Case Name:	Prock v. Tamura Corporation of America		01/25/2013
Summary:	PROCK v. TAMURA CORPORATION OF AMERICA JUSTIN G. PROCK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TAMURA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Justin Prock appeals a judgment entered after the trial court granted Tamura Corporation of America's (hereafter Tamura) motion for summary judgment. FACTS In his complaint, Prock alleged that he was employed by Tamura and that Tamura is an employer subject to the Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). Tamura "was notified" and was provided with documentation from Prock's doctor that Prock would need leave from work through September 19, 2008. However, it is also undisputed that Tamura summarily dismissed Prock when Prock requested a further extension of his leave.
Note:	The existence of triable issues of fact about whether a worker was a "qualified individual with a disability" barred an employer from obtaining summary judgment against a disability discrimination suit.
Citation:	E054185
WCC Citation:	WCC 39752013 CA

Case Name:	Prudential Ins. Co. v. WCAB		12/15/1978
Summary:	OPINION MANUEL, J. Petitioner Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) seeks review of an order of the respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying its claim of lien filed against an award in favor of respondent Thomas Wright (Wright), an airline employee. Pursuant to the policy, Prudential made payments to him without offset for workers' compensation benefits to which he may have been entitled. In August 1976, Wright filed an application with the WCAB, alleging the October injury was industrial in nature. Prudential filed with the WCAB a notice and request for allowance of lien seeking to recover back these payments to the extent Wright received workers' compensation benefits. The original findings and award of WCAB failed to dispose of Prudential's claim, apparently because the WCAB had misplaced the claim of lien.
Note:	Overpaid disability benefits are outside reach of group disability insurer's liens.
Citation:	22 Cal.3d 776
WCC Citation:	WCC 24481978 CA

Case Name:	Public Service Mutual Ins. Co. v. Svetlik		01/13/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE .             PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervener and Appellant, .             v. .             STEVEN M. SVETLIK, Defendant and Respondent. .             A144803 .             (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13676541) .             Steven M. Svetlik drove his car into a restaurant where Jennifer Carranza was working, injuring her. The restaurant’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), paid $18,388. 14 in workers’ compensation benefits and medical expenses on Carranza’s behalf. Rules of Court, rule 8. 278. ) .           _________________________ Jones, P. J. .           We concur: .           _________________________ Needham, J.
Note:
Citation:	A144803
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13676541

Case Name:	Pugh v. WCAB		11/03/2008
Summary:	Delores Pugh petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding that her claim for benefits is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. In August 2003, Pugh filed a claim with the WCAB alleging that she suffered cumulative psychological and physical injuries while employed by the County during the period April 1972 through July 1999. The WCAB did not reject the judge's factual findings that the County had not posted the statutory notice and that Pugh was unaware of her rights. Rather, the WCAB concluded that Pugh knew in 1998, or at the latest 1999, that her stress was work related and such knowledge was sufficient to trigger the one-year period for filing a claim under sections 5405 and 5412. The WCAB did not address the County's arguments relating to the merits of Pugh's disability award, finding those issues moot.
Note:	[Unpublished] if an employer fails to post the notice of employees' workers' compensation rights required by Labor Code section 3550 and the employee is otherwise unaware of her rights, then the statute of limitations is tolled until the employee gains actual knowledge that she may be entitled to benefits.
Citation:	B201677
WCC Citation:	WCC 34572008 CA

Case Name:	Pullman Kellogg vs. WCAB (Normand)		02/04/1980
Summary:	PULLMAN KELLOGG et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MARTIN G. NORMAND, Respondents (Opinion by Mosk, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Normand's employer, Pullman Kellogg, and its insurance carrier, Eldorado Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as Pullman Kellogg) seek review of the board's decision, asserting primarily that the medical evidence before the board compelled the conclusion that part of the disability was due to Normand's smoking habit, and therefore apportionment was required. We see no reason, nor does Pullman Kellogg offer any, to distinguish between a cumulative trauma and a specific injury in these circumstances. Another contention made by Pullman Kellogg is that Normand is bound by Dr. Sills' opinion because he introduced the doctor's report into evidence. (1966) 243 Cal. App. 2d 380 [52 Cal. Rptr. 276], upon which Pullman Kellogg relies, is not persuasive authority.
Note:	Apportionment is question of fact and must be supported by substantial evidence.
Citation:	26 Cal3rd 450
WCC Citation:	WCC 30261980 CA

Case Name:	Quadri v. Alkayali		03/09/2011
Summary:	QUADRI v. ALKAYALI AKRAM QUADRI et al. , Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. AHMAD ALKAYALI et al. , Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and cross-defendants Akram Quadri and Fatma Boukhari, who are married to each other (individual plaintiffs), and NeoCell Corporation against defendants and cross-complainants Ahmad Alkayali (Alkayali) and Terri Alkayali, finding the individual plaintiffs owned all the shares in NeoCell and defendants owned none. In the breach of contract count defendants pleaded that pursuant to the 2002 amendment 66 percent of the shares were transferred to Alkayali and plaintiffs breached that agreement by claiming Alkayali owned no shares. Alkayali was "intelligent and sophisticated" whereas Quadri who was 81 was less sophisticated and completely trusted Alkayali, so much so that he would sign anything Alkayali requested. But they fail to include evidence on which the court relied that Quadri would "sign any paper put in front of him [by Alkayali]" because he had "placed all of his faith and confidence in [him] .
Note:	The forgery of an employer's stock certificates to defraud a workers' compensation carrier played a role in a breach of contract suit about who actually owned a business, according to a decision from the 4th District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	G042758
WCC Citation:	WCC 37252011 CA

