Case Name:	Jeffrey Tverberg v. Fillner Construction (1st DCA opinion)		12/05/2008
Summary:	Fillner contracted with Lane Supply, which in turn hired Perry Construction, Inc. (Perry), to install a canopy at the project site. On May 2, 2006, Jeffrey Tverberg fell into a hole at the project site, resulting in both physical and emotional injuries. *fn1 Jeffrey Tverberg alleged causes of action for negligence and premises liability; Catherine Tverberg pled a cause of action for loss of consortium. Finding that Fillner had established a complete defense to the Tverbergs' action, the trial court entered judgment for Fillner in November 2007. Furthermore, those assertions are supported by a declaration from a Fillner employee made under penalty of perjury, by a declaration from Jeffrey Tverberg made under penalty of perjury and by the deposition testimony of Jeffrey Tverberg himself.
Note:	An injured independent contractor is not barred from filing a personal injury action against a general contractor, despite a contrary ruling by another appellate court.
Citation:	A120050
WCC Citation:	WCC 34662008 CA

Case Name:	Jeffrey v. Temple City Unified School District		02/11/2013
Summary:	JEFFREY v. TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RANDOLPH JEFFREY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of a public school district, in a lawsuit alleging that the district violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FACTS Plaintiff's Employment and Injuries Randolph Jeffrey was hired as a part-time custodian in December 2005 by the Temple City Unified School District (TCUSD) to perform light maintenance and repairs, and to direct traffic. TCUSD contacted Jeffrey regularly regarding his medical status until he told the district to "stop harassing me while I'm convalescing. "Jeffrey's Ability to Do His Job The school district contends that Jeffrey cannot prevail on his discrimination claim because he was not "qualified to do his job. "
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an injured school custodian's claims of disability discrimination failed as a matter of law.
Citation:	B241688
WCC Citation:	WCC 39852013 CA

Case Name:	Jenkins v. WCAB		05/29/1975
Summary:	ELDA E. JENKINS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Taylor, P. J. , with Kane and Rouse, JJ. , concurring. )COUNSEL Maurice S. Marcus and Richard A. Hellesto for Petitioner. T. Groezinger, James J. Vonk, George S. Bjornsen and Robert A. The policy expressed in Labor Code section 3202 applies equally to 'the courts' and to the board (Gross v. Workmen's Comp. The policy seems frequently overlooked by the board (Gross, supra, p. 403).
Note:	Commutation of death benefit appropriate where beneficiary terminally ill.
Citation:	48 Cal.App.3d 570, 40 CCC 329
WCC Citation:	WCC 24241975 CA

Case Name:	Jensen vs. Amgen		02/03/2003
Summary:	DARCY M. JENSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMGEN, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff and appellant Darcy M. Jensen is employed by defendant and respondent Amgen, Inc. as a module team coordinator. Amgen transferred Jensen out of buildings 5 and 15 shortly after the safety report was filed. Jensen voluntarily dismissed her claim for unfair business practices and appealed the judgment subsequently entered in favor of Amgen. Nor did Jensen present evidence of the second condition necessary for the fraudulent concealment exception, namely, that Amgen concealed the connection between her symptoms and her employment.
Note:	Work comp is exclusive remedy for injuries from mold in the workplace absent fraudulent concealment.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 1322
WCC Citation:	WCC 29122003 CA

Case Name:	Jensen vs. WCAB		07/19/1985
Summary:	OTTO JENSEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GILLIG CORPORATION, Respondents. Carl J. Weber and Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen for Respondents. [170 Cal. App. 3d 246] OPINION KLINE, P. J. Petitioner Otto Jensen seeks review of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) opinion and order denying reconsideration. Petitioner Jensen was employed as a sheet metal welder by respondent Gillig Corporation and was injured in a fall in the course of his employment. On December 13, petitioner filed a petition for imposition of a 10 percent penalty for respondent's failure to pay temporary disability compensation.
Note:	No 'grace period' for delay in payment provided by the statutory right to reconsideration or appellate review.
Citation:	170 Cal.App.3d 244
WCC Citation:	WCC 30221985 CA

