Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Chacon)		08/28/1998
Summary:	In addition to other listed payments, SCIF was to pay $400,000 within 25 days of the order approving the C&R, which would include interest. SCIF also agreed to guarantee the payments but its obligation was to be discharged upon the mailing of a valid check for the correct amount. SCIF then purchased an annuity from Keyport Life Insurance Company (Keyport) and so advised Chacon. [66 Cal. App. 4th 1158] Chacon then advised SCIF by letter the payments were not in compliance with sections 4651 fn. SCIF also adds that the WCAB failed to explain according to section 5908. 5 fn.
Note:	Annuity checks not immediately negotiable and payable in cash are not unreasonably delayed payments.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.4th 1154
WCC Citation:	WCC 24791998 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Denton)		05/24/1982
Summary:	With the addition of this evidence, the record discloses the Board's order denying reconsideration is not supported by substantial evidence. The Fund has challenged the award on the grounds there is no substantial evidence to sustain it. We are obligated in this instance to review 'the entire record which shall be certified by the appeals board. . . ' (Lab. The 'record of proceedings' includes exhibits marked but not received in evidence, 'notices, petitions, briefs, findings, orders, decisions and awards. 'The evidence is clearly part of the record certified by the Board, and is properly before us on this appeal.
Note:	Board must consider 'new' evidence if strong and failure to produce earlier is 'clearly excusable'.
Citation:	47 CCC 601
WCC Citation:	WCC 27301982 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Dorsett)		11/10/2011
Summary:	Both employers were insured for purposes of workers' compensation by petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). "*fn1 SCIF filed separate petitions for reconsideration on behalf of South Valley and A-Tek. SCIF filed separate petitions for reconsideration on behalf of South Valley Glass and A-Tek. On behalf of A-Tek, SCIF contended that "[a] cumulative trauma injury cannot be both a compensable consequence of an earlier injury and a second injury as well. DISCUSSION In this court, SCIF contends that the Board erred when "it determined apportionment of permanent disability did not apply" in this case.
Note:	A workers' compensation judge erroneously failed to apportion an injured worker's award pursuant to Benson v. WCAB, California's 6th District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	H036724
WCC Citation:	WCC 38242011 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Hancock)		11/22/2010
Summary:	State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) unsuccessfully petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or Board) for reconsideration of the WCJ's findings and orders. We issued a writ of review in this case to consider whether the WCAB properly denied SCIF's petition for reconsideration. "The general clause relied upon by [SCIF] is at best oblique and only alludes to the issue waiver. "SCIF argues the WCAB therefore erred in rejecting the stipulation by reopening Hancock's award. The WCAB in this case relied on section 5803 as an alternative basis for permitting the reopening of Hancock's case.
Note:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board should not have granted an applicant's petition to reopen an award for an injury that he allegedly knew about before agreeing to a settlement, the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	C064985
WCC Citation:	WCC 36832010 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Meier)		10/17/1985
Summary:	Meier submitted a bid on a sheet from a Pacific Structural Concrete scratch pad for $9,493, and the bid was accepted. While working on the remodeling job, Meier fell from a scaffold sustaining a broken neck which rendered him a quadriplegic. 3 Applicability of Section 2750. 5 Three Court of Appeal cases have concluded that the penultimate paragraph of section 2750. 5 is applicable in workers' compensation cases. [1] We have concluded that section 2750. 5, including the penultimate paragraph, must be interpreted as applying to workers' compensation cases. In any event the documents are not helpful in determining the effect of the last two paragraphs of the section.
Note:	LC 2750.5 in fact applies to work comp cases; Unlicensed contractor not estopped from asserting employment status.
Citation:	40 Cal.3d 5
WCC Citation:	WCC 3851985 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Patterson)		05/19/1981
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and ROBERT J. PATTERSON, Respondents. COUNSEL: For petitioner--Vonk, Krimen & Evans, by Frank Evans For respondent employee--Jones, Brown & Clifford, by Yale I. Jones OPINION BY: Caldecott, P. J. 649], and later claimed an additional penalty for failure of defendants to reimburse him for self-procured medical treatment. Reconsideration was granted to consider the impact of the pending case of Gallamore v. Workers' Comp. The result was the same--a 10 percent penalty was imposed upon the full amount of the permanent disability award.
Note:	Attorney fee commuted from disability benefits is subject to separate penalty for delayed payment.
Citation:	46 CCC 552
WCC Citation:	WCC 25171981 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Sandhagen)		07/16/2009
Summary:	The WCAB asserts, as a threshold matter, that its decision is not a final order and the petition for review is premature. Instead, the WCAB gave Fund a reasonable opportunity to obtain a section 4062, subdivision (a) evaluation to assess the reasonableness and necessity of treatment. *fn6 II RIPENESS The WCAB argues its November 16, 2004, decision is not a final order subject to a petition for writ of review. Therefore, the WCAB concludes, the order cannot be considered final since it failed to determine any substantive right or liability. DISPOSITION The WCAB's decision is annulled, and the matter is remanded to the WCAB for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	[Unpublished] Utilization review process is mandatory and SCIF cannot resort to proceedings under 4062 as a method for disputing injured worker's treatment request.
Citation:	C048668
WCC Citation:	WCC 35432009 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Sandhagen)		07/03/2008
Summary:	State Fund sought reconsideration by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Due to the important legal issues presented and in order to secure uniformity of future decisions, the matter was assigned to the WCAB as a whole for an en banc decision. *fn4 Accordingly, the WCAB vacated the workers' compensation judge's determination that Sandhagen was entitled to the MRI and instead gave State Fund an opportunity to proceed under section 4062. A. Statutory Scheme Requires Employers to Conduct Utilization Review When Resolving Requests for Medical Treatment Section 4610 requires that "[e]very employer . If the hearing failed to satisfy the parties, theycould seek reconsideration by the WCAB (§ 5900) and, ultimately, review by the Court of Appeal (§ 5950).
Note:	The Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and not to permit employers to use section 4062 to dispute employees' treatment requests. The language of section 4610 and 4062 mandates this result.
Citation:	S149257
WCC Citation:	WCC 33912008 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Slotten)		01/04/1979
Summary:	Injured workers in need of rehabilitation had to seek aid outside the workers' compensation system through state and federally funded programs. Responding to the recommendation of the National Commission on State Workmen's Compensation Laws, the Legislature amended section 139. 5 (eff. Jan. 1, 1975) to make vocational rehabilitation at the expense of employers or their carriers a matter of right for qualified injured workers. The Attorney General rendered an opinion in 1975 that section 139. 5, as amended in 1974, applies only to employees in the private sector. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has likewise decided in this case that section 139. 5 covers both public and private employees.
Note:	Mandatory duty on public employers to provide employees with same rehab. benefits as private employees.
Citation:	88 Cal.App.3d 43
WCC Citation:	WCC 26391979 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Stevens)		01/08/2017
Summary:	Click Here for a PDF version of SCIF v. WCAB (Stevens)
Note:	The California 1st District Court of Appeal has accepted an appeal by the State Compensation Insurance Fund that challenges the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's authority to void provisions of the state’s medical treatment guidelines that conflict with other areas of the law.
Citation:	ADJ1526353
WCC Citation:	Decisions after remittitur from A143043