Case Name:	Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District		04/19/2017
Summary:	Filed 4/19/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Plumas) .             REBECCA MEGAN QUIGLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             GARDEN VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             C079270 .             (Super. She sued, inter alia, defendants and respondents Garden Valley Fire Protection District, Chester Fire Protection District, and their employees Frank DelCarlo, Mike Jellison, and Jeff Barnhart for damages, claiming she was injured as a result of their negligence, a dangerous condition of public property, and defendants’ failure to warn. The three men, all retired Forest Service employees, became employees of defendant local fire agencies Chester Fire Protection District and Garden Valley Fire Protection District in order to serve on NorCal 1. .           We concur: .           /s/ DUARTE, J.
Note:
Citation:	C079270
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. CV1000225

Case Name:	Quinn v. State of California		09/10/1975
Summary:	Case no. 23146 THOMAS QUINN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent; INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Claimant and Respondent (In Bank. Plaintiff sued the state, which owned the construction site, alleging its negligence as the proximate cause of his injuries. California courts have long applied this principle of apportionment. Furthermore, we point out below that the Legislature has clearly referred to this general equitable precept in the statute before us. (See Lasky, Subrogation Under the California Workmen's Compensation Laws -- Rules, Remedies and Side [15 Cal. 3d 182] Effects (1972) 12 Santa Clara Law.
Note:	When an injury involves a negligent third party, the employer should bear his share of litigant's attorney fees due to the equitable principle of apportionment.
Citation:	15 Cal.3d 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 32121975 CA

Case Name:	Quinn v. U.S. Bank		06/06/2011
Summary:	QUINN v. U. S. BANK NA ROBERT QUINN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U. S. BANK NA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Robert Quinn (plaintiff) is a former senior vice president of defendant U. S. Bank NA. Peatros was brought by a bank vice president who contended that Bank of America (bank) terminated her because of her race and age in violation of FEHA and other state laws. Two of the cases cited do not assist the Bank: Andrews v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (4th Cir. In the third case cited by the bank, Arrow v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (6th Cir.
Note:	A federal statute does not preempt bank officers from filing disability discrimination suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B226143
WCC Citation:	WCC 37722011 CA

Case Name:	Rabin v. Lotta		12/07/2009
Summary:	Rabin met Lotta at the Workers Compensation Appeals Board in the first half of the 1990s. Lotta represented Rabin in collecting his liens from workers compensation cases. Lotta cross-complained against Rabin, Rabins son Mathew, and Mathews wife, Jennifer Rabin. According to Lotta, Rabin was supposed to trade services to Lotta on a quid pro quo basis in exchange for the time Lotta spent on the Pourzia matter. According to Lotta, this list represented way less than 10 percent of the cases Lotta had with Rabin over the years. Rabin testified that Lotta was behind in payments to him, that Rabin was in his 80s, and felt the need to memorialize what Lotta owed him for his services.
Note:	[Unpublished] Probable cause for quantum meruit exists if any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.
Citation:	B211590
WCC Citation:	WCC 35852009 CA

Case Name:	Rail Services of America vs. SCIF		07/09/2003
Summary:	RAIL SERVICES OF AMERICA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION CROSKEY, J. - Rail Services of America and Pacific Rail Services (collectively, plaintiffs) sued State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for alleged misconduct related to premiums SCIF charged them for workers' compensation insurance. SCIF stated that it would provide coverage, but only in exchange for a non-refundable agreed minimum premium of $1,365,000. Although plaintiffs' risk manager tried to persuade SCIF to agree to different and more favorable terms, SCIF would not do so. c. SCIF Had the Right to Make the Minimum Premium Nonrefundable Plaintiffs contend that SCIF could not make the minimum premium nonrefundable, citing section 11841.
Note:	Retention of non-refundable agreed minimum premium for only 15 days coverage upheld; willful failure to comply with discovery order compels dismissal.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 323
WCC Citation:	WCC 29432003 CA

Case Name:	Raine v. City of Burbank		01/25/2006
Summary:	Dennis Barlow, City Attorney, and Carol A. Humiston, Senior Assistant City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. Following the injury to his knee, Raine had difficulty running, jumping, kneeling and lifting, activities Raine concedes are essential to perform the duties of a patrol officer and school resource officer. Raine does not challenge the trial court's findings with respect to his claims for age discrimination, retaliation and harassment. Raine argues the City failed to meet this burden because it presented no evidence relating to the economic hardship the requested accommodation would impose. The City was not required to reclassify (and thus substantially alter) the front-desk job to accommodate Raine.
Note:	Temporary light duty position as accommodation does not create obligation to make the temporary assignment available indefinitely once temporary disability becomes permanent.
Citation:	135 Cal. App. 4th 1215
WCC Citation:	WCC 31362006 CA

Case Name:	Ralph's Grocery Co. v. WCAB		09/25/1995
Summary:	RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DAWN R. LARA, Respondents. Ralphs denied the request and temporarily cut off Lara's temporary disability benefits based on its belief that section 4601, fn. On July 13, 1994, Lara returned to Kaiser and Ralphs immediately reinstated disability payments and paid for Lara's interim period of disability. Under the circumstances, the WCJ concluded that to find Ralphs had unreasonably delayed would be 'patently unfair. 'Under the circumstances, the Board concluded Lara was entitled to penalties for unreasonable delay in providing medical treatment and temporary disability benefits.
Note:	When employee controlling treatment, limitation of doctor 'one time change' is not applicable.
Citation:	38 Cal.App.4th 820
WCC Citation:	WCC 24311995 CA