Case Name:	Jersey v. John Muir Medical Center		04/16/2002
Summary:	ESTER B. JERSEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN MUIR MEDICAL CENTER et al. , Defendants and Respondents. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff was employed by the defendant medical center in various nursing assistant and technician positions for approximately seven years. Discharging an employee for exercising a right is tortious only if the criteria enumerated in Gantt and subsequent decisions are met. The public policy that is violated must be one that is delineated by constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions. Suing a patient who cannot be held accountable for his actions because of a medical or psychological condition fits neither our mission nor its values.
Note:	Okay to fire hospital worker who sued patient that assaulted her at work.
Citation:	97 Cal.App.4th 814
WCC Citation:	WCC 28832002 CA

Case Name:	Jimenez v. San Joaquin Valley Labor		01/24/2002
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARIA YOLANDA JIMENEZ, Applicant, vs. SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY LABOR; and SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. In the former case the prediction of earnings need only be made for the duration of the temporary disability. Specifically, there is no significant evidence applicant likely would have worked during the off-season, had she not been injured. Second, the finding of two different temporary disability indemnity rates for a seasonal employee is fully consistent with the governing law. Vocational rehabilitation is one of the most important benefits under the Labor Code (Martinez v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	On-season & off-season TD rates; 2 tiered VR rates.
Citation:	67 CCC 74 [En Banc]
WCC Citation:	WCC 28352002 CA

Case Name:	JKH Enterprises Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations		09/11/2006
Summary:	JKH filed the petition for writ in an effort to overturn the administrative stop work order issued and upheld by the Department of Industrial Relations, respondent here. The drivers turn in their delivery logs and JKH keeps track of those in order to bill its customers. Cheng asked the dispatcher for a list of the names of drivers then working for JKH, which the dispatcher provided. JKH contested the "Stop Order-Penalty Assessment" and requested a hearing before the Department. [JKH] obtains the clients who are in need of delivery services and provides the workers who conduct the service on behalf of [JKH].
Note:	All but one of the employer's drivers were functioning as its employees rather than as true independent contractors.
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 1046
WCC Citation:	WCC 31802006 CA

Case Name:	John Futrell et al. v. Payday California, Inc., et al.		12/16/2010
Summary:	Between July and December 2008, Payday and Futrell filed arguments, evidence and evidentiary objections on the issue of whether Payday had been Futrell's employer. Futrell submitted his own declaration attesting he "understood" he was a Payday employee because of the payroll documents that Payday processed, and because representatives of Payday made statements to that effect. The pay stubs provided with Futrell's paychecks identified Futrell as the "employee" and identified Payday as the "employer of record. "Payday did not and could not hire or fire Futrell, nor did Payday have any control over Futrell's work activities. Our references to "Payday" include Payday California, Inc. , Screaming Eagle, Inc. , Payday LA, Inc. , Payday Management, Inc. , and PDSI, Inc. .
Note:	A class action suit against a payroll company for unpaid overtime and other wages failed because the payroll company was not his employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded in a published opinion.
Citation:	B215110
WCC Citation:	WCC 36962010 CA

