Case Name:	Ritchie v. WCAB		05/04/1994
Summary:	ROCKY D. RITCHIE, Petitioner v. ,WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, Respondents. Procedural History On August 20, 1991, Rocky D. Ritchie (petitioner), then a police detective for the respondent City of Bakersfield (the City), sustained an admitted injury to his back. Petitioner appealed the consultant's decision to respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In due course, the WCAB adopted and incorporated the report and recommendation of the WCJ and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Lack of Discrimination [6a] Petitioner claims that the result arrived at by the WCAB impermissibly discriminates against municipal peace officers.
Note:	Officer not entitled to voc. rehab. after effective date of retirement under PERS.
Citation:	24 Cal.App.4th 1174
WCC Citation:	WCC 26831994 CA

Case Name:	Rivas v. Altawood, Inc.		04/18/2012
Summary:	RIVAS v. ALTAWOOD, INC. CINDY RIVAS, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. ALTAWOOD, INC. , Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. )*fn1 Altawood, a paint manufacturer, employed Rivas as a bookkeeper from February 2006 through November 26, 2006. In a special verdict, the jury found that (1) Rivas was employed by Altawood, (2) Altawood discharged Rivas from her employment based on her pregnancy, (3) Altawood acted with malice, oppression, and fraud, and (4) Altawood was liable to Rivas for $82,777 in damages. In her original complaint, Rivas alleged that Altawood hired her around February 2006 and terminated her on November 26, 2006, "due to her pregnancy. "Accordingly, Rivas requested leave to file the FAC to "amend a typographical error" in her first cause of action.
Note:	A California appellate court on Wednesday upheld an $82,777 award in favor of a bookkeeper who claimed her employer fired her for being pregnant.
Citation:	E049597
WCC Citation:	WCC 38862012 CA

Case Name:	Rivera v. Tower Staffing, etc., et al		11/08/2002
Summary:	------------------- WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUAN A. RIVERA, Applicant, vs. TOWER STAFFING SOLUTIONS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). "With respect to interest and penalties under. . . section 4650(d), applicant received $10,424. 84 in section4650(d) penalties and $1,535. 93 in interest. Between the Award and the Order of Commutation, $109,659. 08 in benefits should have been paid the applicant and applicant's attorney by January 2, 2001. This would mean that the proper amount of the section4650(d) penalty should have been $10,965. 91, not $10,424. 84 as alleged by SCIF. As noted at the outset, SCIF's petition for reconsideration was granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues.
Note:	4650(d) penalties do not apply to lump sum payments.
Citation:	67 CCC 473 [En Banc]
WCC Citation:	WCC 28952002 CA

Case Name:	Rivera v. WCAB		04/08/1987
Summary:	EDDIE RIVERA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Respondents. OPINION STONE, P. J. Petitioner Eddie Rivera (applicant) seeks review of a decision of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) reinstating the decision of the Rehabilitation Bureau (Bureau) which terminated [190 Cal. App. 3d 1454] applicant's rehabilitation benefits. We conclude that the Board erred in determining that applicant's appeal from the Bureau decision was procedurally defective. After his initial request for rehabilitation benefits, Bureau proceedings commenced and he was paid vocational-rehabilitation temporary-disability indemnity. In view of the foregoing, the Board erred in determining that applicant's appeal from the Bureau decision was procedurally defective.
Note:	Declaration of Readiness not procedurally defective as an appeal of Rehab Bureau decision.
Citation:	190 Cal.App.3d 1452
WCC Citation:	WCC 27551987 CA

Case Name:	Rivera v. WCAB		04/08/1987
Summary:	EDDIE RIVERA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Respondents. OPINION STONE, P. J. Petitioner Eddie Rivera (applicant) seeks review of a decision of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) reinstating the decision of the Rehabilitation Bureau (Bureau) which terminated [190 Cal. App. 3d 1454] applicant's rehabilitation benefits. We conclude that the Board erred in determining that applicant's appeal from the Bureau decision was procedurally defective. After his initial request for rehabilitation benefits, Bureau proceedings commenced and he was paid vocational-rehabilitation temporary-disability indemnity. In view of the foregoing, the Board erred in determining that applicant's appeal from the Bureau decision was procedurally defective.
Note:
Citation:	190 Cal.App.3d 1452
WCC Citation:	WCC 27561987 CA

Case Name:	Rivera vs. WCAB (Tower Staffing)		10/03/2003
Summary:	Rivera also requested commutation of future indemnity payments into a lump sum, which was approved by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Accordingly, the decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On December 12, 2000, Rivera and Tower entered into Stipulations with Request for Award (Stipulations), which was awarded by the WCJ. In addition, Rivera would receive a life pension at the indemnity rate of $51. 75 per week after the payment of permanent disability indemnity. At the same time, Rivera petitioned for commutation into a lump sum all future indemnity payments, including the life pension.
Note:	Overrules En Banc decision in Rivera vs Tower Staffing: 4650 applies to both periodic and accrued indemnity, but not commuted lump sums.
Citation:	112 Cal.App.4th 1124
WCC Citation:	WCC 29562003 CA

