions do not involve public safety or law enforcement.
Note:	Applicant entitled to TD indemnity concurrently with PERS retirement payments.
Citation:	150 Cal.App.3d 823, 49 CCC 48
WCC Citation:	WCC 27021984 CA

Case Name:	La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co.		12/19/1994
Summary:	LA JOLLA BEACH AND TENNIS CLUB, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. On May 9, 1986, the Trust tendered defense of the Saleh complaint to its workers' compensation carrier, defendant Industrial Indemnity Company (Industrial) fn. The Current Action On or about August 29, 1990, plaintiff La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club, Inc. , the Trust's successor in interest, and Kellogg (La Jolla) brought this action against Industrial and American. La Jolla appealed solely on the ground that Industrial had a duty to defend under part 1 of the policy, or the workers' compensation coverage. Accordingly, we discuss only those claims by La Jolla against Industrial with regard to the Saleh action.
Note:	Coverage A in a work comp policy does not give rise to duty to defend a civil suit.
Citation:	9 Cal.4th 27
WCC Citation:	WCC 28911994 CA

Case Name:	Laeng vs. WCAB		03/06/1972
Summary:	JOHN L. LAENG, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF COVINA et al. , Respondents In Bank. After granting a petition for reconsideration of the referee's decision, the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), by a 2-1 vote, denied the claimant all compensation benefits; Laeng attacks the decision of the WCAB by the present petition. [6 Cal. 3d 775] Pursuant to these instructions, Laeng, with 13 other applicants who had also successfully completed the written examination, [FN 1] reported to the high school gymnasium. Laeng successfully completed the first three parts of the test and then was directed to participate in the final "obstacle course" phase. Laeng immediately went to his family doctor who, after X-raying the foot referred the patient to an orthopedic surgeon.
Note:	Injury incurred during the 'tryout' phase of employment is compensable.
Citation:	6 Cal.3d 771; 100 Cal.Rptr. 377
WCC Citation:	WCC 30731972 CA

Case Name:	Lamb v. WCAB		04/19/1974
Summary:	ROSE W. LAMB, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, KEYSTONE ENGINEERING COMPANY et al. , Respondents In Bank. John H. Lamb was employed for approximately 24 years prior to his death by respondent Keystone Engineering. After returning to work Lamb continued to make periodic visits to the doctor for approximately six months or until June of 1970. About 10 a. m. Lamb had some difficulty with a gear he was making and called for the assistance of his supervisor. After a few minutes another employee came to tell the supervisor that Lamb was lying on the floor under one of the machines.
Note:	A petition for reconsideration is proper when WCAB reverses referee but isn't prerequisite for writ of review.
Citation:	11 Cal.3d 274, 39 CCC 310
WCC Citation:	WCC 26551974 CA

Case Name:	Land v. WCAB		09/25/2002
Summary:	FACTS Nicole Land was a full-time student at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly). Land paid tuition to attend the year-long class and earned two credits per quarter. In finding that Land was not an employee for purposes of the Act, the WCJ and WCAB majority relied on a case denied review by this court, Coburn v. Workers' Comp. Land was not working shoulder to shoulder with paid workers; the participants in the project were all students in the same position as Land. Decisions of the WCAB reported in California Compensation Cases are citable as authority but are not binding on this court.
Note:	University student is not employee because she participates in profit sharing as part of field work.
Citation:	102 Cal.App.4th 491
WCC Citation:	WCC 28842002 CA

Case Name:	Lanier Lewis et al., v. Pepper Construction Company Pacific		02/26/2010
Summary:	LANIER LEWIS et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PEPPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PACIFIC, Defendant and Respondent. He and his wife seek to recover in tort from Pepper Construction Company Pacific (Pepper), the general contractor, alleging that Pepper owed Lewis a duty of care. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Pepper, finding that Pepper did not owe Lewis a duty of care. [Pepper] shall require all Subcontractors to provide [Pepper] with a safety plan prior to the commencement of work. "Again, Lewis does not provide a citation to the record supporting his assertion that Pepper knew that ISE was not providing fall protection.
Note:	An injured subcontractor employee failed to show that the general contractor owed him a common law duty of care.
Citation:	C060212
WCC Citation:	WCC 36042010 CA