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Stuart)		08/20/1998
Summary:	On or about April 28, 1995, Chu received a letter from Rosenberg informing SCIF he was relocating his law office to Beverly Hills. Goldfarb's secretary called Arago on May 18, 1995, and Goldfarb himself called SCIF the next day. We conclude the WCJ's initial decision concluding SCIF unreasonably delayed payment of Stuart's benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. Following the WCJ's decision in this matter, SCIF sought reconsideration, citing Kampner, supra, 86 Cal. App. 3d 376, apparently for the first time. As noted, ante, SCIF understood this deadline and had made timely semimonthly payments for over three years.
Note:	Clerical mistake attributing to the employee a change of address for the employer led to a one-week delay in the employee's benefit check is not unreasonable delay under 5814.
Citation:	18 Cal.4th 1209
WCC Citation:	WCC 30241998 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Welcher)		08/08/1995
Summary:	SCIF petitioned for reconsideration, and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ. SCIF sought review in this court, contending that the WCJ had erred in finding applicant's injuries compensable in view of the extensive medical record demonstrating nonindustrial causation. (The records, designated exhibit 20, which were extensive, were admitted at trial after being subpoenaed by defendant SCIF. The WCJ's ruling barring the testimony of the SCIF claims adjuster was highly significant, in that SCIF was thus unable to avoid the application of the presumption. SCIF then had to assume the burden of proof on the primary issue in the case, which was industrial causation.
Note:	Failure to reject claim within 90 days created presumption of compensability; Testimony inadmissible b/c not identified as witness at MSC.
Citation:	37 Cal.App.4th 675
WCC Citation:	WCC 24921995 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Wimberly)		01/28/1972
Summary:	State Fund, as the employer's compensation carrier, raised among other issues, the question of prior disability. Applicant thereupon filed an application for Subsequent Injuries Fund benefits and both claims were jointly heard. The only proof of service accompanying the petition for reconsideration was of service by mail upon applicant's attorney of record. Failure to file proof of such service shall constitute valid grounds for dismissing the petition for reconsideration. 'The appeals board may require the petition for reconsideration to be served on other persons designated by it. '
Note:	Time limits for proper service of Petition for Recon. ('forthwith' filing) may be read strictly by Board; dismissal warranted.
Citation:	37 CCC 860
WCC Citation:	WCC 27281972 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB, CIGA		06/24/2004
Summary:	Apple One's insurer is in liquidation and the claims are administered by California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA). CIGA was dismissed and State Fund was ordered to pay the entire award. CIGA argues that Chavira is distinguishable because it does not consider the definition of disability in section 5412. Furthermore, CIGA conceded in its answer to the petition that Rodarte knew the injury was work related. Even though CIGA covered some of the period, it was relieved of liability on the ground that this is a single cumulative injury and there is other insurance available.
Note:	'Disability' for statute of limitations in 5500.5 may be either temporary or permanent disability.
Citation:	119 Cal.App.4th 998
WCC Citation:	WCC 29912004 CA