Case Name:	Ralph's Grocery vs. Superior Court (Swanson)		10/23/2003
Summary:	RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; DAVID SWANSON, Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC384875, Mary Ann Murphy, Judge. )The reviewing court accepts as true all facts properly pleaded in the complaint in order to determine whether the demurrer should be overruled. Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Note:	Bonus plan, to extent based on deduction of any cost of work comp, is unlawful.
Citation:	112 Cal.App.4th 1090
WCC Citation:	WCC 29662003 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Columbia Machine, Inc.		05/01/2012
Summary:	RAMIREZ v. COLUMBIA MACHINE, INC. ANDRES RAMIREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COLUMBIA MACHINE, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ramirez suffered serious injury, including burns on his face, neck and hands. That code section is one of the maxims of jurisprudence found in the Civil Code at sections 3509 et seq. That issue was not raised in the complaint, and thus the `easy' explanation for why the theory was not addressed. No such contractual agreement or promise was alleged by Ramirez, however, and he makes no contention that there was any such agreement with or promise by Desert Block.
Note:	A California worker could not assert a claim against his employer for the negligent spoilage of evidence necessary to prove liability for his injuries from an industrial explosion.
Citation:	F061169
WCC Citation:	WCC 38902012 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services		09/09/2008
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA (AHM 0089109) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Case No. ADJ4579659 DEE ANNE RAMIREZ, Applicant, vs. DRIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES; and ONE BEACON INSURANCE CO. , Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant was employed by Drive Financial Services as a collections specialist from August 9, 2000 through February 15, 2001. Therefore, there was no basis to consider what factors might be balanced in determining the amount of the penalty. The current version of section 5814 was enacted on April 19, 2004, and became operative on June 1, 2004. Moreover, section 5814. 5 fees should be allowed only for legal services rendered in "enforcing" the unreasonably delayed prior award, and not for any other purpose.
Note:	[En Banc] Although, under new section 5814(a), a successive penalty may still be awarded for an unreasonable delay in making a prior penalty payment, it should not be awarded where the defendant had genuine doubt as to its liability or where there is no legally significant intervening event.
Citation:	ADJ4579659
WCC Citation:	WCC 34202008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Nelson		04/08/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. CIV217462 MARIA DOLORES RAMIREZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THOMAS NELSON et al. , Ventura County Defendants and Respondents. Statement of Facts and Procedural Background Maria Dolores Ramirez and Martin Flores (plaintiffs) are the parents of the decedent, Luis Flores. Thomas and Vivian Nelson are homeowners. Vivian Nelson could see Flores working about halfway up in the eucalyptus tree from her kitchen window. After the accident, Vivian Nelson noticed that the polesaw Flores had been using was made of aluminum and wood.
Note:	As tragic as this accident was, we find the homeowners breached no special duty of care owed to unlicensed contractor Rodriguez or his workers under section 385(b).
Citation:	S143819
WCC Citation:	WCC 34072008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. WCAB		08/29/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PATRICIA RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, VLOT BROTHERS CUSTOM HEIFER RAISING et al. , Respondents. Petitioner's husband, Arturo Bucio Ramirez, worked as an employee for Mr. Medina for about a day in 2002. Unfortunately, the work led to a fatal accident for Mr. Ramirez, who died several days later. The WCAB denied reconsideration on April 15, 2008, adopting and incorporating the reasoning from the WCJ's report and recommendation. In her report and recommendation to the WCAB, the WCJ also expressed her uncertainty in discerning petitioner's position on reconsideration.
Note:	[Unpublished] The uncontroverted evidence here reveals decedent entered into a notarized partnership agreement with alleged employer to act as equal partners in the business of JM & AG Silage Covering. The WCAB's finding of such was supported by significant evidence.
Citation:	F055279
WCC Citation:	WCC 34162008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. WCAB (State Department of Health Care Services)		03/29/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/29/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             DANIEL RAMIREZ, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES et al. , Respondents. .             C078440 .             (WCAB No. ADJ6821103) .             ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of review. .           Lisa A. Liebson, Deputy Chief Counsel, Mary R. Huckabaa, Assistant Chief Counsel, and William L. Anderson, Appellate Counsel, for Respondents State Department of Health Care Services and State Compensation Insurance Fund. II  Denial of Ramirez’s Treatment  .           In this case, petitioner Daniel Ramirez sustained an injury to his lower leg and ankle in the course of his job as an office assistant for the State Department of Health Care Services (Department). .           Stevens relied on this court’s decision in California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. Department of Managed Health Care (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 684 (California Consumer).
Note:
Citation:	C078440
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ6821103

Case Name:	Ramirez vs. WCAB, Safeway		08/04/1970
Summary:	MARIO S. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAFEWAY STORES, INC. , et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Selber, J. , with Stephens, Acting P. J. , and Reppy, J. , concurring. )Rupert A. Pedrin, Nathan Mudge, Sheldon M. Ziff, Waite, Drapeau & Peters and David R. Drapeau for Respondents. Awarding additional compensation under the rule of the Berry Case would constitute a denial of due process as condemned in the National Auto Case. "They argue that in no event is the employee [10 Cal. App. 3d 232] entitled to benefits from both sources (Garcia v. Industrial Acc. The penalty issue was stated by the referee as follows: "Ten per cent penalty for unreasonable failure to pay benefits. "
Note:	Advancement of EDD disability does not excuse penalty against employer/carrier for late payments of, or failure to pay, benefits.
Citation:	10 CA 3d 227; 35 CCC 383
WCC Citation:	WCC 29091970 CA