Case Name:	LaPlante v. WCAB		07/31/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SANDRA JILL LaPLANTE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WAL-MART STORES, INC. , Respondents. Parker, Kern, Nard & Wenzel, David H. Parker, for Respondent, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -ooOoo- Vartabedian, Acting P. J. , Dawson, J. , and Kane, J. Sandra Jill LaPlante petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). LaPlante contends the WCAB erred in concluding Wilkinson v. Workers' Comp. Agreeing with the WCAB and First Appellate District's reasoning in Benson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. Unlike WCAB three-member panel decisions, en banc decisions carry the weight of "legal precedent under the principle of stare decisis" on all WCJs and WCAB panels.
Note:	[Unpublished] The Wilkinson doctrine allowing combined awards of permanent disability in successive injury cases is inconsistent with the requirement contained in Sen. Bill No. 899 that apportionment be based on causation rather than disability.
Citation:	F054923
WCC Citation:	WCC 35482009 CA

Case Name:	Lara v. WCAB		02/25/2010
Summary:	Lara filed a workers' compensation claim against Metro Diner's then sole shareholder, Scott Broffman, personally and against Metro Diner. The WCJ also found that Metro Diner did not rebut the presumption that Lara was its employee on the date of the injury, and hence, Lara was entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Based on the factors of employment set forth in Borello, Lara was an independent contractor at the time of his injury. The question before us is whether Lara was an employee or an independent contractor when he was injured. Sometimes Lara charged by the hour and sometimes by the job and so Lara was paid on a job-by-job basis, with no obligation on the part of either Metro Diner or Lara for work in the future.
Note:	A gardener hired to prune bushes, where the gardener has control over the time and manner in which to do the job, is an independent contractor.
Citation:	B214234
WCC Citation:	WCC 36032010 CA

Case Name:	Larson v. Fraysse		11/16/2017
Summary:	In mid-2014, Philipson, Fraysse, and Danowitz met multiple times with Larson or his attorney in this case, Michael Blue, to discuss the action against Anguizola and potentially Larson. Larson alleged Fraysse and Danowitz attended between two and four of the five meetings as partners of Knox Ricksen and were “acting in the ordinary course of business of the partnership and/or with the authority of the partnership in committing the acts alleged. ” Larson alleged Philipson attended all of the meetings and acted “within the scope of his agency or employment when he harmed [Larson]. ” .           Larson alleged that, prior to the first meeting on or about June 18, 2014, Philipson contacted Larson “for the purposes of arranging for a personal meeting. ” At the meeting, Philipson allegedly “threatened to accuse [Larson] of a crime by adding [Larson] to pending criminal proceedings unless [Larson] were to pay money. ” Larson did not allege anyone else attended the June 18 meeting. Larson alleged that at these meetings Philipson again threatened to accuse Larson of criminal wrongdoing unless Larson “pa[id] money. ” Larson alleged Philipson demanded Larson “facilitate and persuade [his] managed medical providers to withdraw all of [their] liens and accounts receivable flowing from certain workers compensation claims denied by insurance companies represented by Defendant Knox-Ricksen. ” Larson again did not allege anyone else attended the July or August meetings. .           Larson alleged that two more “personal” meetings occurred on or about September 15, 2014 and November 15, 2014, and that, in addition to Philipson, Fraysse and Danowitz attended “as partners of Knox-Ricksen. ” According to Larson’s allegations, at the September and November meetings both Philipson and Fraysse allegedly “threatened to accuse [Larson] of a crime by adding [Larson] to pending criminal proceedings unless [Larson] were to pay money. ” Larson alleged that at the November meeting Philipson, as he had at the July and August meetings, demanded Larson “facilitate and persuade [his] managed medical providers to withdraw all of [their] liens and accounts receivable flowing from certain workers compensation claims denied by insurance companies represented by Defendant Knox-Ricksen. ” Larson did not allege Danowitz threatened or even spoke to Larson. Philipson stated he attended several meetings with Larson prior to the meetings with Fraysse and Danowitz, and the purpose of those meetings was to resolve claims against Larson.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a trial judge’s decision to toss a chiropractor’s extortion suit against the Knox Ricksen law firm and three attorneys.
Citation:	B270061
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC580579