Case Name:	SCIF vs. Low		10/30/2002
Summary:	Fund v. Low CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Plaintiff and Appellant,v. HARRY LOW, as Insurance Commissioner, etc. , Defendant;F. MCCLINTOCKS, INC. , Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Generally, the greater the "loss experience" of an employer, the higher its workers' compensation insurance premiums are likely to be. Part one provides insurance coverage for claims for benefits arising out of on-the-job injuries subject to the Act. Part two of such policies, known as employers' liability insurance, provides so-called "gap-filler" coverage (see, e. g. , Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry Ins.
Note:	Attorney fees expended in providing defense under Coverage B properly reportable to WCIRB.
Citation:	Unpublished
WCC Citation:	WCC 28922002 CA

Case Name:	SCIF vs. WCAB (Silva)		06/27/1977
Summary:	The applicant, an employee of the Oakland Unified School District, was injured on January 22, 1975, in the course of his duties as a schoolteacher. In addition to receiving treatment for his physical injuries, the applicant consulted a psychiatrist for attendant emotional problems. Several months after the incident, when first notified of the psychiatric [71 Cal. App. 3d 136] treatment, petitioner arranged for the applicant to be examined by another psychiatrist. Before a hearing was held on that petition, the applicant on February 19, 1976, gave notice of his choice of physician. If there is unnecessary and extravagant treatment the employer or his insurer should not bear the cost of such treatment.
Note:	Change in right to medical control procedural, not substantive.
Citation:	71 Cal.App.3d 133, 42 CCC 493
WCC Citation:	WCC 30121977 CA

Case Name:	SCIF vs. WCAB, Cardoza		12/18/1967
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOHN RAYMOND CARDOZA, Respondents. John R. Cardoza, then aged 23, entered the employment of Poso Canal Company on March 17, 1964, as a mechanic. Cardoza dived into the water from the canal bank, struck his head, and suffered injuries for which the award here at issue was made. Cardoza testified that Poso employees were accustomed to take coffee breaks or work breaks, as respites from their labors. Poso sometimes parked equipment on the bank of the canal and Cardoza and other employees on occasion worked on it there.
Note:	Injury incurred during activity break for comfort of employee is AOE/COE.
Citation:	67 Cal.2d 925
WCC Citation:	WCC 29821967 CA

Case Name:	Scott v. WCAB (Moore's Western, et. al.)		03/24/1998
Summary:	Joe Scott, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Moore's Western Nursery, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Mark and Irene Richardson, dba Windows Express, illegally uninsured, Respondents. The WCJ issued an F&A awarding 5 1/4 percent PPD against Windows Express, and no PPD against Moore's Nursery, denying SCIF's lien claim against the PPD award. SCIF Petitioned for Reconsideration and the WCAB found that Applicant had already received the full amount of PPD due, and SCIF was entitled to contribution from Windows Express for the PPD SCIF paid. The WCAB also held that Applicant was not entitled to further PPD from Windows Express since he had already received the full PPD benefits from SCIF. The WCAB denied reconsideration and Applicant filed a Petition for Writ of Review, which was denied.
Note:	Credit allowed for overpaid disability benfs. in another case.
Citation:	63 CCC 488 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 25151998 CA