Case Name:	Rivera-Sanchez v. Perez		03/19/2013
Summary:	RIVERA-SANCHEZ v. PEREZ DOLORES RIVERA-SANCHEZ, Individually and as Successor in Interest, etc. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ALEJANDRO PEREZ, Defendant and Respondent. Prior to the incident, Defendant Perez was informed and believed that there were some areas of dry rot under the eaves on various portions of the roof. The sole cost of the roof repairs was $186. 68, which was the cost of supplies purchased by Perez. The decedent used his own tools and ladder to make the repairs, with the exception of one saw which was provided by Defendant Perez. As decedent was familiar with roof repairs, Defendant Perez did not direct the details of the decedent's work.
Note:	The widow of a California man who fell to his death while performing roof repairs for a friend could not assert a viable claim against the property owner as the putative employer of her late-husband or in tort.
Citation:	C065350
WCC Citation:	WCC 39922013 CA

Case Name:	Rivera-Sanchez v. WCAB		01/16/2009
Summary:	Rules of Court, rule 8. 494) contending a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reducing his permanent disability award from 38 percent to 28 percent following reconsideration lacks substantial evidence. Foster Farms petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending the WCJ's decision was not based on substantial evidence in part because Dr. Burt had not reviewed x-rays of Rivera-Sanchez taken on December 4, 2003. Foster Farms again petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, which the WCAB granted. Rivera-Sanchez contends the WCAB never stated it disbelieved Dr. Burt's assessment of applicant's subjective factors of disability and wonders why his lack of credibility somehow tainted Dr. Burt's opinion. In referring to the "range of evidence" theory in its opinion, the WCAB relied on U. S. Auto Stores v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	A forklift operator is not entitled to a higher permanent partial disability rating because he failed to present a legal basis to reverse the Workers Compensation Appeals Boards factual findings
Citation:	F056372
WCC Citation:	WCC 34802009 CA

Case Name:	Riverview Fire Protection Dist. v. WCAB		03/25/1994
Summary:	RIVERVIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WALTER SMITH, Respondents. 1 Background Walter Smith (applicant), born September 10, 1947, was a firefighter for Riverview Fire Protection District (employer) from September 1980 on. For example, for certain peace officers compensable injury is defined to include a hernia, heart trouble or pneumonia developed during employment. The WCJ and the Board found that the presumption of industrial causation in section 3212. 1 applied in this case. That statute does not provide the level of presumption enumerated in the other statutes listed in the preceding paragraph.
Note:	Presumption of cancer in firefighters eliminates need to show that cancer proximately caused by exposure to carcinogens.
Citation:	23 Cal.App.4th 1120
WCC Citation:	WCC 28891994 CA

Case Name:	RMC Pacific Materials v. Metropolitan Stevedore		09/10/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR RMC PACIFIC MATERIALS, INC. , Cross-complainant and Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY, INC. , Cross-defendant and Appellant. FACTS*FN1 Respondent RMC Pacific Materials, Inc. (RMC) imports and sells cement. RMC contracted with appellant Metropolitan Stevedore Company, Inc. (Metropolitan) to provide longshoreman laborers who unload the ships. Metropolitan agreed to indemnify RMC from claims asserted against RMC "by any person for personal injury [or] death" resulting from Metropolitan's negligence. Metropolitan notes that the jury assigned 100 percent of the causal blame for the fatal accident to Metropolitan and zero percent to RMC, yet awarded RMC only 75 percent of the amount RMC paid to settle with Padgett's heirs (i. e. , $4,687,500 of the $6,250,000 paid).
Note:	Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the employer's negligence was the proximate cause of the longshoreman's death. The trial court did not erroneously instruct the jury that the employer was responsible for Padgett's death.
Citation:	A119173
WCC Citation:	WCC 35652009 CA

Case Name:	Robbins v. Sharp Healthcare		09/26/2006
Summary:	These allegations are based principally upon past recusal orders of Judge Ordas indicating bias against the firm and its attorneys. The accusing attorneys, some still in TIPD's firm, testified against the WCJs and submitted documentation in support of their allegations. I have not done a file audit yet but that will probably take place within the next quarter if necessary. If a judge has previously exercised recusals in any kind of blanket' fashion, that practice is now going to stop - beginning today. "I am confident that each of you has great skill and aptitude when it comes to legal reasoning.
Note:	Bias or the appearance of bias solely against an attorney or law firm may be a valid ground for a petition for disqualification of a WCJ.
Citation:	71 CCC 1291
WCC Citation:	WCC 31852006 CA

Case Name:	Robbins v. Yellow Cab Co.		06/03/1948
Summary:	No. 16268 June 3, 1948 MARTHA GOUGH ROBBINS, APPELLANT, v. YELLOW CAB CO. (A CORPORATION), RESPONDENT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. plaintiff is not entitled to proceed against the employer in this case," and entered its judgment of dismissal of the action. [85 CalApp2d Page 813] Appellant was respondent's cashier and worked on the "graveyard" shift -- midnight to 8 o'clock a. m. Her husband was also employed by respondent but he worked in the daytime in the trim department. Compensation may be awarded by the commission only for an injury "arising out of and in the course of the employment. "
Note:	Injury not compensable if check can be picked up at place of employee's convenience.
Citation:	85 Cal. App. 2d 811
WCC Citation:	WCC 30511948 CA