Case Name:	Ramsey v. WCAB		06/16/1971
Summary:	PHIL RAMSEY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HUMKO PRODUCTS et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Tamura, J. , with Gardner, P. J. , and Kerrigan, J. , concurring. )On the prior occasion (Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Following the remittitur in Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. That award was undisturbed by Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. In any event the time commenced no later than March 25, 1970, when the Board reissued its award and decision after remittitur in Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	If a party prevails then other party wins on rehearing, first party may petition for rehearing of order as first time aggrieved party.
Citation:	18 Cal.App.3d 155
WCC Citation:	WCC 26501971 CA

Case Name:	Raphael vs. Bloomfield		11/21/2003
Summary:	GILMORE E. RAPHAEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUNE S. BLOOMFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Peter I. Bersin, Peter I. Bersin; Drucker & Steinschriber and Stephen Marc Drucker for Plaintiff and Respondent. At trial, the only contested issue was whether the workers' compensation awards each spouse received were community property. The court ordered wife to pay husband $155,929. 52, i. e. , one-half of wife's lump sum award. Ordinarily, "[t]he theory upon which a case was tried in the court below must be followed on appeal. "
Note:	Only that portion of an Award attributable to disability or medical expenses during the marriage is community property.
Citation:	113 Cal.App.4th 617
WCC Citation:	WCC 29672003 CA

Case Name:	Rausch v. WCAB		06/26/1969
Summary:	MELANIE RAUSCH, a Minor, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, TERESITA PINES, INC. , et al. , Respondents. In the summer of 1967 the petitioner, Melanie Rausch, who was at that time 19 years of age, was employed as a camp counselor by Teresita Pines, Inc. , whose compensation insurance carrier was respondent, Phoenix Insurance Company. The camp had accommodations for 160 girls and was operated from the last week of June to the last week of August. A brochure relating to the 1967 camp program contained a picture of about 15 younger girls and two older girls on horseback. The caddy was permitted to play, without charge on his day off, on the golf course where he was employed.
Note:	When no dispute of facts, whether injured on job is question of law and finding on issue is not conclusive.
Citation:	274 Cal.App.2d 357
WCC Citation:	WCC 27401969 CA

Case Name:	Raymond Garcia, Sr., v. Department of Water and Power et al.		01/06/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B222442 January 6, 2011 RAYMOND GARCIA, SR. , PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Lisa S. Berger, Deputy City Attorney; Richard M. Brown, General Counsel for Defendants and Respondents. Raymond Garcia appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Department of Water and Power (hereinafter, "DWP"), and City employee Gregory Troschak, after defendants' demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Vargas answered that he was not the culprit, and that he knew who had done it but could not tell. Pleadings in the workers' compensation proceeding are in accord, as is plaintiff's filing with the Department of Fair Housing and Employment.
Note:	Workers' compensation exclusivity prevents an employee who was injured after a coworker shortened his cane from bringing tort actions against the coworker and employer, the California's Second District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B222442
WCC Citation:	WCC 36982011 CA

Case Name:	Raymond Plastering v. WCAB		07/24/1967
Summary:	RAYMOND PLASTERING et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CLEO KING, Respondents. The injury caused total temporary disability through November 30, 1965, for which he was paid temporary disability benefits at the maximum rate. Award issued for permanent disability benefits of $4,305 payable at the rate of $52. 50 per week for 82 weeks. The award is based on a finding that applicant's earnings were maximum for purposes of computing permanent disability benefits. They seek annulment of the award and an order directing the appeals board to take additional evidence on the issue.
Note:	Board must develop record if parties fail to provide sufficient evidence for rendering fair decision.
Citation:	252 Cal.App.2d 748
WCC Citation:	WCC 27241967 CA

Case Name:	Rea vs. WCAB; Boostan, et al.		03/15/2005
Summary:	JOHN REA, as Acting Director, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, EREZ BOOSTAN et al. , Respondents. Milbauer and the Fund again proceeded to trial, and the Fund raised various issues including the illegally uninsured employer's identity. Moreover, the Fund failed to provide benefits contrary to section 3716, subdivision (b), Yant, DuBois, and Aubry v. Workers' Comp. Without proper jurisdiction, the Fund argues it is inhibited or precluded from fulfilling its statutory obligations under section 3710 et seq. The proof of service should specify the time, place and manner of service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 417. 10 et seq.
Note:	WCAB can not implement regulatory procedures without notice and opportunity to be heard.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 625
WCC Citation:	WCC 30842005 CA

Case Name:	ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. Jones		11/06/2012
Summary:	Nurses register with ReadyLink, which verifies the nurses' credentials, notifies them when shifts are available and pays their wages. The SCIF conducted its final audit of ReadyLink in 2007 for the policy period of September 2005 through September 2006. She questioned ReadyLink about its per diem payments and requested documentation to substantiate these payments. ReadyLink appealed the SCIF's decision to the Administrative Hearing Bureau of the California Department of Insurance. Instead, the Commissioner provided a useful interpretation of an existing regulation and applied it to the set of facts presented by ReadyLink.
Note:	A staffing company must pay State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) an additional $555,327.53 in premium, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday, agreeing with the carrier that the firm had disguised wages it paid to traveling nurses by labeling the bulk of its payments as reimbursement for living expenses.
Citation:	B234509
WCC Citation:	WCC 39492012 CA