Case Name:	Scott v. WCAB (Time Fire & Cas.)		08/25/1981
Summary:	RODMAN R. SCOTT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and TIME FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondents. Mr. Velthoen hired Mr. Scott to assist in building a personal home for Velthoen; Scott was to install some 'sandwich panels' for the walls and place roof trusses. Scott testified he was to be paid an hourly wage and he received two paychecks totalling $480 from Velthoen for the work. This order contained a finding that Insurance Code section 11590 extended compensation insurance coverage for the injury sustained by Scott. The Board also concluded that an election to cover Scott under Labor Code section 4151 was precluded because Scott came within the exclusion of section 3352, subdivision (h).
Note:	WCAB without jurisdiction to reconsider if claimant was 'employee' since employer failed to petition within 20 days.
Citation:	122 Cal.App.3d 979
WCC Citation:	WCC 26591981 CA

Case Name:	Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. WCAB		12/02/1996
Summary:	Subsequently, the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarded Lopez scheduled permanent partial disability indemnity of $9,020. The WCAB denied reconsideration of the judge's determination, and the Court of Appeal summarily denied Sea-Land's petition for writ of review. As this very case illustrates, application of category-by-category credit would effectively require Sea-Land to pay more in compensation than if the WCAB award had come first. Second, in the absence of an agreement, the WCAB has discretion to allow credit where the employer voluntarily made payments described in the statute. Accordingly, in the WCAB proceedings, Sea-Land took the position that '[w]hen the LHWCA permanent disability payment of $7,040. 88 is credited against the WCAB liability for permanent disability of $9,020. 00, the remainder owed is $1,979. 12. ' -FN 4.
Note:	Overpaid federal disability benefits can be credited 'dollar for dollar' against state liabilities..
Citation:	14 Cal.4th 76
WCC Citation:	WCC 24541996 CA

Case Name:	Seabright Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Fitzpatrick)		01/29/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. SAC0323184) In this workers' compensation proceeding, Dianne Fitzpatrick (applicant) and Seabright Insurance Company (Seabright) separately seek writ review of the actions taken by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (2) The WCAB wrongly disregarded her expert witness's testimony as to the rating of her permanent disability. Applicant requested an expedited WCAB hearing to obtain an order that defendant authorize treatment in accordance with Dr. Prasad's recommendations. The WCJ's Report and Recommendation On February 8, 2007, the WCJ filed his report and recommendation to the WCAB on applicant's petition. As explained further in the Discussion, Escobedo is the leading WCAB decision on apportionment under Labor Code section 4663.
Note:	[Unpublished] On remand, if the WCAB determines that apportionment is warranted, it is directed to calculate apportionment consistently with Brodie v. WCAB, 40 Cal.4th 1313.
Citation:	C055227
WCC Citation:	WCC 33082008 CA

Case Name:	Seabright Insurance Co. v. US Airways Inc.		08/22/2011
Summary:	SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY v. US AIRWAYS, INC. SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. US AIRWAYS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent; ANTHONY VERDON LUJAN, Intervener and Appellant. The airport is the actual owner of the conveyor, but US Airways uses it under a permit and has responsibility for its maintenance. Plaintiff SeaBright Insurance Company, Aubry's workers' compensation insurer, paid Verdon benefits based on the injury and then sued defendant US Airways, claiming the airline caused Verdon's injury and seeking to recover what it paid in benefits. Defendant US Airways sought summary judgment based on Privette, supra, 5 Cal. 4th 689, and Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198 (Hooker). *fn3 It found no evidence that US Airways "affirmatively contribute[d]" to the accident (Hooker, supra, 27 Cal. 4th at p. 213) and granted summary judgment for defendant US Airways.
Note:	The hirer of a contractor is immune to suits filed by the contractor's employee, even in cases where the hirer's safety violations are alleged to have caused the employee's injury.
Citation:	S182508
WCC Citation:	WCC 37942011 CA