Case Name:	Johns-Manville vs. Sup. Court (Rudkin)		07/03/1980
Summary:	It requested the trial court to take judicial notice of an application filed by plaintiff seeking workers' compensation benefits for disability caused by "[e]xposure to asbestos. "The court declared that the Legislature never intended that an employer's fraud was a risk of the employment. However, the court concluded that having undertaken treatment in a doctor-patient relationship, the employer should be liable in tort for acts of malpractice. [27 Cal. 3d 488] I would issue the writ and order respondent court to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court reasoned that the Legislature did not intend to deny an employee all redress for that tort.
Note:	Employer civil liability if conceals knowledge of potential injury and connection with employment.
Citation:	27 Cal.3d 465
WCC Citation:	WCC 28601980 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. John Deere Landscapes, Inc.		03/28/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. C05-02210) A temporary employment agency assigned appellant Kenneth Johnson to work for respondent John Deere Landscapes, Inc. (John Deere). He further contends John Deere is bound by the initial determination of its workers' compensation carrier that John Deere was not Johnson's employer. Labor Connection did not direct the manner in which Johnson performed his daily assignments for John Deere, and Johnson did not undertake work on his own initiative. John Deere argued that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that it was Johnson's special employer, rendering John Deere immune from tort liability for Johnson's injuries. Johnson contends that the "admission" by John Deere's workers' compensation carrier that John Deere was not Johnson's employer vitiates the affirmative defense based on workers' compensation exclusivity.
Note:	[Unpublished] Although the special employment factors do not unanimously favor a finding of special employment, there is no requirement of unanimity and there was no error in finding that John Deere Landscapes, Inc. was Claimant's 'special employer' and thus the relationship falls under the exclusive remedy provision.
Citation:	A116643
WCC Citation:	WCC 33342008 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. Pacific International Bearing, Inc.		12/27/2012
Summary:	JOHNSON v. PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL BEARING, INC. RICK JOHNSON, JR. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL BEARING, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Johnson did not come close to making his monthly sales goals at any time during his employment by Pacific. He was concerned that many of the accounts Johnson was targeting were too small or needed products Pacific was not selling, so he began to mentor Johnson and redirect him toward more productive efforts. On April 6, Sweeney and Johnson exchanged e-mails over a scheduled performance review for Johnson and other employees. Johnson's Termination On April 10, at 8:36 a. m. , Sweeney sent Davis an e-mail, copied to Johnson, instructing her to go on certain sales calls with Johnson.
Note:	Substantial evidence supported a jury's determination that an employer had not fired a poorly performing salesman with a history of lying to his boss because of a known or perceived physical disability.
Citation:	A129774
WCC Citation:	WCC 39662012 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (City of LA)		07/13/1989
Summary:	James Johnson, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and City of Los Angeles, Respondents. Dr. Hyman reported applicant has reflux esophagitis and the condition was neither caused nor aggravated by the employment but rather was entirely congenital. Dr. Markovitz noted applicant was taking medication for his arm and some medications, including aspirin, upset applicant's stomach. Dr. Markovitz recommended applicant receive medication and occasional examinations by a physician for the gastrointestinal condition. In the present case, however, the WCJ's letter clarifying his decision concerned the precise issue as to which applicant sought reconsideration.
Note:	Time limit for filing begins when WCJ issues a clarification of issues based in Petition for Reconsideration.
Citation:	54 CCC 256
WCC Citation:	WCC 27331989 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (Lentz)		07/30/1970
Summary:	JEAN JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, LENTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. , Respondents. Mr. Johnson died on January 2, 1969; his widow filed her claim for death benefits on January 27. On February 4 the referee, without hearing or responsive pleading from the employer or insurance carrier, dismissed petitioner's application on the basis of the release executed by Mr. Johnson. We conclude that Labor Code section 5000 empowers an employee to compromise and release claims of his dependents. [7] Petitioner alleges that Mr. Johnson, in executing the compromise and release, did not know that he was releasing her claim to death benefits and did not intend that result.
Note:	Release of dependent's benefits valid;
Citation:	2 Cal.3d 964, 35 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 25551970 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (TWA)		11/19/1984
Summary:	In July of 1977, Johnson filed applications with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or board) for adjudication of his claims for permanent disability compensation benefits arising from the two injuries. Johnson filed a petition for writ of review and requested the Court of Appeal to order Hartford to reimburse him for the printing costs. To assess the accuracy of the Rodriguez court's statement, it is helpful to survey the history of WCAB practices in this area. However, in 1971, the WCAB adopted a new policy under which it no longer answered such petitions unless they challenged WCAB procedures or policies. Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the WCAB with directions to award Johnson reasonable appellate costs.
Note:	Printing costs awarded to worker in answering petition for writ of review.
Citation:	37 Cal.3d 235, 49 CCC 716
WCC Citation:	WCC 26241984 CA

