Case Name:	Navarro v. A&A Farming; Western Growers (II)		03/28/2002
Summary:	[1] For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss applicant's petition for reconsideration as an impermissible successive petition to the Board. At the MSC, A&A specifically raised the issue of: Is the application of Labor Code §132a pre-empted by ERISA from enforcement against A&A Farming. At trial, testimony and documentary evidence was presented on the issue of whether A&A's group health benefits plan was an ERISA plan. On July 18, 2001, A&A filed a post-hearing brief addressing the issue of whether applicant's section 132a claim was preempted by ERISA. On July 30, 2001, applicant filed an answer to A&A's post-trial brief, arguing that A&A's ERISA preemption defense was invalid.
Note:	Successivepetitions for reconsideration on duplicate issues not permitted; ERISA preempts 132a
Citation:	67 CCC 296
WCC Citation:	WCC 28492002 CA

Case Name:	Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.		10/09/2009
Summary:	Plaintiff Iftikhar Nazir, a man of Pakistani ancestry, worked for United Airlines (United) for over 16 years, during which time he was called scurrilous names and was the victim of numerous other indignities. According to plaintiff, a United supervisor was present and heard the statement, and said jokingly, while laughing, "Yes, you should not say that. "Nazir was orally advised of the charges against him, and given an opportunity to provide a written response to those charges, which Nazir did. United also interviewed the only eyewitness to the incident, Colman (who is not claimed to have harbored any bias against Nazir), who corroborated Avellan's version of the incident. "We concur: Haerle, Acting P. J.Lambden, J.A121651, Nazir v.United Airlines, Inc.Trial Court: Superior Court of San Mateo County Trial Judge: Hon.
Note:	A court's inherent power to exercise a reasonable control over all proceedings connected with the litigation before it extends to motions for summary judgment.
Citation:	A121651
WCC Citation:	WCC 35702009 CA

Case Name:	Nelsen v. WCAB		09/22/1970
Summary:	OSWALD N.NELSEN, Petitioner, v.WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CAPITOL ROOF STRUCTURES et al. , Respondents. In one of those three cases (Marglon v.WCAB), the civil judgment was followed by a settlement with the third party pending appeal. The fourth case at bench (Smith v.WCAB) was preceded by a civil action in which the third party defendant settled during trial. In Marglon v.WCAB (one of the four cases here for review) the compensation carrier's complaint in intervention was voluntarily dismissed prior to verdict in the third party action. 229-234; see also, Gastelum v.City of Torrance (1969) 2 Cal. App. 3d 582 [82 Cal. Rptr.732] (WCAB death benefit award). )
Note:	Employer credit against future benefits not applicable where concurrent negligence found.
Citation:	11 Cal.App.3d 472
WCC Citation:	WCC 23841970 CA

Case Name:	Nelson & Sloan v. WCAB		03/07/1978
Summary:	NELSON & SLOAN et al. , Petitioners, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WILLIAM C.HAIRRELL, Respondents. We have reviewed respondent Hairrell's request for attorney fees and conclude it should be granted. 1 There was no reasonable basis for the petition because it prematurely raised issues which had not been presented to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) by petition for reconsideration. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the enforcement of any such final order, decision, or award, in the manner provided in this division. 'The Supreme Court has remanded the question of attorney fees to this court with the following order: 'Petition for hearing granted.
Note:	Remanded to Board to make supplemental award of reasonable attorney fees.
Citation:	79 Cal.App.3d 51
WCC Citation:	WCC 26331978 CA

Case Name:	Nestle v. WCAB and Ken Ryerson		01/17/2007
Summary:	A Workers' Compensation judge (WCJ) awarded disability and vocational rehabilitation benefits to respondent Ken Ryerson (Ryerson). FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Ryerson worked as a financial analyst for Nestle, which is self-insured for purposes of the workers' compensation law. Ryerson was placed on leave and was diagnosed with chronic cervical and thoracic strain, bilateral cervicobrachial syndrome and repetitive strain injury. On November 8, 2004, Dr.Morley wrote a report clarifying that he had fully released Ryerson in April because Nestle would not allow him to return with any restrictions and Ryerson wanted to resume his duties. Nestle filed a petition for reconsideration on May 4, 2006, 20 days after the amended award was filed and served.
Note:	An order dismissing appellant's petition for reconsideration as untimely was unreasonable when reconsideration was sought within 20 days of service of an amended order that effected a substantial and material change in the award and involved a judicial act.
Citation:	146 Cal. App. 4th 1104
WCC Citation:	WCC 32042007 CA

Case Name:	New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		08/15/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No.A112640 August 15, 2006 NEW UNITED MOTORS MANUFACTURING, INC. , PETITIONER, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND JOHN GALLEGOS, RESPONDENTS. Counsel for Petitioner James E.New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. : Bruscino D'Andre, Peterson, Bobus & Bruscino. Counsel for Respondent Neil P.Workers' Compensation Appeals Board: Sullivan Vincent Bausano. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc.(NUMMI) challenges the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) refusal to reconsider an order to pay a penalty and attorney fees for delaying payment of workers' compensation benefits to respondent John Gallegos (applicant). In any proceeding under this section, the appeals board shall use its discretion to accomplish a fair balance and substantial justice between the parties.
Note:	The court found that the WCAB ordered a penalty based on a misinterpretation of the relevant statute, and found that no proper basis exists for the WCAB's award of -attorney fees under section 5814.5.
Citation:	141 Cal. App. 4th 1533
WCC Citation:	WCC 31732006 CA