Case Name:	Seabright Insurance v. U.S. Airways Inc.		03/29/2010
Summary:	NOTE: This case has been overruled by Seabright Insurance v. US Airways Inc. , S182508, on August 22, 2011, by the Supreme Court of California. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U. S. AIRWAYS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent; ANTHONY VERDON LUJAN, Intervener and Appellant. Ct. No. CGC-06-458707) Plaintiff Seabright Insurance (Seabright) and intervener Anthony Verdon Lujan (Verdon) (collectively appellants) appeal after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant U. S. Airways, Inc. , in this personal injury action. If U. S. Airways became aware of a problem with the conveyor system, it would contact Aubry to make the necessary repairs. It appears that on the date of the incident at issue here, U. S. Airways and America West Airlines were subsidiaries of U. S. Airways Group, Inc.
Note:	A hirer can be liable to the employee of a contractor if the hirer breaches a nondelegable duty imposed by statute or regulation, and the breach affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury.
Citation:	A123726
WCC Citation:	WCC 36122010 CA

Case Name:	Searles Valley Minerals Operations Inc., v. Ralph M. Parson Service Company et al.		01/21/2011
Summary:	Searles argues that, as an assignee of KM's indemnity rights, it was entitled to reimbursement for paying KM's defense costs. Searles, formerly known as North American Chemical Company, purchased the Argus plant from KM. In connection with the purchase, Searles agreed to indemnify KM for any accidents or injuries resulting in KM being sued. Searles incurred over $800,000 in attorney fees, costs, and expenses from providing KM with a defense in the underlying Moore lawsuit. Searles filed an opposition, arguing that, as KM's assignee under the construction contract, Searles was entitled to recover KM's defense expenses.
Note:	A company that acquired a processing plant also assumed indemnification rights from the previous owner and must be reimbursed after the contractor indemnifying the original owner refused to provide a defense in a wrongful death suit, California's 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Citation:	E049927
WCC Citation:	WCC 37032011 CA

Case Name:	Sedlak v. Ojai Valley Sanitary District		08/03/2011
Summary:	MICHAEL G. SEDLAK, JR. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OJAI VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. Lower Arbolada Sewer Association (Association) was formed by property owners in a portion of Ojai to convert from septic tanks to a sewer system owned and operated by respondent Ojai Valley Sanitary District (District). The Association and the District entered into a contract, which provided, among other things, that the project was subject to inspection by the District. The operative third amended complaint filed by Sedlak contained two causes of action against the District. The facts are undisputed that Sedlak was not a District employee nor was he hired by the District to work on the project.
Note:	A sewer district had no duty to ensure that a general contractor enforced safety rules on a worksite.
Citation:	B222509
WCC Citation:	WCC 37852011 CA

Case Name:	Selden v. WCAB		01/21/1986
Summary:	MICHAEL SELDEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al. , Respondents. OPINION EAGLESON, J. Petitioner Michael Selden seeks review of an order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration of its decision ordering denial of a petition to reopen the case on the issue of permanent disability. On August 28, 1980, after applicant avoided properly requested examinations, Employer filed a 'Petition to Reopen to Reduce Award and Finding of Extended Permanent Disability. 'This filing was just a few days prior to the expiration of the five-year jurisdictional period. Subsequently, on January 25, 1982, Employer sent a letter to the WCJ requesting that its petition to reopen be withdrawn.
Note:	Board had no jurisdiction to increase award when no counterpetition was filed.
Citation:	176 Cal.App.3d 877
WCC Citation:	WCC 26681986 CA

Case Name:	Self-Insurers' Security Fund v. Esis, Inc.		09/29/1988
Summary:	SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ESIS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents (Opinion by Anderson, P. J. , with Channell, J. , concurring. [3] Pursuant to that legislation, the Fund was empowered 'to bring an action against any person to recover compensation paid and liability assumed by the fund . . . . ' (§ 3744, subd. Statutes and regulations designed to require adequate security are necessary to ensure the financial soundness of the Self-Insurers' Security Fund (Fund) so that its monies will be available to injured workers. The Fund has pled no damages to CCG for which the Fund could recover. On the contrary, the Fund has filed a claim for reimbursement against CCG in the bankruptcy proceedings and CCG still is responsible to the fund for obligations paid and assumed by the Fund.
Note:	Employer's duty to secure pmt. of compensation does not extend to all knowledgeable participants.
Citation:	204 Cal.App.3d 1148
WCC Citation:	WCC 24251988 CA