Case Name:	LaTourtette vs. WCAB, Long Beach Comm Coll Dist		03/12/1998
Summary:	SHEILA LaTOURETTE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Respondents. Beginning in December 1979, decedent Elston LaTourette was employed as a supervising groundskeeper for the Long Beach Community College District, which is permissibly self-insured for workers' compensation liability. "Certainly it is possible that he would have died when he did, as he did, even absent his . . . employment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, adopting the recommendation and report of the workers' compensation judge. [1] The applicant for workers' compensation benefits has the burden of establishing the "reasonable probability of industrial causation. "
Note:	Injury or death from a non-occupational disease not compensable unless intervening occupational event.
Citation:	17 Cal.4th 644
WCC Citation:	WCC 29811998 CA

Case Name:	Le Parc Comm Assoc vs. WCAB, Curren		07/25/2003
Summary:	In the complaint Curren alleged that Martinez and Le Parc were presumed negligent under section 3708 fn. On July 16, 2002 Curren and Le Parc, as well as Le Parc's general liability insurance carrier, settled the civil action. In addition to releasing Le Parc, Curren agreed to indemnify Le Parc and hold it harmless against any action, claim or demand by Curren himself or by any other person for damages or compensation resulting in any way from the August 23, 2000 incident. Le Parc's Motion to Dismiss the Workers' Compensation Case On September 25, 2002 Le Parc moved to dismiss Curren's workers' compensation claim on the ground the settlement agreement resolved all of Curren's claims against Le Parc, including the application for workers' compensation benefits. c. Curren Is Not Foreclosed by the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel from Establishing that Le Parc Was His Employer The issue of Martinez's status as an independent contractor or employee of Le Parc, and therefore whether Le Parc was Curren's employer, was not actually litigated in the dismissed civil action.
Note:	Civil settlement ineffective against work comp claim.
Citation:	110 CA4th 1161
WCC Citation:	WCC 29492003 CA

Case Name:	Leamon v. WCAB		04/07/1987
Summary:	Initially, Leamon made no claim that any of the three absences were excused. Leamon had informed Campbell that the remaining two absences were personal in nature. Some nine months later, after he was fired, Leamon recanted, claiming these absences also were caused by industrial injury. The panel directed that Leamon be reinstated as of the date of the decision without backpay and benefits. . . . ' It concluded: '[The] evidence establishes that when it terminated [Leamon, Campbell] was not acting on the basis that [Leamon] had been industrially-injured or absent from work because of his industrial injury; it acted solely on the basis that, under [Campbell's] Code of Conduct, [Leamon] appeared to be an unsatisfactory employee.
Note:	Increased compensation due to failure to correct corporate record to reflect industrial nature of absences.
Citation:	190 Cal App 3d 1409; 52 CCC 146
WCC Citation:	WCC 3391987 CA

Case Name:	LeBoeuf v. WCAB		08/03/1983
Summary:	RICHARD GENE LeBOEUF, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, Respondents (Opinion by Bird, C. J. , with Mosk, Kaus, Broussard, Reynoso, JJ. , and Sims, J. , concurring. Petitioner, Richard LeBoeuf, was employed as a bus driver for Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (A. C. 3 [34 Cal. 3d 239] On April 9, 1979, petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration of the permanent disability rating with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB denied the petition on May 9, 1979. fn. The WCAB contends that allowing reopening under these circumstances will create a disincentive for applicants to present any more than a perfunctory case to the Bureau.
Note:	Disqualification from voc rehab constitutes good cause to reopen case on permanent disability.
Citation:	34 Cal.3d 234, 48 CCC 587
WCC Citation:	WCC 28162003 CA