Case Name:	Newlands v. WCAB		07/16/2008
Summary:	Filed 76/08 Newlands v.WCAB CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- JOAN NEWLANDS, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MARRIOTT VACATION INTERNATIONAL, Respondents. C057437 (W. C. A. B.No.SAC 0322261) The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denied the motion for reconsideration of Joan Newlands (employee) without elaboration and adopted the decision of its hearing officer. and thus is not suitable for any specific kind of employment and this again is a permanent work restriction. "On intake, Dr.Sullivan believed the employee had signs of bilateral complex regional pain syndrome.
Note:	[Unpublished] Compensation practice and jurisprudence both acknowledge a status of permanent disability that precedes the point when it is 'permanent and stationary.'
Citation:	C057437
WCC Citation:	WCC 33992008 CA

Case Name:	Newlands v. WCAB (Marriott Vacation International)		07/16/2008
Summary:	NEWLANDS v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD JOAN NEWLANDS, Petitioner, v.Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and MARRIOTT VACATION INTERNATIONAL, Respondents. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denied the motion for reconsideration of Joan Newlands (employee) without elaboration and adopted the decision of its hearing officer. and thus is not suitable for any specific kind of employment and this again is a permanent work restriction. "On intake, Dr.Sullivan believed the employee had signs of bilateral complex regional pain syndrome. SCIF noted the issue without resolving it because the report lacked any indication of permanent disability other than in a stray reference.
Note:	The California Supreme Court will not review a panel decision stating that an applicant has not been temporarily totally disabled since 2005.
Citation:	C057437
WCC Citation:	WCC 37712008 CA

Case Name:	Newton v. WCAB		07/14/1993
Summary:	RICHARD M.NEWTON, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CAL-WOOD DOOR/WEYERHAEUSER CLAIMS, Respondents. Background Applicant sustained an industrial injury to his back on March 10, 1987, while working for employer as a production woodworker. Without explanation, applicant alleged that his 'psychiatric difficulties were direct result of his earlier industrial' experiences and his participation in VR. The Board held that applicant's claim for psychiatric injury was untimely under sections 5410 and 5804 and therefore barred by the statute of limitations. Here, the record is silent regarding whether employer voluntarily provided any benefits in connection with the alleged psychiatric injury.
Note:	Psychiatric injury 5 yrs.+ after original back injury not barred by statute of limitations.
Citation:	17 Cal.App.4th 147
WCC Citation:	WCC 26661993 CA

Case Name:	NFLPA (Matthews) v. Titans		01/05/2011
Summary:	In response, the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA or Plaintiff) brought suit on behalf of itself and Matthews to vacate the arbitration award. Presently before the Court is Defendants National Football League Management Council (NLFMC) and Tennessee Titans' (collectively Defendants) motion to confirm arbitration award (Doc. During his NFL career, Matthews was employed by the Houston Oilers and its successor in interest, the Tennessee Titans. This ran contrary to the CBA and Matthews' contract with the Titans, and the Titans and the NFLMC filed a grievance against Matthews for "improper[ly] filing and pursuing claims . At issue was whether Matthews violated his player contract with the Titans by "filing a claim for workers' compensation benefits in California and requesting that the claim be processed under California law. "
Note:	Tennessee law should be applied to a football player's California claim, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled.
Citation:	10CV1671
WCC Citation:	WCC 37022011 CA

Case Name:	Nickelsberg v. WCAB		08/30/1991
Summary:	We granted review to determine whether a workers' compensation judge had jurisdiction to award petitioner Dieter Nickelsberg (Nickelsberg) temporary total disability indemnity more than five years after the date of his original injury. We conclude, as did the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and the Court of Appeal, that the workers' compensation judge lacked jurisdiction to award temporary total disability indemnity to Nickelsberg. However, because the WCAB determined that the workers' compensation judge erred in granting Nickelsberg further temporary total disability, it decided to grant reconsideration on its own motion. The WCAB Correctly Determined That the Workers' Compensation Judge Lacked Jurisdiction Under Section 5804 The first theory under which Nickelsberg might be able to recover on his claim for temporary total disability is if the WCAB had jurisdiction to amend his original award. Also, as observed by the Court of Appeal, the WCAB did not reserve jurisdiction to award Nickelsberg further temporary total disability.
Note:	WCJ lacked jurisdiction to award temporary total disability.
Citation:	54 Cal.3d 288
WCC Citation:	WCC 26401991 CA

Case Name:	Nicky Blair's Restaurant v. WCAB		08/29/1980
Summary:	NICKY BLAIR'S RESTAURANT et al. , Petitioners, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JUAN J.MACIAS, Respondents. The circumferential hypesthesia he has does not follow any root or dermatome distribution and is not from an organic standpoint. In other words, Dr.Patzakis apparently would have concurred in Dr.Rose's 1975 permanent disability evaluation, had he been asked. [¶] There is no question that applicant is more disabled than indicated by the previous permanent disability rating he received. (1962) 205 Cal. App. 2d 275, 277-278 [23 Cal. Rptr.147]; Clark v.W. C. A. B.(1980) 45 Cal. Comp. Cases 499. )
Note:	Certain allegations in doctor's report are not 'good cause' to reopen a case.
Citation:	109 Cal.App.3d 941
WCC Citation:	WCC 26441980 CA