Case Name:	Robertson vs. WCAB, Moutain People's Warehouse		10/21/2003
Summary:	ABRAHAM ROBERTSON, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MOUNTAIN PEOPLE'S WAREHOUSE et al. , Respondents. In this workers' compensation action, we conclude that the employer, Mountain People's Warehouse (hereafter Company), failed to satisfy its obligation to offer the benefit of vocational rehabilitation (VR) to its injured employee, Abraham Robertson (Robertson). Subsequently, Robertson was found to be a qualified injured worker, making him eligible to receive VR. The one exception involved an absence so Robertson could care for his seriously ill wife. If Robertson is not disqualified from receiving payment for medical treatment and for disability, why, then, is he disqualified from receiving VR benefits?
Note:	Alternative work offer to position from which terminated not in good faith, not meet VR requirements.
Citation:	112 Cal.App.4th 893
WCC Citation:	WCC 29572003 CA

Case Name:	Robinson v. City of Los Angeles		05/18/2012
Summary:	ROBINSON v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES STEVEN L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Gregory P. Orland, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. When plaintiff Steven L. Robinson, a firefighter and fire department helicopter pilot employed by defendant City of Los Angeles (the City), became disabled, the City employed him in an unofficial and unbudgeted light-duty position for more than six years, paying him out of the fire department's discretionary funds. The City offered substantial evidence that the Civil Service Commission and Los Angeles City Council created the fire helicopter pilot classification in 2008, five years after Robinson's disability was deemed to be permanent. Here, Robinson has not identified any reasonable accommodation for his disability other than the one offered by the City, i. e. , as dispatcher.
Note:	An injured fire helicopter pilot who lacked the requisite medical clearance to continue flying could not assert a viable claim of disability discrimination based on his employer's refusal to assign him to a pilot position after his light-duty job was eliminated.
Citation:	B230078
WCC Citation:	WCC 38962012 CA

Case Name:	Robinson v. Pascoe Steel Corp.		11/29/1977
Summary:	JEAN ROBINSON, widow (JERRY L. ROBINSON, deceased) Applicant v. PASCOE STEEL CORPORATION, self-insured, Defendant. W. C. A. B. Nos. It consisted of a two part form as follows: 'I, JEAN ROBINSON, widow of JERRY L. ROBINSON, deceased, hereby give my full permission for the exhumation and autopsy of Jerry L. Robinson. [signed]Jean Robinson JEAN ROBINSON, widow of JERRY L. ROBINSON, deceased. ''I, JEAN ROBINSON, widow of JERRY L. ROBINSON, deceased, refuse to give my permission for the exhumation and autopsy of Jerry L. Robinson. [signed) JEAN ROBINSON, widow of JERRY L. ROBINSON, deceased. '
Note:	Board will not order exhumation unless necessary and serves justice.
Citation:	42 CCC 891
WCC Citation:	WCC 25941977 CA

Case Name:	Robinson v. WCAB		09/09/1987
Summary:	STELLING ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondents (Opinion by Best, J. , with Woolpert, Acting P. J. , and Reid, J. , concurring. )Pursuant to respondents' motion, the WCAB ordered petitioner to report for examination to Dr. Joseph Bailey who was appointed by the Board as an independent medical examiner. Based on the existing evidence, the WCAB could have issued an award that was even less favorable to petitioner. III Was the WCAB precluded from making a permanent disability award because vocational rehabilitation benefits had been resumed?This court having determined that the WCAB did not abuse its discretion in failing to permit petitioner to withdraw from the stipulation, petitioner's contention must fail.
Note:	Tried to object after stipulating to determination of permanent disability.
Citation:	194 Cal.App.3d 784
WCC Citation:	WCC 25611987 CA

Case Name:	Roby v. McKesson Corp.		11/30/2009
Summary:	Roby also asserted that McKesson had applied the attendance policy unevenly, overlooking instances when other employees were absent without notice. On April 14, 2000, McKesson terminated Roby by telephone, and it sent a followup letter on April 17, 2000. This led to an $800,000 reduction in the total compensatory damages award against employer McKesson, resulting in a net compensatory damages award of $2,005,000 for Roby. None involved Schoener's exercising the authority that McKesson had delegated to her so as to cause McKesson, in its corporate capacity, to take some action with respect to Roby. The majority assigns a relatively low degree of reprehensibility to the conduct of defendant McKesson Corporation (McKesson) toward plaintiff Charlene Roby.
Note:	In the circumstances of this case the amount of compensatory damages sets the ceiling for the punitive damages.
Citation:	S149752
WCC Citation:	WCC 35842009 CA

Case Name:	Roby v. McKesson HBOC, et al.		12/26/2006
Summary:	Two years later, McKesson fired Roby for abusing its attendance policy, although many of her absences were attributable to her psychiatric disability. Roby told Saamer the absences were related to her panic disorder, and that she was trying to get it stabilized. McKesson supervisors Christopher Rafter and Grover told Roby she was subject to termination for abuse of the absence program. McKesson HBOC changed its name to McKesson Corporation during the pendency of this litigation. McKesson filed a separate appeal (C048799) from the trial court's postjudgment award to Roby of $728,668. 75 for attorney fees.
Note:	Schoener did not commit discriminatory harassment under FEHA. The appellate court also reduced Roby's award against McKesson $1.4 million in compensatory damages, and $2 million in punitive damages.
Citation:	C047617
WCC Citation:	WCC 35522006 CA