Case Name:	Redner v. WCAB		06/10/1971
Summary:	CLAUDE REDNER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA WHOLESALE ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. , Respondents. Upon applicant's attorney's strenuous objection to the admission of the medical reports, the referee refused to admit them into evidence. 4 [5 Cal. 3d 89] Thereafter the insurance carrier petitioned for reconsideration on every statutory basis except the discovery of new evidence. It is noted that in its petition, defendant refers to motion picture film which was never offered in evidence. (W. C. A. B. rule 10856(e); see Standard Rectifier Corp. v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	WCAB doesn't have arbitrary powers to grant reconsideration, must be based on 5903.
Citation:	5 Cal.3d 83
WCC Citation:	WCC 26691971 CA

Case Name:	Regents of Univ. of CA v. WCAB (Oberhoffer)		08/25/1994
Summary:	THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CATHLEEN OBERHOFFER, Respondents. The University of California Board of Regents petitions for review of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision awarding the applicant, a university police officer trainee, full salary in lieu of workers' compensation disability payments pursuant to Labor Code section 4806. fn. 1 We granted review because the WCAB misinterpreted the applicable statutes. In March 1992, she returned to the university police department and was given light work in the investigations unit and evidence room. [¶] This section shall apply only to those members of the University of California Police Department specified in [Labor Code] Section 3213. '
Note:	Applicant must complete training and graduate from academy to qualify for 3213 & 4806 consideration.
Citation:	27 Cal.App.4th 1101
WCC Citation:	WCC 4171994 CA

Case Name:	Regents of Univ. of CA v. WCAB (Ryan)		02/20/1998
Summary:	Regents of the University of California, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Gloria Ryan, Respondents. Applicant sustained admitted industrial injuries to her back on 1/19/95, and to her psyche during the period 9/19/93 through 4/18/95. Defendant sought reconsideration on the grounds that the WCAB is vested with equitable power to credit Defendant with attorney's fees and costs from the superior court action against Applicant's future workers' compensation benefits. Petitioner seeks to offset any workers' compensation benefits awarded by an attorney fee award in a related superior court action. Labor Code section 4901 provides that compensation awards may not be taken for the debts of the worker except as 'hereinafter provided. '
Note:	No offset of comp. award by civil award in action from same injury.
Citation:	63 CCC 335 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 25141998 CA

Case Name:	Rehab Unit Administrative Guidelines		02/14/1997
Summary:	INDEX ^1-10-01^ Application of Administrative Guidelines ^8-10-01^ Undocumented Workers ^8-10-02^ Injured Worker Living Out-of-State/Country (Amended effective September 25, 1998) ^8-10-03^ Non-English Speaking Qualified Injured Worker (Amended effective September 25, 1998) ^8-10-04^ Return to Modified/Alternate Work via the RU-94 (Amended effective September 25, 1998) ^8-20-00^ Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (Amended effective September 4, 1997) ^8-20-01^ Independent Vocational Evaluator ^8-20-02^ Work Evaluation/Testing ^8-30-01^ Employee Requests for Vocational Rehabilitation Services ^8-30-01. 1^ Deferral/Interruption of Rehabilitation Services ^8-30-01. 2^ Employee Request for Reinstatement of Rehabilitation Services (Amended effective September 4, 1997) ^8-30-01. 3^ Declination and Employee Request for Services Following Declination ^8-30-01. 4^ Statute of Limitations ^8-30-02^ Initiation of Vocational Services/Referral to a Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (Amended effective September 4, 1997) ^8-30-02. 1^ Change of Qualified Rehabilitation Representative ^8-30-02. 2^ Waiver of Qualified Rehabilitation Representative ^8-30-03^ Identification of Vocational Feasability ^8-40-00^ Continuous Trauma/Multiple Employers ^8-40-01^ Disputed Compensability and Compromise and Release Cases ^8-40-02^ Uninsured Employer Fund Cases ^8-50-00^ Nature, Extent and Duration of Plan Services ^8-50-01^ Plan Evaluation and Approval ^8-50-01. 1^ Subsequent Rehabilitation Plan ^8-50-02^ Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance/Vocational Rehabilitation Temporary Disability (Amended effective September 25, 1998) ^8-50-02. 1^ Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance/Vocational Rehabilitation Temporary Disability During On-the job Training (Suspended effective June 5, 1997) ^8-50-02. 2^ Maintenance Benefits due to Public Safety Employees ^8-50-03^ Self-employment/Capital Investment (Amended effective September 4, 1997) ^8-50-04^ Additional Living Expenses (Amended effective September 25, 1998) ^8-50-04. 1^ Transportation Expenses ^8-50-04. 2^ Relocation Expenses ^8-50-04. 3^ Tools ^8-50-05^ Job Placement ^8-50-06^ Plan for Modified/Alternate Work via the RU-102 ^8-60-00^ Interpreting Fees ^8-60-01^ Multiple Rehabilitation Providers ^8-60-02^ Sub Rosa Films ^8-60-03^ Service of Medical/Vocational Reports ^8-60-04^ Dispute Resolution ^8-60-05^ Determinations ^8-60-06^ Enforcement of Unit Determinations ^8-60-07^ Attorney Fees ^8-60-08^ Fee Disputes ^8-60-09^ Communication with the Parties ^8-60-10^ Venue Assignment, Maintenance and Transfer of Case Files ^8-60-11^ Jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Unit ^8-60-12^ Proceedings before the WCAB/Procedures following Appeal ^8-70-00^ Conclusions/Terminations ^8-80-00^ Public Access to Rehabilitation Unit Records/H. I. V. Case Handling ^8-80-01^ Considerations For Audit Referral
Note:	The Rehabilitation Unit's published guidelines.
Citation:	N/A
WCC Citation:	WCC 26931997 CA