Case Name:	Seretti v. Superior Nat. Ins. Co.		04/28/1999
Summary:	PHILLIP SERETTI et al. , Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-defendant and Respondent. Seretti and his wife, appellant Vujovich, owned real property on Floye Street in Hollywood on which the decedent was working at the time of the accident. 4 As such, defendants contend that payment to lien claimants on a workers' compensation basis is neither appropriate nor reasonable. ''Phillip Seretti' and 'Janja Vujovich' were expressly excluded from coverage. Furthermore, in the present case, the policy expressly excludes Seretti and Vujovich from the status of insureds. '
Note:	Homeowners who were also officers and shareholders in corporation employing applicants injured at homeowners' real property cannot bring civil action against corporation's work comp carrier for bad faith.
Citation:	71 Cal.App.4th 920
WCC Citation:	WCC 3901999 CA

Case Name:	Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 v. Schwarzenegger		06/10/2010
Summary:	Filed 6/11/10 Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 v. Schwarzenegger CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al. , Defendants and Appellants, And related Cross-Complaint. While the Sacramento court's clarifying minute order does not refer explicitly to SCIF employees, these employees are not 'employees of executive branch agencies' to whom the Sacramento court considered its ruling to exclusively apply. Because the claims of SCIF employees were not adjudicated in CASE I, there is no conflicting adjudication as to those employees. The reduction in total hours worked by SCIF employees is the same whether achieved by a furlough imposed on all employees or the layoff of only some employees.
Note:	[Unpublished] Section 11873, subdivision (c) limits the Governor's authority to impose furloughs on SCIF employees.
Citation:	CPF-09-509-580
WCC Citation:	WCC 36372010 CA

Case Name:	Service Rock Products v. WCAB (Marquis)		09/11/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SERVICE ROCK PRODUCTS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ROBERT MARQUIS, Respondents. F055340 (WCAB No. BAK 146964) OPINION THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Service Rock Products (SRP) petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). SPR petitioned for reconsideration, but the WCAB denied the petition based on the report and recommendation of the WCJ. Although SRP repeatedly refers to the 2004 PDRS, like the WCAB and Marquis, we presume the reference is to 2005 PDRS as the only update to the schedule since 1997.
Note:	[Unpublished] By its very terms mandating the employer notify the employee of his or her right to dispute the temporary disability termination, the section 4061 notice must be sent regardless of the WCAB's ultimate determination on the issues of temporary disability and permanent and stationary status.
Citation:	F055340
WCC Citation:	WCC 34212008 CA

Case Name:	Shanahan v. State Farm General Insurance Co.		03/08/2011
Summary:	SHANAHAN v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY JOHN M. SHANAHAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Shanahan had a renter's insurance policy and a separate personal liability policy (umbrella policy) with State Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm). He sued State Farm for breach of contract and breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing based upon State Farm's refusal to defend the Skigin lawsuit. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, contending it had no duty to defend Shanahan. Shanahan had two insurance policies with State Farm: a renter's policy and an umbrella policy.
Note:	An employer's personal liability policy and renter's insurance policy provided no coverage for his $700,000 settlement of a sexual harassment and battery suit, according to a published decision from the California 4th District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	G042988
WCC Citation:	WCC 37292011 CA

Case Name:	Shannon et al. v. Los Angeles County Fire Department et al.		01/25/2012
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT MICHAEL SHANNON et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. BC380970) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. * * * * * * This case arises out of appellant Michael Shannons (Shannon) termination from employment at the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). While on leave, on November 5, 2005, Shannon completed a form entitled Los Angeles County Fire Department Employees Report of Injury/Illness. Shannon Is Diagnosed With PTSD On April 4, 2006, Dr. Diane DeSilva diagnosed Shannon with major depressive disorder and PTSD.
Note:	A California appellate court rejected a Los Angles firefighters claim that he was wrongfully terminated due to his post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis.
Citation:	B223650
WCC Citation:	WCC 38472012 CA