Case Name:	Niedle v. WCAB		02/27/2001
Summary:	ANTONETTE NIEDLE, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; LA SALSA HOLDING COMPANY et al. , Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Antonette Niedle sustained a work-related injury while employed by La Salsa Holding Company (LSHC). The parties agreed on a vocational rehabilitation plan for Niedle to complete the course units necessary for a teaching credential. Niedle appealed the decision of the Rehabilitation Unit to the WCJ contending the statute violated her constitutional right to travel. Niedle contends that the statute violates her constitutional right to travel, thereby requiring strict scrutiny.
Note:	Cost effective restrictions on out-of-state voc. rehab. plans do not violate const. right to travel.
Citation:	87 Cal.App.4th 283, 66 CCC 223
WCC Citation:	WCC 24432001 CA

Case Name:	Nielsen v. Stewart		07/24/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) .             DANE E.NIELSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v..             ADAM STEWART et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             C082925 .             (Super. Ct.No.STK-CV-UF-2016-0004040) .             Plaintiff Dane Nielsen, representing himself in both the trial and appellate courts, appeals after the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer on statute of limitations grounds and dismissed his legal malpractice case. BACKGROUND .             On April 26, 2016, Nielsen filed a complaint against defendants: law firm Moorad, Clark & Stewart (the law firm) and attorneys Adam Stewart and Albert Clark. .           We concur: .           /s/ Hull, Acting P.J.
Note:
Citation:	C082925
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. STK-CV-UF-2016-0004040

Case Name:	Nielson Contracting v. Applied Underwriters		05/03/2018
Summary:	Filed 5/38 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION  COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             NIELSEN CONTRACTING, INC.et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, .             v..             APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC.et al. , Defendants and Appellants. .             D072393 .             (Super. Background .           In 2012, Applied Underwriters, Inc.(Applied) provided quotes to Nielsen for Applied's patented workers' compensation program known as "EquityComp. ".           The Request to Bind also required Nielsen to sign a separate agreement (the RPA) with another one of Applied's subsidiaries, Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc.(AUCRA). .           The Insurance Commissioner also observed: .           "By its own admission [Applied] designed EquityComp and the RPA to circumvent workers' compensation policy.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a disgruntled EquityComp customer could not be compelled to arbitrate its fraud claims against the program providers, since the arbitration agreement the customer had signed was not enforceable.
Citation:	D072393
WCC Citation:	D072393

Case Name:	Nittel v. WCAB (San Jose Sharks)		06/22/2011
Summary:	Adam Nittel suffered numerous job-related injuries during his career as a professional hockey player for the San Jose Sharks. His case was tried and the workers' compensation judge (wcj) found Nittel sustained injury arising out of the course of his employment to various body parts. The wcj noted Nittel provided credible testimony as to his playing professional hockey in the National Hockey League as a right wing. Nittel argues, and the Sharks conceded during oral argument, that his contract with the Sharks was a "two-way" contract. The case is remanded to award Nittel compensation in accordance with the decision of the worker's compensation judge.
Note:	The Sharks failed to give Nittel Labor Code 4061 notice, which meant that the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule should apply to his claim.
Citation:	G044580
WCC Citation:	WCC 37762011 CA

Case Name:	No. Am. Rockwell Corp. v. WCAB		06/25/1970
Summary:	No.35722 June 25, 1970 NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION, SPACE DIVISION, PETITIONER, v.WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND ANDREW H.SAKSA, RESPONDENTS Kirk J.Daly and Robert S.Goldberg for Petitioner. We have reached the conclusion that the injury is compensable and the decision of the appeals board is correct. Saksa stood between the two vehicle attaching jumper cables when Kinney's [9 CalApp3d Page 157] vehicle suddenly lurched forward, pinning Saksa between the bumpers. 384, 407 P. 2d 296] [injury in collision between employee's vehicle and vehicle on highway entrance]; Pacific Indem. The clear distinction between the present case and the case of State Dept.of Institutions v.Industrial Acc.
Note:	Reasonable doubt is to be resolved in favor of employee.
Citation:	9 Cal. App. 3d 154
WCC Citation:	WCC 30591970 CA

Case Name:	Nolte Sheet Metal Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Department of Industrial Relations) Part 1/3		01/21/2020
Summary:	Filed 1/21/20 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             NOLTE SHEET METAL, INC. ,Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v..             OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD,Defendant and Respondent; .             DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH,Real Party in Interestand Respondent. .             F076389 .             (Super. Ct.No.16CECG03592) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. INTRODUCTION .           Nolte Sheet Metal, Inc.(the Company), owned in part by Ernie Nolte, fabricates air conditioning ducts. Costs are awarded to respondentOccupational Safety and Health Appeals Board and real party in interest Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that decisions by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board as to the propriety of citations against an employer are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review.
Citation:	No. F076389
WCC Citation:	No. F076389