Case Name:	Rocha vs. Puccia Construction, Zenith Ins. Co.		04/30/1982
Summary:	JAVIER ROCHA, Applicant v. PUCCIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Following the Board's decision to consider this matter en banc, it solicited amicus curiae briefs from interested parties in the workers' compensation community. Participation of employers was wholly voluntary, their financial responsibility was limited, and employees who opted for rehabilitation were subject to post-rehabilitation reevaluation for permanent disability entitlements. Finally, we do not find the withholding of money without a Board order is in contravention of Labor Code Section 4902. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Jack R. Fenton, Chairman Robert E. Burton John F. Dunlap Gordon R. Gaines H. J. Martin C. L. Swezey Richard W. Younkin
Note:	Rehab attorney fee based on time and effort extended by attorney.
Citation:	47 CCC 377 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28261982 CA

Case Name:	Rodgers v. Long Beach Civil Service Commission		08/14/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE DAN RODGERS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LONG BEACH CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al. , Defendants and Appellants. The City of Long Beach (the City) appeals an order granting a petition for writ of mandate directing the Long Beach Civil Service Commission (the Commission) to determine the amount of back pay and benefits the City owes respondent, Dan Rodgers. Rodgers filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Los Angeles Superior Court challenging the Commission's ruling. Rodgers appeared for a scheduled "return to work" medical examination on September 23, 2005, pursuant to the City's civil service rules. The trial court directed the Commission to calculate the amount due Rodgers and the amount of any offsets to which the City was entitled.
Note:	[Unpublished] Claim for back pay and benefits is exempt from the requirements of the Workers' Compensation Act because it is incidental to the demand for reinstatement. The City cannot, by reinstating Rodgers, eliminate his claim for back pay and benefits.
Citation:	B200060
WCC Citation:	WCC 34122008 CA

Case Name:	Rodgers v. Sargent Controls & Aerospace		01/30/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE No. A110023 January 30, 2006 JAMES RODGERS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SARGENT CONTROLS & AEROSPACE, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Respondent Sargent Controls & Aerospace (respondent or Sargent) was alleged to be liable to appellant as a successor-in-interest to other corporate entities: Sargent Industries, Inc. , Kahr Bearing Corporation (Kahr), Aetna Steel Products Corporation (Aetna), and Arnot Marine Corporation (Arnot). In February of 1969, respondent's predecessor, Sargent Industries, Inc. , purchased 488,933 of the common outstanding shares of Kahr from a company known as GAC Corporation. *fn3 Appellant did not dispute that Sargent assumed no tort liabilities from Kahr under the stock purchase agreement. In December of 1973, the Board of Directors of Sargent merged Kahr into Sargent, and resolved to purchase the outstanding shares of Kahr not yet held by the parent company - then less than 10 percent.
Note:	Collateral estoppel does not preclude asbestos litigation on successor in interest theory.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 4th 82
WCC Citation:	WCC 31392006 CA

Case Name:	Rodgers v. WCAB		05/22/1985
Summary:	JIMMY RODGERS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY et al. , Respondents. [168 Cal. App. 3d 569] Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe, Alvin R. Barrett, Strantz, Sobelsohn & Elkin and Ruth Sobelsohn for Respondents. We hold that the approved settlement does preclude any further claim for ordinary compensation benefits for the effects of the secondary injury. 'On the contrary, he is seeking ordinary compensation, the very benefits which were released by the compromise and release. '(1983) 33 Cal. 3d 965 [191 Cal. Rptr. 811, 663 P. 2d 534] and Morehouse v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Employer required to pay ordinary comp. benefits if applicant injured in voc. rehab.
Citation:	168 Cal.App.3d 567
WCC Citation:	WCC 4061985 CA

Case Name:	Rodriguez v. Garden Plating Co., Intercare Holdings Insurance Services		10/26/2017
Summary:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             JOSE GUILLERMINA RODRIGUEZ, Applicant, .             v. .             GARDEN PLATING CO. , INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, Defendants. .           (C) Has provided treatment authorized by the employer or claims administrator under Section 4610. .           (D) Has made a diligent search and determined that the employer does not have a medical provider network in place. .           (E) Has documentation that medical treatment has been neglected or unreasonably refused to the employee as provided by Section 4600. .           (G) Is a certified interpreter rendering services during a medicallegal examination, a copy service providing medical-legal services, or has an expense allowed as a lien under rules adopted by the administrative director.
Note:	A Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board en banc decision handed down Thursday confirmed the right of lien claimants to have a hearing on the timeliness of declarations that were due by July 1, but noted the issue was moot as the Division of Workers’ Compensation already said it would allow administrative law judges to hear such arguments.
Citation:	ADJ8588344 (MF)
WCC Citation:

Case Name:	Rodriguez v. WCAB		01/26/1994
Summary:	CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, JERSEYMAID MILK PRODUCTS et al. , Respondents. The plan specified that the employer was required to provide all necessary vocational rehabilitation services and benefits. The copy of the plan in the Board's certified record does not contain the signatures of the employers and their attorney. Dr. Patzakis stated that applicant had constant minimal lower back pain, 'increasing to slight [and] becoming moderate with very heavy lifting. 'However, Dr. Patzakis recommended that applicant be evaluated by an agreed or independent medical examiner in psychiatry.
Note:	Despite 'liberal construction': Psychiatric reaction to work comp case not compensable; Need for non-prescriptive Rx not 'future medical'.
Citation:	21 Cal.App.4th 1747
WCC Citation:	WCC 3981994 CA