Case Name:	Johnston v. Kelly		01/03/2012
Summary:	JOHNSTON v. KELLY GEORGE PATRICK JOHNSTON et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SHARON KELLY et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Johnston and Dairy filed their complaint in this action, alleging two causes of action for malicious prosecution and unfair business practices against Kelly and her law firm. Johnston contacted the union because another employee would have to be laid off in order to reinstate Toro, and Johnston wanted the union's input in determining which employee would be terminated. Toro testified at trial that he talked to Johnston when Johnston returned from vacation and Johnston said he had received a letter from EDD indicating Toro had quit; Johnston told Toro to come back and talk to him after he resolved the problem with EDD. At another point, Toro testified he went to see Johnston and ask for work; Johnston told him there was no work for him then.
Note:	An employer defeated a plaintiff's motion to strike a malicious prosecution suit that emanated from a failed Labor Code 132a claim.
Citation:	F060909
WCC Citation:	WCC 38422012 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. 414 Equities LLC		10/28/2008
Summary:	Jones v 414 Equities LLC NY Slip Op 08197 Decided on October 28, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department McGuire, J. /05 [*1]Clarence Jones, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Equities LLC, et al. , Defendants-Respondents. Plaintiff worked as a demolition laborer on a renovation project at a five-story apartment building owned by defendant 414 Equities LLC. Plaintiff did not "hear anything or see anything" before the floor collapsed except for the loud cracking noise. The owner answered the complaint in April 2005, and commenced a third-party action against plaintiff's employer in September 2005.
Note:	In light of the brevity of the delay, the absence of prejudice to plaintiff and the public policy favoring the resolution of disputes on their merits, Supreme Court properly granted the general contractor's cross motion to serve a late answer.
Citation:	100477/05
WCC Citation:	WCC 34442008 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation		07/03/2007
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA KIM C. JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Jones was displeased and went to retake it; however, McMinn blocked her and refused to move out of her way. That day Jones reported pain in her neck and right wrist and shoulder, for which she received medical care at Donovan. In January and September, 2004, Jones filed complaints with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) against Donovan and several employees. Moreover, Jones did not present any evidence to refute Respondents' claims their complained-of employment actions were made for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.
Note:	For conduct committed within the scope of employment, employees, like their employers, should not be held subject to suit. There are, however, statutory exceptions to coemployee immunity. A civil suit is permissible when an employee proximately causes another employee's injury or death by a 'willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression.'
Citation:	152 Cal. App. 4th 1367
WCC Citation:	WCC 32332007 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Newton		06/02/2010
Summary:	MARY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PETER NEWTON, Defendant and Respondent. Mary Jones, in pro. Plaintiff Mary Jones appeals from a trial court order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend her third amended complaint against defendant Peter Newton, M. D. She was referred to Newton "for further treatment" by her employer's third party worker's compensation administrator. But, as best as can be determined from plaintiff's rambling and inflammatory allegations, defendant failed to treat her properly.
Note:	Given the trial court's generosity in granting plaintiff several opportunities to file a proper pleading, and plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that the defects in her third amended complaint could be cured, we readily conclude that the trial court properly sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend.
Citation:	B217472
WCC Citation:	WCC 36332010 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Opfer		11/23/2010
Summary:	SAM JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RALPH OPFER et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Sam Jones appeals from a judgment of dismissal for failure to bring to trial within five years (Code Civ. Proc. , §§ 583. 310, 583. 360) his complaint for personal injuries against defendants Ralph Opfer, individually and doing business as Ralph Opfer Flooring. Plaintiff asserts he is appealing from the dismissal with respect to all named defendants: R&R Flooring, Ralph Opfer and Randy Opfer. However, the notice of appeal states only an appeal from the judgment "in favor of Defendants Ralph Opfer, Ralph Opfer dba Ralph Opfer Flooring. "
Note:	The 3rd District Court of Appeal rejected an injured worker's attempt to blame the Sacramento County Superior Court for failing to bring a personal injury suit against an employer to trial within five years.
Citation:	C062312
WCC Citation:	WCC 36862010 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Regents		04/22/2010
Summary:	Filed 4/22/10 Jones v. Regents CA2/8 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 EIGHT MARY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Mary Jones, in pro. * * * * * * * Plaintiff, Mary Jones, appeals from the judgment on jury verdict in favor of defendant, the Regents of the University of California, in an action for employment discrimination and retaliation. This division rejected this contention on plaintiffs prior appeal, Jones v. Regents of University of California (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 1072, 1077.