Case Name:	Nolte Sheet Metal Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Department of Industrial Relations) Part 2/3		01/21/2020
Summary:	Instead, it must weigh all the evidence for itself and make its owndecision about whichparty’s position is supported by a preponderance. Whereas Cal/OSHA “shoulders primary responsibility for administering and enforcing theCalifornia Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973. . ., Labor Code section 6300 et seq. ,”“through investigatingworkplaces and enforcing occupational safety and health standards” (Rick’s Electric, Inc. v.Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1023,1026), the Appeals Board “is an independent adjudicatory agency responsible, among other matters, for resolving appeals from citations” (id. at p. 1027). 27, 2006) [2006 WL 1062024] [“The [Appeals] Board is mindful that there is a separation of powersThe [Occupational Safety and Health] Standards Board is vested with quasi-legislative authority to promulgate health and safety standards and safety orders [Cal/OSHA] has executive enforcement authority of the [California Occupational Safety and Health] ActThe Appeals Board has quasi-judicial power to determine appeals from citations, penalties, and orders issued by [Cal/OSHA]. ”]. )
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that decisions by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board as to the propriety of citations against an employer are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review.
Citation:	No. F076389
WCC Citation:	No. F076389

Case Name:	Nolte Sheet Metal Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Department of Industrial Relations) Part 3/3		01/21/2020
Summary:	.           Consent is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement. .           Here, seven government officials from four government entities confronted the son of Nolte Sheet Metal’s owner. .           The threat of coercion is why courts look to whether officers have their guns drawn when consent is requested. Administrative Due Process .           Additionally, I have concerns with whether the present administrative scheme affords due process. “The findings and conclusions of the appeals board on questions of fact are conclusive and are not subject to review.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that decisions by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board as to the propriety of citations against an employer are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review.
Citation:	No. F076389
WCC Citation:	No. F076389

Case Name:	Norcal Waste Systems v. State of California		07/13/2010
Summary:	NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Norcal Waste Systems, Inc.(Norcal) appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant State of California, Department of Transportation (the State). Norcal filed a complaint against Thomas and the State, and alleged it was entitled to recover damages from the State because the State "created and/or caused to exist a dangerous condition of public property within the State of California. "940-941; Higgins v.State of California (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 177, 185, abrogated on another point in Cornette. )Citing Cameron v.State of California (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 318, Norcal asserts that such a declaration was required in this case involving an older roadway.
Note:	The doctrine of design immunity barred an employer's suit against the state that sought to recoup workers' compensation benefits for an alleged design flaw in a roadway.
Citation:	C059908
WCC Citation:	WCC 36482010 CA

Case Name:	Northern California Collection Service, Inc. v. Salazar		03/19/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No.F057350 March 19, 2010 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. , PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v.MARIA OLGA SALAZAR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115.OPINION Defendant Maria Olga Salazar appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Northern California Collection Services, Inc.(Northern California). These audits resulted in statements that were sent to Salazar; Salazar testified that she disputed the statements and there was no evidence to the contrary. In light of the causes of action Northern California pleaded, the evidence it presented at trial was insufficient to show the amount due. Northern California presented no evidence on the question of whether or when Salazar challenged the bills.
Note:	A debt collection service failed to prove that an employer owed and failed to pay State Fund approximately $75,000 in premiums.
Citation:	F057350
WCC Citation:	WCC 36112010 CA

Case Name:	Northrop Grumman vs. WCAB (Graves)		11/21/2002
Summary:	Background The current writ proceeding arises out of allegations Mr.Graves engaged in racial discrimination during training of Northrop employees and an ensuing investigation. Mr.Graves, a Caucasian man, was employed off and on as a tooling inspector for Northrop between 1981 and March 1999. Ms.Schroeder, a Northrop employee, made the racial discrimination allegation in a March 22, 1998, written statement. A Northrop report related:"Ms.Schroeder said she had commented to Mr.Lowe that he didn't have to take that from anyone [. ]There was no evidence of an intent to mislead, deceive, or defraud or of collusion or unlawful design by a Northrop employee.
Note:	Investigation of racial discrimination is good faith personnel action for purpose of 3208.3.
Citation:	103 CA4th 1021
WCC Citation:	WCC 28972002 CA

Case Name:	NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE		12/14/2020
Summary:	This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the accompanying Initial Statement of Reasons have been prepared to comply with the procedural requirements of section 5307. 4 and for the convenience of the regulated public to assist it in analyzing and commenting on this largely non-APA rulemaking process. At the hearing, any person may present statements or arguments orally or in writing relevant to the proposed action. Public comment will begin promptly at 10:00 AM and will conclude when the last speaker has finished his or her presentation. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD: Any interested persons, or their authorized representatives, may submit written comments to the WCAB relevant to the proposed rulemaking. In addition, the above-cited materials may be accessed on the internet at http:www. dir. ca. gov/wcab/WCABProposedRegulations/Section10770/Section10770. htm.As of the date of this Notice, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, the Initial Statement of Reasons, the proposed text of the regulations, and the Form 399.
Note:
Citation:	Notice
WCC Citation:

Case Name:	NovoPRO Risk Solutions, L.P. v. TIG Ins. Co.		03/16/2012
Summary:	Respondent TIG Insurance Company (TIG) issued a policy to Ward that ran from December 31, 2000 to December 31, 2001. Under the terms of the settlement, Ward contributed its $50,000 deductible under the TIG Policy, and TIG paid an additional $422,000 to fully resolve the White Knight Claim. The January 2008 e-mail did not request that TIG defend, indemnify or otherwise assist Ward in connection with the 2005 Claims. The January 2008 e-mail also did not advise TIG that the White Knight Claim was part of the USF&G Action. Ward's two-year delay in providing TIG with a copy of the USF&G complaint relieved TIG of any duty to defend.
Note:	A professional liability insurance carrier owed no duty to provide coverage to a malpractice claim, arising four years after the termination of its policy to a third-party claims administrator.
Citation:	D059066
WCC Citation:	WCC 38762012 CA