Case Name:	Reich, Adell, Crost & Perry v. WCAB		01/01/2001
Summary:	As required by Section 10860 of the WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (hereinafter 'WCAB Rules'), the judge filed a report on each petition for reconsideration wherein he responded to the contentions made by petitioner. In doing so consideration should be given to the standards set forth in WCAB Rules Section 10775 and in the WCAB Policy & Procedure Manual. Thus, while the WCAB should not lightly disregard a fee agreement between the attorney and his client, such an agreement is not binding upon the WCAB. Similarly, Section 10776 of the WCAB Rules [n6] does not declare attorneys fee agreements necessarily invalid, but only requires their prompt submission to the WCAB for review. If dissatisfied with the fee awarded the attorney's recourse is to seek reconsideration by the WCAB.
Note:	Notice to atty. required before Bd. reduces fee that was agreed to by client in the settlement before Bd. for approval.
Citation:	44 CCC 1119
WCC Citation:	WCC 27192001 CA

Case Name:	Reichelt v. Slotnick		07/30/2010
Summary:	Filed 7/30/10 Reichelt v. Slotnick CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE 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). Lawrence Reichelt, in pro. Lawrence Kevin Reichelt appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent George Slotnick following the sustaining of a demurrer to ppellant's third amended complaint. He also argues the trial court erred in sustaining respondents demurrer to causes of action in the second amended complaint. We find that the third amended complaint stated insufficient facts upon which to base a cause of action.
Note:	An injured worker's breach of contract suit against his former attorney failed because he did not adequately plead his case.
Citation:	B215506
WCC Citation:	WCC 36522010 CA

Case Name:	Reiman v. WCAB		02/02/1977
Summary:	MILFORD H. REIMAN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondents (Opinion by Rattigan, J. , with Caldecott, P. J. , and Christian, J. , concurring. )[66 Cal. App. 3d 734] OPINION RATTIGAN, J. Milford H. Reiman (hereinafter applicant) is the recipient of benefits in a proceeding conducted pursuant to the workers' compensation law. In January 1973, applicant and Barbara Jean Reiman, his wife, petitioned the appeals board for an order reimbursing Mrs. Reiman for 'practical nursing services' which applicant conceived to be self-procured medical treatment. In February 1973, Mrs. Reiman herself filed a 'Notice and Request for Allowance of Lien' in which she claimed a lien, for her services, against any award to be made to applicant upon the petition. In the report, and among other things, she stated her determinations that 'this case is governed by Henson vs. WCAB (Standard Oil Company) 37 CCC 654 and that Mrs. Reiman is entitled to payment for the reasonable value of her services. '
Note:	No lien or credit for voluntary payments as gifts separate from compensation.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.3d 732
WCC Citation:	WCC 25131977 CA

Case Name:	Reiner v. Greyhound Lines		10/17/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             MARTIN REINER, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             GREYHOUND LINES INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             GREYHOUND LINES INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Roy G. Weatherup, Kenneth C. Feldman, Caroline E. Chan and David D. Samani for Defendants and Respondents Greyhound Lines Inc. , FirstGroup America, Inc. , and Tricia Martinez. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .           In March 2014, Reiner acted as counsel for two defendant employees of Greyhound Lines Inc. in Yennisen de Santiago v. Greyhound Lines Inc. Greyhound was represented by Ian Wade for Littler Mendelson, P. C. .           In September 2014, Reiner sent a series of emails to Wade and Greyhound’s in-house counsel, Tricia Martinez, purporting to represent another individual who had claims against Greyhound and knew facts that could be used against Greyhound in the Santiago litigation. You can cooperate and save Greyhound significantly, or you can be uncooperative and cause Greyhound significant harm. ” .           On October 1, 2014, Martinez sent an email to Wade and Reiner saying, “Please provide me with the proper ‘authorities’ to whom I should address a compliant [sic] against Reiner.
Note:	California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal refused to reinstate a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress filed by an attorney disbarred earlier this year for not abiding the terms of his probation for willfully disobeying three orders issued by workers’ compensation judges.
Citation:	B265943 c/w B269440
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC564127

Case Name:	Reiner v. Kebel, Tobin & Truce		03/08/2012
Summary:	MARTIN REINER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KEGEL, TOBIN & TRUCE et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Berger Kahn, and Steven H. Gentry for Defendants and Respondents Kegel, Tobin & Truce and Sheila Kashani. True to his word, Reiner brought suit against Kashani and her law firm, Kegel, Tobin & Truce (Kegel), as well as their client, Commerce and Industry Insurance (Commerce) on September 21, 2010 for defamation and fraud. DISCUSSION On appeal, Reiner challenges the trial court's orders granting the anti-SLAPP motion and denying Reiner the right of discovery with regard to the attorney fee and costs award. However, Reiner provides no legal authority to support a contention that he is entitled to discovery on the issue.
Note:	A defamation action by a California workers' compensation defense attorney against defense counsel in another case involving the same claimant was subject to a special motion to strike as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, a state appellate court ruled.
Citation:	B234815
WCC Citation:	WCC 38692012 CA

Case Name:	Respini v. RMG Electric, Inc.		08/21/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE HELEN RESPINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RMG ELECTRIC, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. SCV-237730) Plaintiff was severely injured in an automobile accident involving an employee of defendant RMG Electric, Inc. (RMG) and seeks to hold RMG vicariously liable for her injuries. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Helen Respini filed an action against defendant Micah Ashley, alleging injury and economic loss as a result of an automobile accident involving Ashley. As he explained, RMG employs a person referred to as a 'shop boy' to transport materials from the shop to RMG worksites as they are needed on the job. Gugel further confirmed that Ashley was not required by RMG to drive his personal vehicle to the worksite and was not reimbursed by RMG for his travel expenses.
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff submitted evidence sufficient to support a jury finding that employee's trip was within the scope of his employment.
Citation:	A119232
WCC Citation:	WCC 34132008 CA

