Case Name:	Mottahedi v. Moose Holding Co.		01/26/2012
Summary:	Stores leased the building from the mall landlord, Moose Holding Company (Moose). Ms. Mottahedi filed a personal injury tort action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Moose and others in August 2009. By that time, Ms. Mottahedi had served interrogatories on Moose, which Moose answered, and Moose had deposed Morris Rhone, identified by Stores as its most knowledgeable person with respect to its property and, in particular, the store at Reseda Plaza. Moose responded, and Ms. Mottahedi filed motions to compel, which were calendared for hearing at a date subsequent to the previously set trial date. Judgment was duly entered in favor of Moose, from which Ms. Mottahedi (hereafter, appellant) filed a timely notice of appeal.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld a summary judgment for a property owner on a premises liability claim filed by a tenant's employee.
Citation:	B228319
WCC Citation:	WCC 38482012 CA

Case Name:	Moulton v. WCAB		11/06/2000
Summary:	JILL MOULTON, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Real Party in Interest. [84 Cal. App. 4th 841] We annul the order of the WCAB with directions to impose penalties consistent with this opinion. The County failed to do so; it made no payment until Moulton filed and served a petition for penalty on July 13, 1999. [2] 'In considering a petition for writ of review of a decision of the WCAB, this court's authority is limited. 'Decisions of the WCAB reported in California Compensation Cases are citable as authority, although they are not binding on this court.
Note:	Failure to issue self imposed 4650 penalty for late TTD payment creates 5814 liability.
Citation:	84 Cal.App.4th 837
WCC Citation:	WCC 24672000 CA

Case Name:	Moyer v. WCAB		03/31/1972
Summary:	J. M. MOYER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, Respondents (Opinion by Kaufman, J. , with Gardner, P. J. , and Kerrigan, J. , concurring. )Applicant filed an application for additional benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Fund pursuant to Labor Code, sections 4751 through 4755. Under date of August 6, 1970, Applicant's attorney had obtained a written informal advisory rating of certain of the medical reports. The issue of apportionment is germane to proceedings between an employee and his employer and its insurance carrier. Nevertheless, in the context of claimed successive disablements, the issues of apportionment and preexisting permanent partial disability are correlative.
Note:	A preexisting permanent partial disability must interfere with one's ability to do work.
Citation:	24 Cal.App.3d 650
WCC Citation:	WCC 24781972 CA

Case Name:	Moyer v. WCAB		10/19/1973
Summary:	JAMES M. MOYER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Respondents In Bank. OPINION SULLIVAN, J. Petitioner James Moyer seeks review of a decision of respondent Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (Board) following reconsideration. Petitioner was awarded a permanent disability indemnity of $1,942. 50 based on a rating, after apportionment, of 9 1/4 percent. [2] We also reject at the start as without merit petitioner's claim that the provision under examination conflicts with section 3202. fn. I would affirm the decision for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Bray in the opinion prepared by him for the Court of Appeal in Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (Cal.
Note:	'Voluntary' acceptance requires notice that perm. disab. rating may be lesser if determined after completion of program.
Citation:	10 Cal.3d 222
WCC Citation:	WCC 26461973 CA

Case Name:	Moyles v. WCAB		03/23/1982
Summary:	He was hospitalized for six days, though not in the cardiac unit, and remained off work for about five weeks. The applicant and Argonaut submitted the compromise and release to the workers' compensation judge for approval. On January 6, 1978, the workers' compensation judge issued an order approving the compromise and release. An approved compromise and release agreement has the same force and effect as an award made after a full hearing. '[s] Ernest W. Moyles ERNEST W. MOYLES, Applicant LEVY, KOSZDIN, GOLDSCHMID & SROLOFF By:[s] Charles Burke Attorney for Applicant' NOTE: This is a summarization of the CCC citation.
Note:	Cum. injury C&R not set aside for want of sufficient consideration evident only after the fact.
Citation:	47 CCC 328
WCC Citation:	WCC 26051982 CA

Case Name:	Mt. Diablo Unified School District v. WCAB		08/08/2008
Summary:	DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and NICOLE ROLLICK, Respondents. Diablo) to decide whether temporary disability payments commence when a school district pays an injured employee his or her normal wages under Education Code*fn1 section 44043. Diablo, its "insurer"*fn7 issues a "voucher" equal to the injured worker's temporary disability rate directly to the school district. Diablo Unified School District v. WCAB, A120204 Counsel for Petitioner: Pulley & Cohen LLP Warren A. Diablo Unified School District v. WCAB, A120204 =========Footnotes========== .
Note:	Given that section 44043 payments are, in part, temporary disability benefits under the workers' compensation laws, temporary disability payments commence when a school district pays an injured employee his or her normal wages under Education Code section 44043.
Citation:	A121204
WCC Citation:	WCC 34092008 CA