Case Name:	Nunez v. Steel Forming		05/21/2008
Summary:	Filed 5/21/08 Nunez v.Steel Forming CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ELIAS NUNEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.STEEL FORMING, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. * * * INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Elias Nunez suffered serious injuries while operating a power press in the course and scope of his employment with defendant Commercial Metal Forming (CMF). Nunez left the controls and went around to the back of the press to inspect the part that had been formed. The record shows CMF is a "dba" for Steel Forming, Inc..
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff failed to produce evidence and legal authority showing that (1) defendant's own design of the press provided for a guard which was never installed, or (2) defendant deliberately omitted a required point of operation guard from the design, fabrication or assembly of the press.
Citation:	G038568
WCC Citation:	WCC 33702008 CA

Case Name:	Nunez v. WCAB (Assoluto, Inc.)		02/07/2006
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioner, Lourdes Nunez, claimed that she sustained injuries from a fall while working for Assoluto on July 15, 2002. Assoluto also scheduled a reevaluation with Dr.Zapanta for January 10, 2005, which Nunez did not attend. Assoluto's petition alleged that Nunez had failed to attend the January 10, 2005, evaluation with Dr.Zapanta. The order compelled Nunez to attend a rescheduled evaluation, and for suspension of proceedings for the collection of compensation under section 40542 should Nunez not attend. Assoluto answers that the industrial injury is admitted and Nunez is being reevaluated under former section 4062, which applies under Simi.
Note:	Former section 4060 et seq. remains operative for represented cases with a date of injury before January 1, 2005.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 4th 584
WCC Citation:	WCC 31412006 CA

Case Name:	O'Donnell v. Allen		06/21/2010
Summary:	When plaintiff called Allen, Allen was able to induce Stolpman to return plaintiff's telephone calls. Plaintiff also discussed with Allen the legal theory of gross negligence, and Allen explained that the theory is difficult to prove and requires intentional conduct. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the terms of Allen's representation were set forth in the retainer agreement Allen signed, that Allen never limited the scope of the representation, and that plaintiff consulted with Allen from time to time on matters related to the lawsuit. Plaintiff's declaration also stated that he would call Allen from time to time to discuss the status of the case and that Allen would respond that he did not have the case in front of him but that Allen would get back to him. Plaintiff presented evidence that he relied on Allen as his attorney; called Allen to inquire about the status of the case; and discussed with Allen potential legal theories such as gross negligence.
Note:	[Unpublished] Language of the retainer agreement is not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation urged by defendant and adopted by the trial court.
Citation:	B213420
WCC Citation:	WCC 36402010 CA

Case Name:	Obayashi v. PMN Design Electric		01/16/2008
Summary:	INTRODUCTION James E.Roberts-Obayashi Corporation (Obayashi) appeals from a summary judgment in favor of PMN Design Electric, Inc.(Design). The underlying action against Obayashi arose from an injury suffered by a Design employee while performing under the terms of a subcontract between Design and Obayashi. Obayashi and Design entered into a subcontract under which Design would perform specified electrical work on the Anza Project for $1,962,984. There is still an outstanding Cross-Complaint by [Obayashi] against the injured employee's employer, Design Electric. Alternatively, if Design were found not to be at all negligent, then [Obayashi] will pay $500,000. 00 through Steadfast,[*fn3] as liability/excess carrier for [Obayashi]. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Appellant cannot establish that it has incurred or will incur damages, and based on the exclusivity of California's Worker Compensation Scheme, is prohibited from seeking equitable indemnity.
Citation:	A114597
WCC Citation:	WCC 33012008 CA

Case Name:	Ogdon v. WCAB		04/15/1974
Summary:	DONALD R.OGDON, Petitioner, v.WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT et al. , Respondents In Bank. The County discontinued payment to Ogdon when the compromise and release agreement settling his workmen's compensation claim was executed. Ogdon was eligible for the benefits actually received by him and it is not contended that such payment was unauthorized. This lump-sum award did include allocations for temporary disability for the period in which Ogdon had received AFDC benefits. The fact remains that Ogdon did not receive both AFDC and workmen's compensation at the same time, and the latter was not then currently available to him.
Note:	No lien against comp. benefits allowed for welfare aid.
Citation:	11 Cal.3d 192
WCC Citation:	WCC 24971974 CA

Case Name:	Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco (II)		09/03/2009
Summary:	This case has been overruled in City and County of San Francisco v.WCAB (Ogilvie), A126427, and is not to be relied upon for authority. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No.ADJ1177048 (SFO 0487779) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) WANDA OGILVIE, Applicant, vs.CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s). On March 2, 2009, defendant, the City and County of San Francisco, also filed a petition seeking reconsideration of our February 3, 2009 en banc decision. (Ogilvie v.City and County of San Francisco (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 248, 266 (Appeals Board en banc) (Ogilvie I). 1205, San Francisco, CA 94104 Office of the City Attorney, Fox Plaza, 1390 Market Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA -5408 NPS/jr ===========Footnotes=========== .
Note:	[En Banc] The language of Labor Code section 4660(c) unambiguously means that a permanent disability rating established by the Schedule is rebuttable.
Citation:	ADJ1177048
WCC Citation:	WCC 35612009 CA

