Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library

Case Name: Brassinga v. City of Mountain View 08/20/1998
Summary: Acton and another Mountain View officer were the range masters who inspected the weapons of the Mountain View officers. Plaintiffs assert that the evidence established as a matter of law that (1) Brassinga was acting as a 'volunteer,' (2) even if Brassinga was a special employee of Mountain View, Mountain View would still be liable under Marsh and (3) Brassinga was not a special employee of Mountain View. Plaintiffs assert that this principle is applicable here to permit Brassinga to sue Acton's general employer, Mountain View, even if Brassinga was a special employee of Mountain View. Here, if Mountain View was Brassinga's special employer, the exclusive remedy provisions would necessarily bar a tort action by Brassinga against Mountain View. However, Mountain View did have the power to remove Brassinga from his role playing duties for Mountain View.
Note: Good discussion of general employer vs. special employer, with cites.
Citation: 66 Cal.App.4th 195, 63 CCC 987
WCC Citation: WCC 4181998 CA
Case Name: Bray vs. WCAB 06/30/1994
Summary: KENNETH BRAY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ITT-BARTON et al. , Respondents. OPINION CROSKEY, J. Kenneth Bray (Bray), a discharged employee, sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging industrial injury to his nerves, psyche and internal system caused by termination from his employment. Bray sought help for his emotional distress from a clinical psychologist, Sivan Caukins, Ph. D. , in March 1989. 3, ante) in determining that Bray had sustained permanent psychiatric injury of 19. 5 percent. Internist Stanley Majcher, M. D. , reporting for the defense on March 14, 1991, declared that Bray had no industrially caused problems.
Note: Psyche injury arising solely out of termination not compensable.
Citation: 26 Cal.App.4th 530, 59 CCC 475
WCC Citation: WCC 28281994 CA
Case Name: Brennfleck v. WCAB 01/20/1970
Summary: ISABELLE E. BRENNFLECK, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE, Respondents (Opinion by Bray, J. , with Pierce, P. J. , and Regan, J. , concurring. )Record Carl Brennfleck, who was employed as a truck driver by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, was injured in the scope of his employment September 29, 1966, which injury proximately caused his death on November 11. On reconsideration the board reduced the award to $17,500 and stated that Isabelle Brennfleck was not a dependent of the decedent 'nor was she his widow. '(Brennfleck v. Workmen's Comp. The parties purchased real property together, filed joint income tax returns, and were known in the community as husband and wife.
Note: 4703 applies where deceased has putative spouse and still supporting first spouse.
Citation: 3 Cal.App.3d 666, 35 CCC 7
WCC Citation: WCC 25921970 CA
Case Name: Brightwell v. IAC 04/19/1965
Summary: EUNICE LENORE BRIGHTWELL, Petitioner v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SPEE D MOODY'S LUNCH SERVICE, a copartnership, and INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a corporation, Respondents. Simultaneously, they entered into an agreement for sharing the costs in a pending third party action. The signature of applicant/employee, Eunice Brightwell, was attested to by witnesses who did not see or hear her sign. Brightwell sought to rescind the agreement on the grounds that there was failure of consideration, but this attempt was unsuccessful. On March 22, 1964, Brightwell underwent surgery.
Note: Attesting witnesses need not be present when employee signs.
Citation: 30 CCC 127 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation: WCC 25891965 CA
Case Name: Brodie v. WCAB 05/03/2007
Summary: WCK 059913, WCK 068583, OAK 298772) STAN BRODIE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Respondents. Over the previous 30 years of his career as a firefighter, Brodie had sustained several industrial injuries to the same body parts for which he was awarded compensation based on a 44. 5 percent permanent disability rating. In Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Name of Opinion Brodie v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Unpublished Opinion Original Appeal Original Proceeding Review Granted XXX 142 Cal. App. 4th 685 Rehearing Granted Opinion No. S146979 & S147030 Date Filed: May 3, 2007 Attorneys for Appellant: Gearheart & Otis and Mark E. Gearheart for Petitioner Stan Brodie. David J. Froba for California Applicants' Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Stan Brodie.
Note: The Fuentes formula remains the correct one to apply in apportioning compensation between causes of disability.