Case Name:	Roe v. WCAB		11/27/1974
Summary:	HAROLD H. ROE, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, AEROJET GENERAL CORPORATION et al. , Respondents In Bank. Roe, an employee, received severe industrial injuries in an accident featured by the negligence of a third party. Roe and the third party settled the lawsuit without reference to the employer's status. Roe then applied to the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board for [12 Cal. 3d 887] permanent disability benefits. The referee refused to inquire into the employer's concurrent negligence, awarded Roe a permanent disability rating of 96 1/2 percent and ordered that Roe's net settlement be credited against the insurance carrier's liability for permanent disability.
Note:	Employer may get credit even though extent of employer negligence not yet decided in 3rd party suit.
Citation:	12 Cal.3d 884
WCC Citation:	WCC 23831974 CA

Case Name:	Roger Mann v. County of Madera		04/28/2011
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION Plaintiff Roger Mann sued defendant County of Madera after the county forced Mann, a deputy sheriff, into a retirement based on disability. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORIES The Madera County Sheriff's Department hired Mann in 1997. The workers' compensation administrator told the county employee that Mann was not cleared to return to work, and the county employee reported this to Benard. Mann also told her that if he could not go back to work as a patrol deputy in Madera County, he would like to work in another county, such as Merced. Mann claims a reasonable jury could not have found that the county did not apply a policy like this to Mann.
Note:	Madera County engaged in the interactive process with a disabled sheriff's deputy before forcing him into disability retirement.
Citation:	F058779
WCC Citation:	WCC 37562011 CA

Case Name:	Rogers v. WCAB		10/07/1985
Summary:	ROGERS v. WORKERS' COMP. JESSICA ROGERS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY et al. , Respondents. However, the biker grabbed her from behind, struck her, beat her down, took her purse and fled on his motorcycle. Guards 'are supposed to patrol the areas at all hours, but they were on their lunch hour, I guess. 'Hughes issues decals to the employees to park in certain sections of the lot, but no particular stalls are assigned.
Note:	Applicant failed to meet burden of proof with deposition testimony alone; Board can draw reasonable inferences from evidence presented.
Citation:	172 Cal.App.3d 1195
WCC Citation:	WCC 4001985 CA

Case Name:	Rohrback vs. WCAB		01/25/1983
Summary:	PAUL ROHRBACK, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, M & J LOGGING et al. , Respondents. There is and has been no dispute between the parties on the underlying question of liability. He suffered internal injuries as well as injuries to his ribs, clavicle, and an arm. [144 Cal. App. 3d 899] Most of the proceedings below were devoted to fixing the extent of petitioner's permanent disability. The board's ultimate finding on the credit issue is not before this court, and we do not review it.
Note:	Definition of 'liability' regarding 'genuine doubt' for purposes of 5814 penalty.
Citation:	144 CA3d 896
WCC Citation:	WCC 30141983 CA

Case Name:	Rolda vs. Pitney Bowes, Inc.		02/21/2001
Summary:	In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ also stated that applicant's psychiatric injury was not the result of a good faith personnel action. As the psychiatric injury in this case was not evaluated in this manner, we will rescind the Findings and Award of June 19. He was assigned a territory in which to work, where he would call upon existing patrons and make sales presentations to potential customers. "It would be concluded that Mr. Rolda sustained an industrial injury to the psyche. (Johnson) (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1068 (writ denied) [supervision by harassment, ridicule, and generally unprofessional conduct is not a good faith personnel action].
Note:	Proper analysis to follow where defense is good faith personnel action.
Citation:	66 CCC 241 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3642001 CA

Case Name:	Romero v. Costco Wholesale		06/14/2007
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Nelly Romero, Applicant, v. Costco Wholesale, permissibly self-insured, Defendant Case No. OAK 0328271 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING REMOVAL Defendant seeks removal to the Appeals Board from the Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 2, 2006. Accordingly, the WCJ ordered the medical unit to issue a new QME panel, comprised of three chiropractors. We have considered the allegations raised in defendant's petition and applicant's answer thereto, as well as the content of the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, we will deny removal and, thereby, affirm the WCJ's order for a new QME panel. While applicant was not represented by an attorney, her treating physician issued a report recommending physical therapy, including pool therapy.
Note:	An employee has 'received' a comprehensive medical-legal evaluation when the employee attends and participates in the medical evaluator's examination.
Citation:	72 CCC 824
WCC Citation:	WCC 32322007 CA

Case Name:	Rosales v. Depuy Ace Medical Co.		02/07/2000
Summary:	HECTOR ROSALES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPUY ACE MEDICAL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. [22 Cal. 4th 281] Graham & James, James H. Broderick, Jr. , Benjamin E. Goldman and Brian F. Van Vleck for Defendant and Respondent. (Ceja v. J. R. Wood, Inc. (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 1372 (Ceja); Graham v. Hopkins, supra, 13 Cal. App. 4th 1483 (Graham). )The appellate court held the saw was not a power press because the saw blade was not a die. They determine that Rosales, who was injured after defendant Depuy Ace Medical Company intentionally [22 Cal. 4th 289] removed a point of operation guard from the Wasino L3-J3, could not seek a tort remedy under Labor Code section 4558 because the machine is not a power press within the meaning of the statute.
Note:	Defining what constitutes a 'die.'
Citation:	22 Cal.4th 279
WCC Citation:	WCC 24212000 CA