Case Name:	Ogilvie vs. City and County of San Francisco		02/03/2009
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No.ADJ1177048 (SFO 0487779) WANDA OGILVIE, Applicant, vs.CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s). OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) We granted the petition for reconsideration of defendant, the City and County of San Francisco, to allow time to further study the record and applicable law. AWARD AWARD IS MADE in favor of WANDA OGILVIE and against the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, of: (a)All further medical treatment reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury. Moreover, "Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity" for San Francisco County is one of the very few regional occupational groups for which wage data is not listed for certain years. Also, analogies conceivably could be made to "Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity" for another county or counties in the Bay Area.
Note:	(1) the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule is rebuttable; (2) the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule ordinarily is not rebutted by establishing the percentage to which an injured employee's future earning capacity has been diminished; (3) the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule is not rebutted by taking two-thirds of the injured employee's estimated diminished future earnings, and then comparing the resulting sum to the permanent disability money chart to approximate a corresponding permanent disability rating; and (4) the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule may be rebutted in a manner consistent with Labor Code section 4660.
Citation:	ADJ1177048 (SFO 0487779)
WCC Citation:	WCC 34882009 CA

Case Name:	Oliva v. Heath		06/09/1995
Summary:	SUSAN OLIVA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.PEGGY HEATH et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Defendants Heath, Hayward and Walter were her coemployees. 3 Defendant Heath admitted she lowered the chair an inch as a prank. They therefore argue that '[defendants] were acting within the scope of their employment when they played certain jokes or pranks on Oliva because a 'condoned' activity is considered a hazard associated with employment. 'All references to plaintiff are to Mrs.Oliva.
Note:	Co-workers not liable for injury caused by horseplay within scope of employment.
Citation:	35 Cal.App.4th 926
WCC Citation:	WCC 24161995 CA

Case Name:	One Hour Cleaners, etc. v. WCAB		05/04/1998
Summary:	PANEL: For petitioners -- Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen, by Jerry C.Dusthimer For respondent employee -- Boxer, Elkind & Gerson, by Michael G.Gerson. SUMMARY OFCASE: Applicant suffered injury in the course of her employment for Defendant, One Hour Cleaners, on January 30, 1995, and subsequently requested vocational rehabilitation benefits. expenditures prior to January 8, 1997 were not subject to the $16,000 statutory expenditure cap under Labor Code Sec. The WCJ responded by issuing a report recommending that the WCAB deny the petition. 4636(d)(1), 3) that the WCAB exceeded its authority by denying Defendants' rights under the Labor Code, and 4) that the WCAB order denying reconsideration did not meet the requirements of Labor Code Sec.5908. 5.
Note:	Employer's rehab. expenditures not subject to 139.5 cap when employer did not send applicant required prior notice of rights to rehab.
Citation:	63 CCC 774
WCC Citation:	WCC 27941998 CA

Case Name:	Operating Engineers v. Johnson		07/03/2003
Summary:	OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 3 et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.SYLVIA J.JOHNSON, Individually and as Chief Probation Officer, etc. , et al. , Defendants and Appellants. OPINION POLLAK, J. - Plaintiffs Bonita Vinson and her bargaining representative, Operating Engineers Local 3, affiliated with the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Local 3) brought this action against Sylvia J.Johnson, individually and in her capacity as the Chief Probation Officer of the County of Alameda, and the County of Alameda. In 1997, Johnson selected Vinson to supervise a new girls' juvenile program entitled "RYSE," an acronym for Reaffirming Young Sisters' Excellence. Starting in early 1998, Vinson had conversations with Johnson in which she stated she was working beyond the scope of the unit supervisor classification, and indicated her interest in a reclassification, which Johnson discouraged. That Johnson be directed to issue an apology, in writing, to Vinson for these wrongful acts; [P] 4.
Note:	Invasion of privacy not barred by exclusive remedy of work comp.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 180
WCC Citation:	WCC 29442003 CA

Case Name:	Ortega v. Rady Children's Hospital		04/18/2011
Summary:	ORTEGA v.RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MONICA ORTEGA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Monica Ortega appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Rady Children's Hospital of San Diego (Rady) on her complaint for employment discrimination and related claims. Ortega returned to Rady in May 2007 to deliver a progress report prepared by her physician. Ortega again returned to Rady in June 2007 with another progress report prepared by her physician. Trial Court Proceedings After obtaining a right-to-sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Ortega filed a complaint against Rady.
Note:	An employer was entitled to summary judgment against a housekeeper's Fair Employment and Housing Act claims because it showed that no reasonable accommodation existed that would have allowed her to continue performing her job.
Citation:	D056282
WCC Citation:	WCC 37462011 CA

Case Name:	Ortega v. WCAB		05/02/1989
Summary:	Abundio Ortega, Petitioner v.Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California; Los Angeles Stitching Service; and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Respondents. In comments to the job analysis, applicant claimed he frequently was required to bend at the knees and waist and to kneel. The Bureau ordered that further requests for rehabilitation benefits be made within five years after the date of injury. Applicant appealed to the WCJ from the Bureau's March 20, 1984, order, denying he had declined rehabilitation services. On September 5, 1985, the WCJ returned the matter to the Bureau without having decided the appeal.
Note:	Where applicant's assertions are not based in the record, Board has duty to develop the record.
Citation:	54 CCC 149
WCC Citation:	WCC 27231989 CA