Note:	A trial court correctly struck an operating nurse's claims from her complaint because they were compensable under the workers' compensation system, and not the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	B215244
WCC Citation:	WCC 36152010 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Sedgwick Claims Management		08/06/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE MARY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. et al. , Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Mary Jones (Jones or plaintiff) filed a complaint alleging ten separate causes of action against defendant and respondent Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (Sedgwick) and its predecessor in interest, Octagon Risk Services, Inc. (Octagon) (collectively defendant), third party administrators of workers' compensation benefits for the Regents of the University of California (Regents). Jones alleged she was injured during her nursing duties for the employer the University of California at Los Angeles. Jones alleges that the actions by Octagon and Sedgwick caused her physical, mental and financial injury. ; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; and violation of her right to privacy by demanding certain records and in connection with investigating her claims.
Note:	[Unpublished] The California Workers' Compensation system preempts a private cause of action by an injured worker against the independent claims administrator of her self-insured employer for the delay or refusal to pay compensation benefits.
Citation:	B212160
WCC Citation:	WCC 35512009 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Target Stores		10/26/1998
Summary:	Louis Jones, Applicant v. Target Stores, Constitution State Services, Defendants W. C. A. B. No. PAS 0040032 WCJ George C. Rothwell (PAS); WCAB Panel: Commissioners Gannon, Moore, Heath CCC 1385 October 26, 1998 DISPOSITION: Petition for Reconsideration granted. The facts disclose that applicant Louis Jones, a stocker born March 15, 1998, sustained an admitted industrial injury to his low back, left foot and left leg on December 16, 1995. Applicant subsequently selected Dr. Lucero of the Integrative Industrial and Family Practice Medical Clinic (II) as his free-choice primary treating physician. Dr. Lucero ordered PT for applicant, and referred him to the therapists employed by II, his own employer. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant employer's Petition for Reconsideration filed August 26, 1998 is GRANTED.
Note:	No financial interest found if dr.'s pay not dependent on referrals; Lien not reimbursable if no pre-authorization.
Citation:	63 CCC 1385 (Bd. Panel Decision)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3791998 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Ukiah Timber Products		09/15/1997
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA DAVID JONES, Applicant, VS. UKIAH TIMBER PRODUCTS; GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. SRO 76675 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC)Applicant, David Jones, suffered an injury to his left knee on September 21, 1993, while working as a truck driver for Ukiah Timber Products, then insured by Golden Eagle Insurance Company. Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration asserting that he should have been awarded a penalty equal to 10 percent of all medical benefits. On February 6, 1997, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration in order to allow sufficient opportunity to study the factual and legal issues. In Gallamore, supra, the Court's disposition included remanding the case for a determination as to whether travel expenses had been unreasonably delayed.
Note:	Penalty for unreasonable delay in reimbursing medical transportation expense applied to full amount of medical treatment expenses.
Citation:	62 CCC 1257
WCC Citation:	WCC 29021997 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. WCAB		09/20/1971
Summary:	HANNAH M. JONES, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Devine, P. J. , with Rattigan and Christian, JJ. , concurring. )She is the widow of Richard E. Jones, who received fatal injuries while he was acting as picket captain during a strike of respondent Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union Local 1-5 against Phillips Petroleum Company. The captains supervise the picket lines to see that those assigned to duty are present and that they are properly relieved. 'After a strike has continued for 21 days, striking pickets are eligible for interest free loans of up to $40. 00 a week. Respondents' emphasis on the fact that Jones was not on the payroll is not impressive, because of the authorities last cited.
Note:	Deceased picket was doing what union required at time of death.
Citation:	20 Cal.App.3d 124, 36 CCC 563
WCC Citation:	WCC 25871971 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Winter		03/09/2011
Summary:	JONES v. WINTER MARY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUSAN WINTER et al. , Defendants and Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ASHMANN-GERST, J. Mary Jones (Jones) sued respondents Susan Winter (Winter) and Howard Industries, Inc. (Howard) and sought millions of dollars in damages for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Jones sued Winter and her employer, Howard, for negligence and claimed that the motor vehicle accident exacerbated injuries from her trip and fall and caused new injuries. When Jones called her expert, Dr. Greenfield, and referred to the two MRIs, counsel for Winter and Howard objected. But Winter and Howard conceded negligence, and Jones does not argue that there was insufficient evidence of causation or damages.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal affirmed a decision awarding a self-represented worker $7,595 in a personal injury suit stemming from an auto accident.
Citation:	B218717
WCC Citation:	WCC 37242011 CA