Case Name:	Muna v. WCAB		09/06/2007
Summary:	Rules of Court, rule 8. 494. ) Muna contends the WCAB improperly amended a stipulation and that its decision lacked substantial evidence. Muna filed a declaration of readiness to proceed with the WCAB and the matter proceeded to a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) in August 2004. Based on prior WCAB decisions, the WCAB concluded the "presumption is properly rebutted when applicant's own evidence proves that applicant's injury is not compensable. "Muna petitioned the WCAB to reconsider its decision, which the WCAB denied on May 1, 2007. Muna does not specify how the WCAB amended the stipulation and whether he alleges legal error by the WCAB or regret on his part for adopting the stipulation.
Note:	[Unpublished] Employer met its burden of proof in rebutting the presumption of compensability.
Citation:	F052976
WCC Citation:	WCC 32532007 CA

Case Name:	Munoz v. Pacific Maritime Association et al.		08/28/2012
Summary:	PEDRO MUNOZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Clifford D. Sethness and Jason M. Steele for Defendant and Respondent Pacific Maritime Association. FACTS Respondents and defendants in this matter are Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) and International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13 (Local 13) (collectively Defendants). Munoz, on appeal, glosses over the trial court's findings and insists that, "[i]t is undisputed that Mr. Munoz was disabled. "There is no indication in the record and Munoz has offered no evidence that Defendants regarded Munoz as disabled.
Note:	A former longshoreman with a poor attendance record, who admittedly lied to his employer about having an alcohol problem to excuse his absences, failed to establish his claim that his termination was a discriminatory action based on his alleged disabilities from a prior head injury.
Citation:	B235771
WCC Citation:	WCC 39252012 CA

Case Name:	Munoz v. WCAB		08/06/1971
Summary:	HERELINDA LOZA MUNOZ et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CONSOLIDATED FOODS CORPORATION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Pierce, P. J. , with Regan, J. , and Bray, J. , concurring. )The spouse of Jose Munoz petitioned for total dependency death benefits due as a widow with seven surviving minor children. The sole question is whether petitioners were 'totally' dependent as that term has been construed in workmen's compensation cases. When Munoz, Senior, died, two sons had already reached adulthood. Brijido Munoz gave a statement to a Mr. Butler, a claims investigator of Hanna and Brophy, attorneys for the compensation carrier of Munoz' employer.
Note:	Nonresident alien widow receives 7/8's income from deceased, 1/8 from minor sons, is 'totally' dependent.
Citation:	19 Cal.App.3d 144
WCC Citation:	WCC 25801971 CA

Case Name:	Munyon v. Ole's Inc.		10/19/1982
Summary:	No. 63837 October 19, 1982 LEE MUNYON ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. OLE'S, INC. , DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. NCC18633B, Thomas C. Murphy, Judge. She returned to her automobile and had proceeded one block from the Ole's store when she struck plaintiff Lee Munyon. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the negligent act was committed within the scope of employment. As a general rule, whether an act is within the scope of employment is a question of fact. However, where the facts are undisputed and no conflicting inferences are possible, the question is one of law.
Note:	Injury not compensable where employee injured while picking up paycheck at place/ time of employee's convenience.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 3d 697
WCC Citation:	WCC 30531982 CA

Case Name:	Muraoka vs. WCAB		04/28/2009
Summary:	The WCJ relied upon the July 24, 2006 report of Dr. Nagelberg to find Muraoka was permanent and stationary on July 13, 2006. Muraoka filed a Petition for Reconsideration, contending that the 1997 PDRS applied. Applying that standard, the dissent concluded that substantial evidence, including a December 2003 report of Dr. Nagelberg, substantiated his conclusion that Muraoka had sustained permanent disability. The entire medical record provides substantial evidence supporting Dr. Nagelberg's conclusion that Muraoka sustained permanent disability prior to 2005. Those records provided the history of treatment that Muraoka received in 2003 at Kaiser and at Western Hand Center.
Note:	[Unpublished] Board did not consider the entire medical record prior to 2005 to determine whether substantial medical evidence supported application of the 1997 PDRS, and that had it done so, it would have found the 1997 PDRS applicable.
Citation:	B210073
WCC Citation:	WCC 35182009 CA