Case Name:	Osbun v. WCAB		05/17/1979
Summary:	STEPHEN C.OSBUN, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, TOM VETERAN et al. , Respondents. Upon arrival at the construction site, petitioner, accompanied by Harding, was directed by Martinez to begin hanging drywall in certain units. First, a [93 Cal. App. 3d 166] process called 'stocking' involves unloading sheetrock from trucks and placing it inside the buildings. On this job Hintz was responsible for stocking and on the particular day his general laborers were occupied elsewhere. Nevertheless, on this Thursday, petitioner and Harding did comply with Martinez's request and stocked as well as hung the drywall.
Note:	Where deposition testimony wasn't before WCAB it would not be considered by reviewing court.
Citation:	93 Cal.App.3d 163
WCC Citation:	WCC 27101979 CA

Case Name:	Otis vs. City of Los Angeles, etc. et. al.		10/02/1980
Summary:	Since the grant of reconsideration in Otis, various panels of the Appeals Board have granted reconsideration in cases involving the interpretation of Section 4601. 5. Some involved the same issue as in Otis others involved different issues presented by the statute. n5 Prior to its enactment there were no sanctions for non-payment of medical-legal costs by way of penalty and interest. AOTIS V.CITY OF LOS ANGELES 77 MON 13155 and 77 MON 13128 n7An application was filed on April 18, 1977 alleging injury to the back and assigned case number 77 MON 13128. On October 28, 1977, approximately four months following the filing of the reports, the City of Los Angeles filed a document entitled Petition for Disallowance of Medical-Legal Costs.
Note:	Appropriate procedure to follow when contesting medical-legal lien.
Citation:	45 CCC 1132 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28711980 CA

Case Name:	Ott v. WCAB		05/06/1981
Summary:	LUNETTE OTT, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondents. Petitioner Lunette Ott (hereinafter Ott) was employed with respondent Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter Pacific Telephone) as a marketing representative. Subsequent activity centered upon the permanent disability compensation due to Ott and any credit to be allowed for benefits paid by Pacific Telephone. Oral testimony was adduced from Robert D.Harless, a personnel manager in the San Francisco office of Pacific Telephone's employees' benefits department, and Ott. In the case of Mrs.Ott, was her case submitted to the committee?
Note:	Employer bears burden of proving voluntary nature of wage payments for credit against indemnity.
Citation:	118 Cal.App.3d 912
WCC Citation:	WCC 3381981 CA

Case Name:	P. v. Machesky		03/12/2010
Summary:	The court placed Machesky on five years' probation, conditioned on, among other things, she perform 400 hours of volunteer work. On May 18 the store's workers' compensation insurance carrier, Springfield Insurance Company (Springfield), began paying temporary total disability benefits to Machesky. While at Dodge's office, Machesky stated on a patient questionnaire that she had never suffered any prior work-related injuries. After the car accident, Machesky told emergency room doctors at Scripps Memorial Hospital that she had mild neck pain. In November 2001 Machesky experienced pain in the middle of her back while pushing carts and missed 12 days of work.
Note:	A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no other reasonably arguable appellate issue.
Citation:	D055509
WCC Citation:	WCC 36092010 CA

Case Name:	Pac. Employers Ins. Co. v. IAC		06/26/1959
Summary:	PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Petitioner, v.INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and TOM L.STROER, Respondents. On July 29, 1957, Stroer, employed as a carpenter, sustained an admitted industrial injury to his back. The employer's insurance carrier, the petitioner, voluntarily furnished medical care, and paid compensation, until February 17, 1958. The commission awarded Stroer maximum temporary partial disability payments for the period February 17, 1958, through July 6, 1958. The insurance carrier does not complain of the finding that during the period in question the employee was temporarily partially disabled.
Note:	Where partial TD accounts for total wage loss then wages lost is only req. finding.
Citation:	52 Cal.2d 417
WCC Citation:	WCC 24981959 CA

Case Name:	Pac. Indem. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n		06/08/1945
Summary:	19289, 19290 June 8, 1945 PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY (A CORPORATION), PETITIONER, v.INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, SALOME VALLEZ ET AL. , RESPONDENTS. PROCEEDINGS to review orders of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for death. There was other evidence indicating that the fatal accident occurred somewhat later. I, § 196, p.188; 27 Cal. Jur.§ 90, p.392; Larson v.Industrial Acc. The industrial nature of the Vallez boys' trip is significant only in that it brings this phase of the case within the rule of Western Pacific R.R.Co.v.Industrial Acc.
Note:	Evidence supports determination that was injury sustained in course and scope of employment.
Citation:	26 Cal. 2d 509
WCC Citation:	WCC 30491945 CA

Case Name:	Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. IAC		07/17/1961
Summary:	PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v.INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, SALLY MARY DREW et al. , Respondents. OPINION DOOLING, J.Petitioner seeks review and the annulment of an award and decision made by the Industrial Accident Commission. The award was based on a finding that the employee's death was the result of the industrial injury 'combined with a non-industrial cancer. 'X-rays taken on February 23, 1958, revealed a fracture of the seventh dorsal vertebra of his thoracic spine. The succeeding article 4 deals exclusively with payments to be made to the dependents of employees following the employee's death.
Note:	4663 has no reference to benefits owed worker's dependents.
Citation:	56 Cal.2d 219
WCC Citation:	WCC 25531961 CA