Case Name:	Rex Club et al. v. WCAB (SCIF)		03/31/1997
Summary:	The REX CLUB et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and State Compensation Insurance Fund et al. , Respondents. (e)) against the Rex Club, seeking reimbursement for a portion of the workers' compensation benefits SCIF paid to the injured worker. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rejected the Rex Club's position that the petition for contribution should be dismissed as untimely. By petition for writ of review, the Rex Club and its insurer, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (hereafter collectively referred to as Rex Club), seek to annul the WCAB's order finding that SCIF's petition for contribution is not time-barred. Thereafter, Rex Club and Fairlane Meat Market-two other employers for whom the applicant had worked during that period-were joined as defendants.
Note:	Since the original findings of fact and award issued in November 1987 constitute 'an award' of compensation benefits within the meaning of section 5500.5, subdivision (e), the WCAB's petition for contribution filed in November 1994 is untimely as to that award.
Citation:	C022162
WCC Citation:	WCC 37091997 CA

Case Name:	Reyes v. Van Elk, Ltd.		03/14/2007
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiffs Jose Reyes, Francisco Reyes, Jose Perez and Carlos Flores were employed by defendant Van Elk, Ltd. ("Van Elk") on allegedly public works projects which were subject to California's prevailing wage law. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS Plaintiffs performed welding-related work for Van Elk on different construction projects in Los Angeles County. When Perez was asked if he provided false employment information to Van Elk, he objected, but admitted he had. However, judgment was only entered in favor of three of the four defendants - - Van Elk, Fidelity and Fassberg. There is some indication in the record that Van Elk did not ask for employment authorization documents from plaintiffs.
Note:	Undocumented workers' have standing to raise prevailing wage claims, and the prevailing wage law is not preempted by the IRAC.
Citation:	148 Cal. App. 4th 604
WCC Citation:	WCC 32112007 CA

Case Name:	Reyes vs. Hart Plastering		02/10/2005
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. POM 261149 JOSE REYES, Applicant, vs. HART PLASTERING; FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; and CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. (Servicing Facility), Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant, while employed as a plasterer by Hart Plastering on May 22, 2000, sustained severe injuries when he fell approximately 53 feet. He was working on the third story of a five-story building when he attempted to step onto a scaffold. His right foot missed the wooden board and he fell through the space between the scaffold and the wall. Jose Reyes, born October 12, 1961, while employed as a plasterer by Hart Plastering on May 22, 2000, sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment.
Note:	Changes made to apportionment statutes in SB 899 do not affect the determination of AOE/COE.
Citation:	69 CCC (2005); Panel
WCC Citation:	WCC 30812005 CA

Case Name:	Reynolds v. WCAB		11/04/1974
Summary:	WILLARD P. REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondents In Bank. Fred T. Searls, Raymond W. White, Bruce P. Sadler and Barry L. Wade for Respondents. He requested assistance with the loading, but none was available; so he continued doing the work alone. Later, in the afternoon, when he arrived at his destination, he experienced further, more severe pain when he began to unload the timbers from the truck. While discussing his condition with his supervisor, petitioner started to shake; and he expressed the opinion that he was having a heart attack.
Note:	Failure of employer to provide injured worker with required notice tolls statute of limitations.
Citation:	12 Cal.3d 726
WCC Citation:	WCC 29111974 CA

Case Name:	Rhiner v. WCAB		04/08/1993
Summary:	GRANT DAVID RHINER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, TED JONES et al. , Respondents. Facts On January 9, 1988, petitioner Grant David Rhiner was injured when he fell off a roof at work. It rejected the two cases on which the WCAB had based its decision, finding them irreconcilable with Gallamore, supra, 23 Cal. 3d 815. The WCAB had imposed only one of the requested penalties, and it had imposed no penalty for delay in travel expense reimbursement. We remanded the matter to the WCAB to reconsider the employee's two additional penalty claims.
Note:	Strict liability for delay of payment.
Citation:	4 Cal.4th 1213
WCC Citation:	WCC 3401993 CA

Case Name:	Richard H. Moss v. PG&E Corporation et al		02/01/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A126610 February 1, 2011 RICHARD H. MOSS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. PG&E CORPORATION ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Moss also alleges that PG&E harassed, discriminated and retaliated against him because he suffered from sleep apnea. The trial court determined that Moss met his initial burden and established a prima facie case of age discrimination. In the end, Moss was fired because fewer and fewer clients were willing to work with him. Moss's contention that "Hartman admitted that Moss falling asleep in meetings played a role in his decision to terminate Moss" distorts the record.
Note:	A PG&E attorney's suit against the employer failed because he provided insufficient evidence of a discriminatory reason for his termination.
Citation:	A126610
WCC Citation:	WCC 37102011 CA

Case Name:	Richardson-Tunnell v. School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE)		12/07/2007
Summary:	Filed 12/10/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX KLARE RICHARDSON-TUNNELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SCHOOL INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR EMPLOYEES (SIPE) et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. CV 050780B) (San Luis Obispo County) Klare Richardson-Tunnell appeals from a judgment of dismissal after an order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE) and Lucia Mar Unified School District (District), each public entities. The court granted their motion without leave to amend and dismissed all causes of action against SIPE and District. Section 821. 6 is a specific statute that provides immunity to public employees that are engaged in prosecutorial and investigatory activities. Cumberland, Coates & Duenow ,David M. Cumberland, Greg A. Coates, and Kevin R. Anderson for Defendants and Respondents Schools Insurance Program for Employees and Lucia Mar Unified School District.
Note:	The government immunity established in Government Code section 821.6 will override liability created by Civil Code section 1708.8, absent an expression of legislative intent to the contrary. Nothing in Civil Code section 1708.8 or its legislative history evidences any intent to create new government liability.
Citation:	157 Cal. App. 4th 1056; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 176
WCC Citation:	WCC 32862007 CA