Case Name:	Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.		08/23/2010
Summary:	MURRAY v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. KEVIN MURRAY, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Factual and Procedural Background Kevin Murray (Murray), a quality assurance auditor at Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska), brought safety concerns to the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which then conducted an investigation that revealed "significant discrepancies relating to air carrier safety. "The Secretary found that Murray had applied electronically for positions at other Alaska facilities and then "inexplicably removed his resume . DISSENTING OPINION BY WERDEGAR, J. Kevin Murray alleges he was wrongfully discharged by Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska). The investigation's treatment of Murray was in marked contrast: "Murray was never contacted by the Secretary [of Labor]'s investigator.
Note:
Citation:	S162570
WCC Citation:	WCC 36592010 CA

Case Name:	Myers v. WCAB (City of LA)		12/15/1969
Summary:	EMMA J. MYERS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents (Opinion by Coughlin, J. , with Brown (Gerald), P. J. , and Whelan, J. , concurring. )At issue was the contention, rejected by the referee, the city chould receive credit for pension payments by it to Myers. Primarily the question is one of interpretation of pertinent provisions of the statute and the action of the appeals board on reconsideration. award. 'Com. , 189 Cal. App. 2d 23, 27 [10 Cal. Rptr. 745], a referee made and filed findings of fact and an award.
Note:	Comp. award includes right to interest from date of filing, judgment on award entered in superior court, lien, and enforcement by execution.
Citation:	2 Cal.App.3d 621
WCC Citation:	WCC 26091969 CA

Case Name:	Myers v. WCAB (Marine Terminals)		09/20/1971
Summary:	FREDERICK N. MYERS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Taylor, J. , with Shoemaker, P. J. , and Kane, J. , concurring. )OPINION TAYLOR, J. Petitioner seeks review and annulment of a decision after remittitur issued by the WCAB. The facts disclose that petitioner was injured in the course and scope of his employment on April 14, 1964. On March 14, 1968, petitioner filed an application with the board for a determination of his permanent disability. Co. (1964) 60 Cal. 2d 816, 818 [36 Cal. Rptr. 612, 388 P. 2d 884]; Myers, supra, p. 629).
Note:	Interest runs from the date of award, not from date of reconsideration.
Citation:	20 Cal.App.3d 120
WCC Citation:	WCC 26221971 CA

Case Name:	Mykles v. Williams		03/01/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             EARL MYKLES, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             MELINDA WILLIAMS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. 34201300153684CUPNGDS) .             Plaintiff and appellant Earl Mykles sued defendants and respondents Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (Local 1000) and union representative Melinda Williams (together, defendants). .             Williams eventually negotiated a settlement for Mykles. The complaint alleges that Mykles would not have entered into the settlement agreement had Williams informed him that he could file an unfair practices charge (UPC) against SCIF with PERB. .             On December 31, 2013, Mykles filed a first amended complaint alleging, again, that Williams negligently failed to inform him of his right to file a UPC with PERB.
Note:
Citation:	C079338
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 34201300153684CUPNGDS

Case Name:	Myrick Enterp. and Employee Benefits Ins. Co. v. WCAB		03/05/1984
Summary:	Myrick Enterprises and Employee Benefits Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and Richard D. Brown et al. , Respondents. OPINION: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that Richard D. Brown sustained a permanent partial disability in the course of his employment with petitioner, Myrick Enterprises, and awarded him benefits. Myrick did not file the declaration and the judge issued his findings on December 14, 1982. The Administrative Code permits the WCAB to request the Disability Evaluation Bureau to prepare a recommended rating, based upon described disability factors and medical reports. n7 We do not reach Myrick's last contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the WCAB award.
Note:	Party need not file Declaration of Readiness to obtain hearing to cross examine disability evaluator.
Citation:	49 CCC 194
WCC Citation:	WCC 27621984 CA

Case Name:	Nabors v. Piedmont Lumber & Mill		06/09/2005
Summary:	NOTE: This case has been specifically OVERRULED in Nabors vs. WCAB (A110792, 06/08/2006) WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SRO 0122159, SRO 0113249 DANNY NABORS, Applicant, vs. PIEDMONT LUMBER & MILL COMPANY; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. In relevant part, the WCJ also found that applicant's back and lower extremities injury caused 31% permanent disability after apportionment. On May 2, 1996, applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his low back "and radiating pain to both lower extremities," while employed by Piedmont Lumber & Mill Company as a "working foreman, lumber stacker, [and] forklift driver. "During a period ending August 19, 2002, applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury to his back and lower extremities, while employed by Piedmont Lumber & Mill Company as a mill supervisor. The permanent disability directly caused by the new injury is that which took Mr. Nabors from 49% to 80%.
Note:	Apportion based on percentage, not money or weeks.
Citation:	70 CCC 856
WCC Citation:	WCC 31012005 CA