Citation: 40 Cal. 4th 1313, 72 CCC 565
WCC Citation: WCC 32212007 CA
Case Name: Brodie v. WCAB 08/30/2006
Summary: See Brodie v. WCAB, Welcher v. WCAB (S146979, S147030). The WCJ thus subtracted 44. 5 from 74 and awarded Brodie benefits totaling $20,867. 50 based on a 29. 5 percent permanent disability rating. Brodie injured his back, spine and right knee in 2000, and had an injury to his back and spine cumulative to September 2002. Moreover, it does not reflect a reduction for the relative value today of the $27,167. 50 that Brodie was awarded in 1987 and 1999. At oral argument, counsel for Brodie acknowledged the conceptual preferability of this approach.
Note: Apportionment under SB 899 requires subtracting the current monetary value of prior awards from monetary value of current disability .
Citation: 142 Cal. App. 4th 685
WCC Citation: WCC 31762006 CA
Case Name: Brooks v. City of Los Angeles 12/20/2017
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             MARK BROOKS, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. .             B280579 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Blithe S. Bock, Assistant City Attorney, Matthew A. Scherb, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. .             Plaintiff Mark Brooks had been employed as a police officer by defendant City of Los Angeles for over 20 years when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. .           WE CONCUR: .           RUBIN, Acting P. J.
Note: A California appellate court ruled that a police officer who established that he had been permanently and totally disabled could not assert a viable claim of disability discrimination against his former employer for refusing to rehire him.
Citation: B280579
WCC Citation: Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC582450
Case Name: Brooks v. WCAB 04/18/2008
Summary: Brooks earned an average of $1,102. 99 per week as a correctional officer at the time of her injury. While Brooks thereafter remained totally temporarily disabled, SCIF stopped providing TD payments after two years from the date of her injury. Brooks petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, claiming IDL is not TD because "IDL payments are made under different rules, to a limited class of employees, at different rates, and for different periods. "Brooks draws support for the proposition that a salary continuation benefit does not constitute TD from City of Oakland v. Workers. Accordingly, we conclude the WCAB appropriately decided Brooks was entitled to no more than one year of TD following the one year of IDL that she received.
Note: Under the current statutory scheme state employees are limited to a maximum of two years of combined temporary disability indemnity.
Citation: F053350
WCC Citation: WCC 33462008 CA
Case Name: Brown v. Mission Filmworks, LLC 12/06/2012
Summary: BROWN v. MISSION FILMWORKS, LLC VIRTIC E. BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MISSION FILMWORKS, LLC, et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Michael Reino for Defendants and Respondents Mission Filmworks, LLC, and Jay Kamen. Plaintiff and appellant Virtic E. Brown appeals from a judgment, following a court trial, entered in favor of defendants and respondents Mission Filmworks, LLC, and Jay Kamen. In May 2009, Kamen formed Mission Filmworks, LLC, for the purpose of producing the Picture. Defendants and respondents Jay Kamen and Mission Filmworks, LLC, shall recover their costs on appeal.
Note: Two friends who produced a short film together did not create an employee-employer relationship, and so the one who was ousted from the project could not assert a claim for unpaid wages.
Citation: B239005
WCC Citation: WCC 39572012 CA
Case Name: Brown v. Mortensen 06/16/2011
Summary: When Brown requested that Mortensen provide proof of the debt, Mortensen sent Brown a copy of Brown's dental chart, as well as the charts of Brown's minor children. Mortensen made these disclosures for purposes of verifying to the consumer reporting agencies that a debt was owed, despite the facts that (1) no one contended Brown owed money for dentistry performed on his children, and (2) Brown had never authorized Dr. Reinholds or Mortensen to disclose this information to any third parties, including the three consumer reporting agencies. From 2001 to 2003, Brown repeatedly but unsuccessfully demanded that Mortensen cease making unauthorized disclosures. Brown also contacted the three consumer reporting agencies and informed them the disclosures made by Mortensen were inaccurate and incomplete. Brown and his wife, individually and as guardians ad litem for their minor children, then sued Dr. Reinholds and Mortensen, alleging violations of the Confidentiality Act (Civ.
Note: When a debt collector has illegally disclosed confidential patient medical information, that patient may sue under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, without having to worry about federal preemption issues, the California Supreme Court concluded Thursday.
Citation: S180862
WCC Citation: WCC 37732011 CA
1706 Results Page 19 of 171