Case Name:	Jones, Brown, Clifford & McDevitt v. WCAB		10/28/1985
Summary:	Jones, Brown, Clifford & McDevitt, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California; Central California Conference of Seventh Day Adventists; National Union Fire Insurance Company; and Adam Hicks, Respondents. COUNSEL: For petitioner--Jones, Brown, Clifford & McDevitt, by Francis V. Clifford For respondent Appeals Board--Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe & Alvin W. Barrett, by David Hettick OPINION BY: Newsom, J. OPINION: Petitioner Jones, Brown, Clifford & McDevitt, a law partnership, negotiated a structured settlement valued at $ 711,846. 29 on behalf of its client, an applicant for workers' compensation benefits. Petitioner contends that the Board's action is unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence, and in disregard of its own administrative guidelines. Petitioner asserts that in so doing, the WCJ and the Board failed to follow its own guidelines in two ways.
Note:	Board must specifically state criteria relied upon in Reg. 10779 in awarding/altering atty. fee.
Citation:	50 CCC 618
WCC Citation:	WCC 27151985 CA

Case Name:	Jorge Pacheco v. Greenfield Restaurant and CIGA		12/18/2006
Summary:	The duty to prove that an injury with industrial causation occurred was the applicant's rather than the defendant's, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board explained in n granting reconsideration of an award to a man who panel decision issued this week. The board in Jorge Pacheco v. Greenfield Restaurant and CIGA, LAO0779068, 12/118/06, reversed the trial court .
Note:	WCAB Panel says proof burden was misdirected.
Citation:	LAO0779068
WCC Citation:	WCC 32012006 CA

Case Name:	Josephs v. Pacific Bell		04/10/2006
Summary:	OPINION In this appeal we must resolve issues arising from the employment discrimination action brought against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (PacBell) by a former service technician, Joshua Liam Josephs. Josephs' immediate supervisor at PacBell, Steve Maches, testified at trial that during the suspension he had recommended Josephs be restored to his position because Josephs was performing well and would probably be an asset to Pac-Bell. Did Pacific Bell regard plaintiff as having a mental disorder at the time of his termination or non-reinstatement?Did Pacific Bell regard plaintiff as having a long-term mental disorder which substantially limited his ability to work in a broad range of jobs?Did Pacific Bell refuse to agree to reinstate plaintiff in the grievance settlement process because of his regarded as disability?
Note:	Evidence supports the judgment that the employer perceived the employee as disabled.
Citation:	443 F.3d 1050
WCC Citation:	WCC 31532006 CA

Case Name:	Judson Steel Corp. v. WCAB		11/21/1978
Summary:	JUDSON STEEL CORPORATION, a corporation, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and RALPH MAESE, Respondents. In 1973 petitioner Judson Steel Corporation employed applicant Ralph A. Maese as a crane operator. Despite his knowledge that Maese 'was off work because of an accident which occurred at Judson Steel,' Cortez laid off Maese because Maese 'lost seniority automatically according to the contract. 'On November 4, 1976, the workers' compensation judge found that Judson has made no attempt to extend Maese's 12-month grace period. Moreover, Judson '[was] not in any way compelled to terminate [Maese's] seniority after his period of temporary disability. '
Note:	Increased award due for any discriminatory act against injured worker.
Citation:	43 CCC 1205 (Supr. Ct.)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3711978 CA