Case Name:	Nabors v. WCAB		06/08/2006
Summary:	Nabors challenges the Board's permanent disability apportionment formula. Not surprisingly, Nabors asks us to reject the Board's majority opinion, and adopt that of Commissioner Caplane. 1544-1547), and the en banc decision in Nabors (id. Dykes obtained his original award in November 2004 (Dykes, supra, 134 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1541); Nabors obtained his the following month. Nabors petitioned this court for writ of review in July 2005, which we granted in October.
Note:	'Formula C' which requires dollar value of previous award subtracted from dollar value of total current permanent disability, is correct method for calculating apportionment.
Citation:	140 Cal. App. 4th 217
WCC Citation:	WCC 31632006 CA

Case Name:	National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group Inc.		02/11/2009
Summary:	Ct. No. RG07315658)                 Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National) provided excess insurance to the workers' compensation program of the Bank of America (Bank), which was administered by defendant Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (Cambridge). Because Cambridge had authorized payment for the surgery, the Bank and National were obligated to pay the expenses associated with its consequences. The first cause of action alleged that Cambridge breached the Cambridge contract by mishandling the Metter claim and that National was subrogated to the Bank's right of recovery against Cambridge for that breach. In addition, it altered the basis of the negligent misrepresentation claim, alleging misrepresentation to the Bank rather than directly to National. The Merits           National may pursue a cause of action for negligence against Cambridge only if, under the circumstances alleged, Cambridge owed a duty of care to National.
Note:	A third-party administrator owed a duty of care to let a bank's excess insurer know the circumstances of a costly claim it allegedly mishandled.
Citation:	A120072
WCC Citation:	WCC 34912009 CA

Case Name:	Navarro v. A&A Farming; Western Growers		02/13/2002
Summary:	Alonso Navarrro, applicant, vs. A&A Farming, Western Growers Insurance Co. , defendants; Case Nos. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Const. . , N. A. , Inc. (Dillingham) (1997) 519 U. S. 316, 324 [117 S. Ct. 832, 136 L. Ed. 2d 791]. )(Travelers, supra, 514 U. S. at [quoting from Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (Alessi) (1981) 451 U. S. 503, 523 [ 101 S. Ct. 1895, 68 L. Ed. 2d 4021. )was to avoid a multiplicity of regulation in order to permit the nationally uniform administration of employee benefit plans. Here, the WCJ's Opinion on Decision stated [t]he facts show that [the Western Growers Assurance Trust] .
Note:	ERISA preempts LC 132a.
Citation:	67 CCC 145
WCC Citation:	WCC 28392002 CA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Name:	Newlands v. WCAB		07/16/2008
Summary:	Filed 7/16/08 Newlands v. WCAB CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- JOAN NEWLANDS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MARRIOTT VACATION INTERNATIONAL, Respondents. C057437 (W. C. A. B. No. SAC 0322261) The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denied the motion for reconsideration of Joan Newlands (employee) without elaboration and adopted the decision of its hearing officer. and thus is not suitable for any specific kind of employment and this again is a permanent work restriction. "On intake, Dr. Sullivan believed the employee had signs of bilateral complex regional pain syndrome.
Note:	[Unpublished] Compensation practice and jurisprudence both acknowledge a status of permanent disability that precedes the point when it is 'permanent and stationary.'
Citation:	C057437
WCC Citation:	WCC 33992008 CA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Name:	Nielson Contracting v. Applied Underwriters		05/03/2018
Summary:	Filed 5/3/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION  COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             NIELSEN CONTRACTING, INC. et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, .             v. .             APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC. et al. , Defendants and Appellants. .             D072393 .             (Super. Background .           In 2012, Applied Underwriters, Inc. (Applied) provided quotes to Nielsen for Applied's patented workers' compensation program known as "EquityComp. ".           The Request to Bind also required Nielsen to sign a separate agreement (the RPA) with another one of Applied's subsidiaries, Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. (AUCRA). .           The Insurance Commissioner also observed: .           "By its own admission [Applied] designed EquityComp and the RPA to circumvent workers' compensation policy.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a disgruntled EquityComp customer could not be compelled to arbitrate its fraud claims against the program providers, since the arbitration agreement the customer had signed was not enforceable.
Citation:	D072393
WCC Citation:	D072393

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

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

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

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

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