Case Name:	Pacific Gas & Electric vs. WCAB (Bryan)		01/09/2004
Summary:	A101872 WCAB No.BAK 135832 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) contends the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) erred when it awarded benefits to respondent Clifford Bryan for work-related psychiatric injury. As a "collector" he went to the homes of delinquent customers to either collect money or turn off the gas and electric service. Having concluded the WCAB improperly relied on certain factors when making its decision, we turn to the issue of prejudice. The case is remanded to the WCAB so it can reconsider the matter in light of this opinion. While we remand the case to the WCAB to so it can reconsider its decision, we state no opinion on what decision the WCAB should reach.
Note:	Financial status of business not an 'actual event' of employment.
Citation:	114 Cal.App.4th 1174
WCC Citation:	WCC 29652004 CA

Case Name:	Painter v. WCAB		03/27/1985
Summary:	OPINION SONENSHINE, J.Donna B.Painter has petitioned for a writ of review after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied her petition for reconsideration. Painter filed a petition for reconsideration before the WCAB, contending the judge erred by relying exclusively on the conclusions of Dr.Schwartz. Due to illness, the trial judge did not prepare a report on reconsideration for use by the WCAB. [1] Section 5908. 5 requires the WCAB decision to 'state the evidence relied upon and specify in detail the reasons for the decision. 'The WCAB also argues lack of compliance with section 5908. 5 resulted in no prejudice because Painter is aware of the evidentiary basis for the board's decision.
Note:	Board fails to 'state evidence relied upon/reasons for decision' by simply incorporating original decision; review not appropriate.
Citation:	166 Cal.App.3d 264
WCC Citation:	WCC 26971985 CA

Case Name:	Palestini v. General Dynamics Corp.		06/07/2002
Summary:	LOUIE PALESTINI et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, Charles A.Bird and Timothy R.Pestotnik for Defendant and Respondent General Dynamics Corporation. 3 From March 1982 to June 1992, Louie Palestini worked as a plastics fabricator, group leadman, and supervisor at General Dynamics's manufacturing plants in San Diego. Hughes, joined by General Dynamics, filed a general demurrer to the section 3602(b)(2) cause of action on the ground it was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 3200 et seq. ). The amended complaint alleges that Louie Palestini was employed by General Dynamics through June 1992, and was employed by Hughes through January 1994.
Note:	Facts sufficiently pled in complaint to allege fraudulent concealment exception to exclusive remedy.
Citation:	99 Cal.App.4th 80
WCC Citation:	WCC 28592002 CA

Case Name:	Palm Medical Group, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund		03/25/2008
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE PALM MEDICAL GROUP, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v.STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Appellant. Ct.No.421984) Palm Medical Group, Inc.(Palm), an occupational medical clinic located in Fresno, was denied admission into the preferred provider network (PPN) operated by State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), a California public enterprise fund operating throughout the state as a nonprofit workers' compensation insurer. SCIF is the largest workers' compensation insurance carrier in the State of California. [¶] (b) State Compensation Insurance Fund's reasons for rejection of Palm Medical Group's application for admission to the Preferred Provider Network were arbitrary and unreasonable?"The jury answered "no" to subparagraph (a) and "yes" to subparagraph (b), and was directed to question number three which read, "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that if fair procedures had been provided by State Compensation Insurance Fund in connection with Palm Medical Group's 2001-2002 application for admission to State Compensation Insurance Fund's Preferred Provider Network, that Palm Medical Group should have been admitted into the Preferred Provider Network?"
Note:	Defendant 'possessed power so substantial over the market for the treatment of occupational injuries in the Fresno area in 2001-2002 that the failure to admit an ordinary, competent medical provider to its PPN would significantly impair that provider's ability to practice occupational medicine in the Fresno area and, so, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of fair procedure in acting on its application to the PPN.
Citation:	A114651
WCC Citation:	WCC 33302008 CA

Case Name:	Palmer v. BNSF Railway Co.		09/30/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) No.C057964 September 30, 2010 SHAWN M.PALMER, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v.BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Plaintiff Shawn M.Palmer, a railroad switchman, was injured as he climbed down from a tanker car while wearing a device used to remotely control locomotives. He sued his employer, defendant BNSF Railway Company, for personal injury under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U. S. C.§ 51 et seq. However, the court also found that a "cause of action for negligence under the FELA is preempted by the [FRSA]. This appeal presents questions of law involving the interplay between federal statutes, and we review the granting of summary judgment de novo.
Note:	The Federal Railroad Safety Act did not bar a railroad switchman's Federal Employer's Liability Act suit.
Citation:	C057964
WCC Citation:	WCC 36742010 CA

Case Name:	Palmer v. WCAB		06/23/1987
Summary:	WALLACE EARL PALMER, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondents (Opinion by Woods, P.J. , with Kingsley and McClosky, JJ. , concurring. )In the application, '9/24/48 - 111/78' was typed in a blank space below which were the words '(Date of Injury). 'In his November 29, 1978, report, Dr.Urabec stated that 'Robert Palmer' complained of slight irritation due to industrial smoke exposure and occasional wheezing due to industrial steam exposure. On August 15, 1984, applicant filed a petition to reopen pursuant to sections 5410, 5803, and 5804. The WCJ concluded, however, that in the interest of justice each party should be allowed the opportunity to establish the legal date of injury.
Note:	Case remanded to determine when applicant knew or should have known disability was work-related.
Citation:	192 Cal.App.3d 1241
WCC Citation:	WCC 25331987 CA