Case Name:	Rosales v. Keenan & Associates		09/23/2008
Summary:	Filed 9/23/08 Rosales v. Keenan & Associates CA2/2 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). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO CONNIE DIANA ROSALES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KEENAN & ASSOCIATES, Defendant and Respondent. On or about June 27, 2006, Claimquest paid the lien by check in the amount of $24,432 to EDD. On June 22, 2006, appellant filed the complaint in this matter, alleging causes of action against respondent for breach of contract and fraud. Her complaint was apparently based on her mistaken belief that she, not the EDD, was entitled to collect the EDD's lien.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because appellant has not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on her claims, the anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted.
Citation:	B199725
WCC Citation:	WCC 34282008 CA

Case Name:	Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications		01/24/2008
Summary:	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA GARY ROSS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. RAGINGWIRE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. , DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. On September 10, 2001, defendant RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. , offered plaintiff a job as lead systems administrator. In September 2001, plaintiff accepted a job with defendant RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. (RagingWire) as a lead systems analyst. Nevertheless, without offering any other form of accommodation for his back condition, RagingWire discharged plaintiff because of his at-home, doctor-recommended marijuana use. RagingWire has not argued that plaintiff's requested accommodation would interfere with the rights or interests of its other employees.
Note:	An employer did not violate the Fair Employment and Housing Act by firing a medical marijuana user for failing a drug test because the 1996 initiative that legalized medical marijuana use did not create a general right to use medical marijuana, but only protected patients from criminal sanctions.
Citation:	S138130
WCC Citation:	WCC 37172008 CA

Case Name:	Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.		01/24/2008
Summary:	On September 10, 2001, defendant RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. , offered plaintiff a job as lead systems administrator. In September 2001, plaintiff accepted a job with defendant RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. (RagingWire) as a lead systems analyst. Nevertheless, without offering any other form of accommodation for his back condition, RagingWire discharged plaintiff because of his at-home, doctor-recommended marijuana use. RagingWire has not argued that plaintiff's requested accommodation would interfere with the rights or interests of its other employees. Name of Opinion Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.
Note:	Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action under the FEHA based on defendant employer's refusal to accommodate his use of medical marijuana.
Citation:	S138130
WCC Citation:	WCC 33052008 CA

Case Name:	Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.		09/07/2005
Summary:	Instant case depublished by Ross v. Ragingwire, 36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494, 123 P. 3d 930. In accordance with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, plaintiff Gary Ross had a physician's recommendation to use marijuana for his chronic back pain. Plaintiff then got a call from the clinic, advising him that he had tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main chemical found in marijuana. On September 20, 2001, defendant informed plaintiff that he was being suspended as a result of the drug test results. Plaintiff gave defendant a copy of his physician's recommendation and explained that he used marijuana to relieve chronic back pain.
Note:	FEHA does not preclude employers from firing or not hiring a person who uses illegal drugs.
Citation:	132 Cal. App. 4th 590
WCC Citation:	WCC 31182005 CA

Case Name:	Roth v. WCAB		10/06/1971
Summary:	EDWIN N. ROTH, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, E. R. SMITH et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Reppy, J. , with Kaus, P. J. , and Aiso, J. , concurring. )Dr. Weaver reported that the symptoms were not caused by physical damage and that he suspected malingering. That was the date when applicant had an appointment with Dr. Eugene Malitz for a psychiatric examination. In the event that Mr. Roth fails to appear at that time, the matter will be dismissed. In preparation for trial, defendants are entitled to further medical evaluation and if Mr. Roth fails in any way to cooperate in that examination, the matter will be dismissed. '
Note:	Benefits may be barred if an applicant does not submit to a medical exam.
Citation:	20 Cal.App.3d 452
WCC Citation:	WCC 24031971 CA

Case Name:	Roth vs. L.A. Door		02/24/2004
Summary:	I FACTS John Michael Roth (Roth), a Nutrilite Products (Nutrilite) employee, was injured on November 1, 1999, during the course and scope of his employment. While Roth was on Nutrilite premises, a metal overhead trailer door fell to a "closed" position, striking him in the back of the head. Nutrilite paid workers' compensation benefits to Roth through RSKCo. , Nutrilite's independent third party workers' compensation benefits administrator. Door), alleging that it had designed and manufactured the door. It sought reimbursement for the workers' compensation benefits it had paid to Roth on account of his injuries.
Note:	Self insured employer cannot subrogate vs. CIGA nor insured of insolvent carrier.
Citation:	115 Cal.App.4th 1249
WCC Citation:	WCC 29712004 CA

Case Name:	Routh v. Kern County Probation Department		02/01/2012
Summary:	MELISSA ROUTH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KERN COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, Defendant and Respondent. Kern County has adopted a Civil Service System by which discipline of County employees is carried out. On June 25, 2009, Routh filed a complaint in Kern Superior Court, naming the Department as the sole defendant. Certainly the Department had the right to confront Routh about both her probation reports and her time card. In County of Riverside, an officer obtained employment with the County of Riverside when his prior employer, the City of Perris, discontinued its police department and contracted with the County for law enforcement.
Note:	The exclusive remedy of workers' compensation did not bar a Kern County probation officer's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Citation:	F061156
WCC Citation:	WCC 38522012 CA