Case Name:	Lee v. Harbor Distributing, LLC		02/28/2013
Summary:	LEE v. HARBOR DISTRIBUTING, LLC RONNIE LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HARBOR DISTRIBUTING, LLC et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Lee was a 53-year-old African American truck driver who worked for Harbor, a beer distributor, for about 10 years. According to Murata, Harbor permitted Lee to work as a "transfer driver" on a temporary basis in 2007 while Lee was awaiting shoulder surgery, even though Harbor did not need another transfer driver during much of that time. At the meeting, Hughes told Lee that he could not return to work as a "side loader" with his physical restrictions and discussed other positions at Harbor that Lee might perform. Lee stated that he was not qualified for the positions identified, and suggested only one position at Harbor that he could performtransfer driver.
Note:	A beer distributor is getting a second chance to prove his former employer discriminated against him on the basis of his disability and wrongfully terminated him.
Citation:	B238872
WCC Citation:	WCC 39902013 CA

Case Name:	Lee v. Yang		12/02/2012
Summary:	.             Claremont Law Group, David K. Lee and Shirin R. Delkhah for Defendant and Respondent Jun Yang. INTRODUCTION .             Plaintiffs and appellants Joung Hyen Lee, Hyen Uk Lee, and Esther Lee (plaintiffs) are former employees of The Christian Herald, Inc. (the Herald), a corporation they allege is solely owned and was managed by their former boss, defendant Jun Yang. Hyen Uk Lee asserted three additional causes of action (assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Yang, and premises liability against the Herald) arising out of alleged physical confrontations with Yang. Joung Hyen Lee was a reporter, while Hyen Uk Lee and Esther Lee were administrative assistants. .           Plaintiff Hyen Uk Lee asserted three additional causes of action: two against Yang (assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress) and one against the Herald (premises liability).
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation law did not bar a worker from suing her former supervisor after he allegedly threw a phone at her and knocked her unconscious by pushing her into a door.
Citation:	B266853
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC543345

Case Name:	Lee vs. Miracle Ford; CIGA		02/18/2003
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. LAO 781284 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL ALFRED R. LEE, JR. (Deceased), VALERIE L. LEE (Widow), Applicant, vs. Therefore, we will grant removal, rescind the order allowing election against CIGA, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings. We also conclude that it is premature to dismiss CIGA as a party defendant at this point in the proceedings. The application named Miracle Ford as the employer and HIH as the insurance carrier. However, the WCJ also issued the rulings disputed here, approving applicant's election against CIGA and submitting this matter for decision.
Note:	Applicant may not elect against CIGA when there are other viable carriers having liability during the alleged CT period.
Citation:	68 CCC 213 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29192003 CA

Case Name:	Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. Diaz		08/18/2005
Summary:	The Complaint On June 17, 2003, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. (Leegin) filed a fraud complaint against Carolina Diaz Santiaguin alleging the following facts. On January 3, 2003, Santiaguin informed Leegin that she was suffering from work-related injuries based on an event that had occurred on December 2, 2002. Leegin sent Santiaguin to the industrial health clinic it uses to diagnose and treat its employees for work-related injuries. From January 4, 2003 to April 8, 2003, Santiaguin worked "on light duty" because Leegin "reasonably believed" Santiaguin had suffered work-related injuries. Leegin alleged that Santiaguin falsely represented that she had been injured on the job "with the intent to have [Leegin] rely upon [those false representations] and with the foreseeable consequence of having [Leegin] submit [her] claim to its workers' compensation carrier[. ]"
Note:	Employer cannot bring civil suit for fraud against claimant.
Citation:	131 Cal.App.4th 1517
WCC Citation:	WCC 31142005 CA

Case Name:	Leek v. Cooper		04/15/2011
Summary:	DONNA LEEK et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JAY COOPER, Defendant and Respondent. The plaintiffs responded to the summary judgment motion, arguing that Cooper was the alter ego of Auburn Honda on the apparent theory that Cooper was their employer. They pointed to evidence that Cooper was the president of Auburn Honda, and that there were no directors of the corporation, that Cooper "individually" fired the plaintiffs, that Cooper "individually" makes all policy, procedure, and management decisions for Auburn Honda, that Cooper "individually" owns the land on which the dealership is located, and that he raises the rent as he sees fit. Instead, they argue that Cooper was in fact the employer because of the control he exercised over them. In fact, plaintiffs pleaded that Cooper was their employer. 2 Defendant's summary judgment motion adduced facts showing that plaintiffs were employed by Auburn Honda, rather than Cooper.
Note:	Although several plaintiff employees of a sole shareholder's auto sales business could not show that he was an alter ego of his corporation, he still could be personally liable for their Fair Employment and Housing Act claims if the plaintiffs prevail and his corporation cannot pay the judgment.
Citation:	C061510
WCC Citation:	WCC 37482011 CA