Case Name:	Richey v. Autonation, Inc.		11/13/2012
Summary:	RICHEY v. AUTONATION, INC. AVERY RICHEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AUTONATION, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. *fn3 In October 2007, while still working full time for Power Toyota, Richey took steps to start a family seafood restaurant. The employee parked near the restaurant for a few minutes and observed Richey sweeping, bending over and using a hammer to hang a sign. On May 1, 2008 Power Toyota terminated Richey for engaging in outside employment while on a leave of absence. The Arbitrator Committed Clear Legal Error in Basing His Decision Solely on Power Toyota's Honest Belief Richey Had Abused His Leave a.
Note:	An employer could not defend against an employee's claim that it wrongfully interfered with his medical leave by firing him based on its good faith belief that the employee was working at another job while he was on leave.
Citation:	B234711
WCC Citation:	WCC 39512012 CA

Case Name:	Rickards v. UPS, Inc.		06/19/2012
Summary:	According to Rickards, Esqueda, who managed the UPS center where Rickards worked, reacted angrily when he learned of Rickards' back injury and did not take him to see a doctor immediately. Raising his voice, Phaykaisorn followed Rickards, got in front of him, and placed a hand on Rickards' chest to stop him. Esqueda interviewed Rickards and Phaykaisorn about the incident and terminated Rickards for unprofessional conduct and unprovoked assault on a supervisor. In declarations, Rickards and his attorney stated that the attorney was authorized to file the complaint on Rickards' behalf. Rickards also relies on his declaration that, "[a]round the time" of Rickards' back injury, Esqueda threatened to have Rickards fired within two weeks.
Note:	A claim of disability discrimination filed by an attorney through the Department of Fair Employment and Housing's automated system is a 'verified' complaint.
Citation:	B234192
WCC Citation:	WCC 39062012 CA

Case Name:	Riddle v. WCAB		03/22/1995
Summary:	Sandra Riddle, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of Palmdale et al. , Respondents. In this matter, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ), the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board), and this court denied applicant relief. On September 14, 1987, City advised applicant by letter that termination of her employment was scheduled for October 12, 1987. Meanwhile, medical treatment was paid for by SCIF and was given by John J. Kayvanfar, M. D. , during 1990 and 1991. Consequently, surgery was performed and applicant was released as physically able to return to work in August 1992.
Note:	Amended 132a pleading which cured defects in fact specification dates back to original filing.
Citation:	60 CCC 170
WCC Citation:	WCC 27641995 CA

Case Name:	Rider v. WCAB		09/30/2009
Summary:	Filed 9/30/09 Rider v. WCAB CA5 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). RHO Beta petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending the WCJ should have apportioned 96 percent of Rider's disability to nonindustrial factors. Rider timely petitioned this court for a writ of review (§ 5950; Cal. The restriction is derived from section 5900, which permits an aggrieved party only from petitioning the WCAB for reconsideration from a final order, decision, or award. In the present case, Rider requests that this court review the WCAB's order granting reconsideration and sending the matter back to the WCJ to obtain additional relevant evidence.
Note:	[Unpublished] Only those orders, decisions and awards of the WCAB deemed to be final have been held to be within section 5950.
Citation:	F058162
WCC Citation:	WCC 35682009 CA

Case Name:	Rio Linda Union School Dist. v. WCAB (Scheftner)		07/26/2005
Summary:	Filed 7/26/05 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) RIO LINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, JANETTE SCHEFTNER, Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 12, 2002, Janelle Scheftner, a third grade teacher at Rio Linda Union Elementary School, slipped on a piece of food as she was walking out of her classroom. She had a back strain in 1997, which had resolved by the time she was hired by the school in 2001. On February 21, 2002, Scheftner went to see her Kaiser physician regarding her school injury. An award of permanent partial disability, attorney fees, and further medical treatment was entered in favor of Scheftner and against the Rio Linda Union School District (District).
Note:	Where there is no final order awarding permanent disability before 04/19/04, the new apportionment standard applies.
Citation:	131 Cal.App.4th 517
WCC Citation:	WCC 31082005 CA

Case Name:	Ristow v. County of San Bernardino et al.		07/31/2012
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Cheryl Ristow (Ristow) sued (1) the County of San Bernardino (the County); (2) the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office (the Office); and (3) San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos (Ramos) (the three defendants are collectively referred to as "defendants"). The FAC lists three defendants: (1) "County of San Bernardino"; (2) "San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office"; and (3) "District Attorney Michael A. Ristow reasons the Office prevailed in the trial court, because "judgment was entered against the County of San Bernardino (erroneously sued and served as San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office). "In the County's supplemental letter brief to this court, it concedes, "The San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office is not a separate entity from the County of San Bernardino, but is a department within San Bernardino County. "The County goes on to write, "Since the Office is not a separate entity from the County of San Bernardino, but is a department within San Bernardino County, it stands in the same shoes as the County. "
Note:	Exclusive remedy bars a lawsuit alleging assault by the San Bernardino County District Attorney because the plaintiff did not name the D.A. in his individual capacity.
Citation:	E053531
WCC Citation:	WCC 39172012 CA