Case Name:	Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. WCAB		08/27/1978
Summary:	ROYAL GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JAMES FAULKNER, Respondents. Reconsideration was sought on the ground that Royal Globe had '. . . discovered new evidence, material to [it] . . . , which [it] . . . could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the hearing. 'Scope of employment was seriously contested at the hearing on November 22, 1977, and in response to Faulkner's testimony on the subject (by deposition, infra), Royal Globe offered several witnesses. Nineteen days later, on January 13, 1978, Fosdick and Royal Globe filed with the board a 'Petition for Reconsideration on Grounds of New and After Discovered Evidence. '[1a] Fosdick and Royal Globe claim an abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.
Note:	Recon. not granted where 'new' evidence was at all times in possess. of one of the parties.
Citation:	84 Cal.App.3d 287
WCC Citation:	WCC 26721978 CA

Case Name:	Royse v. Lexington Insurance Co.		11/26/2008
Summary:	In this personal injury action, plaintiff Joseph Royse appeals from summary judgments entered in favor of defendants Lexington Insurance Company and DC3-E, LLLP. Lexington accepted the claim and provided workers' compensation insurance coverage to Royse as a "Residence Employee" under the policy. As of November 14, 2006, Lexington had paid Royse and his health care providers a total of $633,453. The evidence adduced below demonstrated that Royse was employed at the ranch, that the ranch was insured under a homeowners insurance policy issued by Lexington that contained workers' compensation coverage for residence employees, and that Lexington paid Royse and his health care providers over $600,000 of benefits under the policy. Royse argues Lexington "exhibited its knowledge that Mr. Royse did not work for Mrs. Phelps through its actions in the worker's compensation case .
Note:	A claimant failed to show that a carrier conspired with a homeowner to claim that he was a resident employee at the time of his injury.
Citation:	A117798
WCC Citation:	WCC 34652008 CA

Case Name:	Royse v. Phelps		04/15/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR No. A121487 JOSEPH ROYSE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JONATHAN PHELPS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. DR050078) Joseph Royse appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Jonathan Phelps (Phelps) in this action. Further, Royse has not pled any facts suggesting that Phelps was involved in exercising any control over Royse's activities at the ranch. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Royse had failed to adduce any evidence contradicting the court's prior conclusion that Royse was employed by Esther Phelps. The 2002 Uniform Business Report, however, deletes Jon D. Phelps as a managing member and lists solely Esther Phelps as the manager.
Note:	[Unpublished] A ranch hand's personal injury suit against his employer and a business that the employer allegedly acted on behalf of failed because of a lack of evidence.
Citation:	A121487
WCC Citation:	WCC 35142009 CA

Case Name:	Rubalcava v. WCAB		05/22/1990
Summary:	ROSALINA RUBALCAVA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, PIZZAMANIA et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Woods (A. M. ), P. J. , with George and Goertzen, JJ. , concurring. )Dr. Schusselin, a psychiatrist, diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder with anxiety, depression, poor recollection, and flashbacks of the accident. SCIF petitioned for reconsideration, challenging the WCJ's findings as to the extent of applicant's psychiatric permanent disability and the disability compensation rate. In a split decision, the Board majority concluded the disability compensation rate should be based on her actual earnings at the time of injury. (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 548 [86 Cal. Rptr. 288] [part-time worker at time of injury studying to obtain teaching credential]. )
Note:	Specific demonstrable evidence of higher earning capacity but for injury justifies higher indemnity rate.
Citation:	220 Cal.App.3d 901
WCC Citation:	WCC 29501990 CA

Case Name:	Rubio v. WCAB		03/04/1985
Summary:	GREGORY RUBIO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondents. Factual and Procedural Background On May 29, 1980, petitioner Gregory Rubio filed an application for adjudication of claim with the Board arising out of an employment-related injury which occurred on April 16, 1980. 1 (Ibid) However, petitioner did not set forth the specific factual basis of his claim with respect to this issue. After hearing on the ordinary compensation issues, the Board, on May 25, 1983, made an award in favor of petitioner. 3 The Board dismissed petitioner's amended application as untimely and, by a two-to-one majority, denied his petition for reconsideration.
Note:	Amended application for claim of serious/willful misconduct is filed as of date of original if it sets forth no new legal theory, set of facts, cause of action.
Citation:	165 Cal.App.3d 196
WCC Citation:	WCC 27571985 CA

Case Name:	Rucker v. WCAB		07/13/2000
Summary:	ALBERTA RUCKER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents. By notice dated August 22, 1996, trial was scheduled for December 20, 1996, before Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) Marilyn Ward. On November 21, 1996, petitioner's attorney, Edward Singer, wrote to the court, requesting that two new issues be addressed at trial. 4 A 'cc' notation at the bottom of the letter indicates that a copy was sent to respondent's attorney, Richard Brennan. PDA was once again brought up in a settlement conference held on May 25, 1999, before WCJ Ward.
Note:	While applicant cannot receive VRMA and PD simultaneously, 139.5 authorizes PDAs.
Citation:	82 Cal.App.4th 151
WCC Citation:	WCC 3802000 CA