Case Name:	LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court of LA County		08/20/2012
Summary:	LeFIELL MANUFACTURING CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LeFIELL MANUFACTURING CO. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; O'NEIL WATROUS et al. , Real Parties in Interest. The Court of Appeal nonetheless concluded the spouse's loss of consortium claim as pleaded in the civil action remained viable. Consequently, under settled principles of workers' compensation law, the exclusivity rule bars a dependent spouse's claim for loss of consortium. The trial court overruled employer's demurrer to employee's causes of action for negligence and products liability. That aspect of the Court of Appeal's judgment is not contested, and as such, shall be affirmed.
Note:	The California Supreme Court on Monday overturned a published appellate court decision allowing the wife of an injured worker to proceed with a loss-of-consortium claim against her husband's employer based on Labor Code Section 4558's exception to workers' compensation exclusivity.
Citation:	S192759
WCC Citation:	WCC 39212012 CA

Case Name:	LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Ct of LA (Watrous et al.)		03/30/2011
Summary:	LeFiell also "failed to properly provide guarding so as to prevent material from flying up into or out of the machine . The form pleading seeks to recover for strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied and express written and oral warranties. LeFiell also contended Watrous's spouse lacked standing to pursue any cause of action arising from the power press injury (first, second, and fourth causes of action). Moreover, LeFiell argued her loss of consortium claim for damages (third cause of action) was barred by the exclusive remedy rule (§ 3600 et seq. )(Jones v. Keppeler (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 705, 709; see also Flowmaster, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1019, 1029. )
Note:	The California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that an applicant may not sue his employer for products liability and general negligence under the Labor Code 4558's exception to exclusive remedy, but allowed his wife to file a loss-of-consortium claim because her claim falls outside the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation.
Citation:	B226240
WCC Citation:	WCC 37402011 CA

Case Name:	Legrone v. Mogenson		06/28/2011
Summary:	LEGRONE v. MOGENSON GENEVA LEGRONE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THOMAS MOGENSON et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff, Geneva Legrone, injured her ankle during a work-related activity and was seen by Thomas Mogensen, M. D. (Mogensen), at Central Occupational Medical Providers (COMP), the provider of medical care for injured workers employed by the City of Perris. A month after sustaining the injury, an MRI was finally ordered, and plaintiff had to undergo surgery to repair the injury. Mogensen recommended physical therapy and prescribed pain medication, directing plaintiff to return to work with restrictions of intermittent standing and no walking. Plaintiff was reexamined by Mogensen on March 31, 2006, and was instructed to return to work with restrictions.
Note:	A worker's medical malpractice suit against an occupational physician was untimely, because she filed it after the one-year statute of limitations expired.
Citation:	E050274
WCC Citation:	WCC 37792011 CA

Case Name:	Leinon vs. Fishermen's Grotto, Mid-Century Insurance Company		08/25/2004
Summary:	BACKGROUND Applicant claimed a cumulative trauma (CT) injury to his spine, left hip, and right knee for the period ending November 1, 1998. Defendant disputed injury from the outset by sending applicant a timely delay letter; later it timely denied the claim. Thereafter, applicant claimed that defendant failed to pay a section 4650(d) penalty when it paid the TDI required by the May 30, 2001 Findings and Award. In the decision reconsidered here, the WCJ found defendant liable for a section 4650(d) penalty on the TDI due under the May 30, 2001 Findings and Award. "(b) If the injury causes permanent disability, the first payment shall be made within 14 days after the date of last payment of temporary disability indemnity.
Note:	No 4650 penalty due if denied claim later determined compensable and benefits paid within 14 days after Award.
Citation:	68 CCC 1460 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 30212004 CA