Case Name:	Ruiz v. Cabrera		05/30/2002
Summary:	HOMERO RUIZ, an Incompetent Person, etc. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JUAN CABRERA, Defendant and Respondent. On September 7, 1997, plaintiff Homero Ruiz was an agricultural laborer hired by defendant Juan Cabrera, doing business as J. C. 1 Cabrera directed another of his employees, Ofelia Lopez, to provide transportation for part of the work crew, including Ruiz, in her van. Ruiz, through his guardian ad litem, sued Cabrera, Lopez, and others in an action that eventually was consolidated with actions brought by other injured crew members and the survivors of those killed in the accident. In granting judgment for Cabrera, the trial court concluded that, because Ruiz was an employee of Cabrera and was injured in the course and scope of his employment, workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy available to Ruiz.
Note:	California Farm Labor Contractor Act does not create an exception to exclusive remedy.
Citation:	98 Cal.App.4th 1198
WCC Citation:	WCC 28582002 CA

Case Name:	Ruiz v. Herman Weissker, Inc.		06/09/2005
Summary:	TAWNYA D. RUIZ, as Personal Representative, etc. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HERMAN WEISSKER, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Fairbairn looked up and saw Ruiz hanging upside down with his legs caught in the ladder; he shouted at Ruiz, but got no response. Fairbairn climbed back onto the tower and began yelling to the crew to call 911 and help him get Ruiz down. Fairbairn gave Ruiz mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, periodically checking Ruiz's pulse, and continued to call for help for more than a half hour. At 4:45 p. m. , paramedics took Ruiz by ambulance to the emergency room at Sharp Memorial Hospital; Ruiz died shortly thereafter.
Note:	Privette and Hooker principles apply also to hirer's agent - no liability to subcontractor's employee injured as result of subcontractor's negligence.
Citation:	130 Cal.App.4th 52
WCC Citation:	WCC 31022005 CA

Case Name:	Ruiz v. Industrial Accident Commission		10/28/1955
Summary:	SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA L. A. No. 23751 October 28, 1955 JOSEFA P. RUIZ, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission denying a claim for death benefits. Spence [45 Cal2d Page 410] This is a proceeding to review the order of the Industrial Accident Commission denying death benefits to petitioner, who is the surviving wife of Joaquin Ruiz. Accordingly, the commission made an award of permanent disability payments for a period of 240 weeks, and a life pension thereafter. The commission found that petitioner's "application was filed more than 240 weeks from the date of injury and the claim is therefore barred. "The order of the Industrial Accident Commission is affirmed.
Note:	The commission properly denied relief based upon the 240-week limitation in Labor Code 5406.
Citation:	23751
WCC Citation:	WCC 35491955 CA

Case Name:	Runnion v. WCAB		11/18/1997
Summary:	The workers' compensation judge (WCJ) held Runnion in contempt and sanctioned him for failing to appear at a scheduled hearing. We question holding Runnion in contempt in this situation, where he was not directly ordered to appear for the neglected hearing. When Evans called Runnion by telephone from the hearing location, Runnion advised her he had no intention of appearing and that if she wanted the information, she could depose Gore. The WCJ concluded Runnion had no valid reason for failing to appear and fined him $250 for contempt. TIMEC directs our attention to no order requiring Runnion to attend the hearing and no agreement by Runnion to appear for the conference/hearing.
Note:	Attorney sanctioned for not showing at hearing, fees were to compensate for time wasted.
Citation:	59 Cal.App.4th 277
WCC Citation:	WCC 26261997 CA

Case Name:	Russ et al. v. Fremont Unified School District		12/30/2008
Summary:	U] Russ v. Fremont Unified School Dist. , No. A119260 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 12/30/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No. A119260 December 30, 2008 THELMA RUSS ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. FREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. This is an appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court granted respondent Fremont Unified School District's motion for summary judgment. The Complaint On October 31, 2005, appellants Thelma Russ, Steven Wheeler and Sandy Wheeler (collectively, appellants) filed a complaint against the Fremont Unified School District (the District) in Alameda County Superior Court. The Russ 1978 lease agreement remained in effect until 2002, when Russ signed a new lease agreement (the Russ 2002 lease agreement). Russ signed new lease agreements containing these same terms in 2003 and 2004 (the Russ 2003 and 2004 lease agreements).
Note:	Three tenants who leased space from the Fremont Unified School District in exchange for their services were most likely the district's employees as a matter of law.
Citation:	A119260
WCC Citation:	WCC 34722008 CA

Case Name:	S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Indus. Rel.		03/23/1989
Summary:	Borello will retain title to the crop until it is sold, but the 'Share Farmer' and Borello will split the gross proceeds equally. Borello undertakes to keep all necessary weight, grade, and price records, which shall be open to the 'Share Farmer's' inspection. Richard and Johnny Borello, principals of the company, testified as follows: Borello grows a number of crops, including cucumbers. The workers 'could' transport their own harvest to Vlasic, but Borello handles the transportation because that is what Vlasic prefers. The workers leave once the cucumber harvest is over and do not harvest any other crops for Borello.
Note:	Employers not required to secure compensation for non-employees, e.g. indep. contractors.
Citation:	48 Cal.3d 341
WCC Citation:	WCC 24331989 CA