Case Name:	Sharareh v. WCAB		10/18/2007
Summary:	A113864 (WCAB Case No. WCK 51625) Shahiram and Violeta Sharareh (petitioners), successors in interest to the estate of their son Sina Sharareh (Sharareh), seek to annul an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying their son compensation for injuries he suffered when he was shot in the throat. Thys then left, checked with his supervisor [and] approved a deal made with [Sharareh] to check on Matt Anderson . The arbitrator and the Board also unduly emphasized that Sharareh initiated the contact and offered to assist Thys. If Sharareh and Thys had entered into an agreement that Sharareh would assist Thys, the fact that Sharareh initiated the contact should not be a basis upon which to deny him informant status. The arbitrator found: "The evidence does show that [Sharareh] did provide information to law enforcement officials which was, in fact, used against Anderson, and the evidence further suggests Anderson almost certainly became aware of this later, prior to the time he shot [Sharareh] and was then killed by police. "
Note:	The legal consequence of the Board's failure to prepare a summary of evidence is that the Court of Appeal is unable to conduct a meaningful review of the Board's order and therefore, the order is annulled.
Citation:	156 Cal. App. 4th 189; 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 147
WCC Citation:	WCC 32692007 CA

Case Name:	Sheaffer v. Board of Retirement San Joaquin Couty		07/02/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- TIMOTHY A. SHEAFFER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND, Real Party In Interest and Respondent. As to the merits, Sheaffer contends the evidence established his psychological disability was permanent and service-connected, or if the evidence was insufficient, the Board of Retirement of the San Joaquin County Employees' Retirement System (the Board) had a duty to develop a fuller record on these issues. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Beginning in 1985, Sheaffer was a deputy district attorney for San Joaquin County. The ALJ granted the motion of real party in interest San Joaquin County Employees' Retirement Fund (the Fund) to exclude the report. Sheaffer petitioned for a writ of mandate to set aside the decision denying industrial disability retirement or to reinstate Sheaffer to his former position.
Note:	[Unpublished] Since Sheaffer failed to establish a permanent disability, the trial court did not err in denying the petition for a writ.
Citation:	C054229
WCC Citation:	WCC 33902008 CA

Case Name:	SHELBY v. SeaRIVER MARITIME INC.		02/18/2011
Summary:	SHELBY v. SeaRIVER MARITIME INC. MACK SHELBY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEARIVER MARITIME INC. , Defendant and Appellant. This is an appeal from the final judgment after the jury awarded plaintiff Mack Shelby $8 million in damages for harm sustained from exposure to petroleum products containing benzene and other hydrocarbons while employed as an able-bodied seaman by defendant SeaRiver Maritime Inc. , formerly named Exxon Shipping Company (SeaRiver). After taking a six-month medical leave of absence to address his condition, plaintiff returned to work with SeaRiver. In 2006, plaintiff brought this action, asserting claims against SeaRiver under the Jones Act (see 46 U. S. C. 30104) (Jones Act), and general maritime law. According to SeaRiver, plaintiff failed this burden because he presented "no evidence of [his] present inability to work at SeaRiver or anywhere else. "
Note:	The California 1st District Court of Appeal upheld an $8 million jury verdict in favor of a cancer-stricken seaman in a Jones Act lawsuit, rejecting the employer's arguments that a doctor's testimony that petroleum products had likely caused the cancer was only conjecture.
Citation:	A122449
WCC Citation:	WCC 37192011 CA

Case Name:	Shell Oil Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n		01/23/1962
Summary:	No. 77 January 23, 1962 SHELL OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, BETTY BYRD ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding death benefit to widow and minor children of an employee. Stone [199 CalApp2d Page 427] Petitioner, Shell Oil Company, seeks annulment of an award to the widow and minor children of Charles H. Byrd, deceased. On March 16, the Shell Oil Company held a dinner meeting in Stockton, which was called the Spring Dealers' Meeting. They were unable to determine immediately what was wrong with the automobile, so they parked it at a Shell station and continued on to the meeting. Petitioner stresses the fact that the agreement between Byrd and Shell Oil Company prohibited him from making any major automobile repairs at the service station.
Note:	Employees injuries are in course and scope of employment if related to attendance of special meeting/training.
Citation:	199 Cal. App. 2d 426
WCC Citation:	WCC 30411962 CA

Case Name:	Sherwood v. City of Los Angeles		01/28/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE ROCKY SHERWOOD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Carlos De La Guerra, Assistant City Attorney, and Martin R. Boags, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Following a hearing before the Board of Rights, Rocky Sherwood (Sherwood) was removed from his position as a police officer for the City of Los Angeles (City). In December 2002, Sherwood was informed by Sergeant Linder that there was a pending criminal and administrative investigation against Sherwood. (Jackson v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 111 Cal. App. 4th at p.
Note:	[Unpublished] At the relevant time and during the period Plaintiff was off duty TTD, there is no evidence that he knew or should have known that he should have returned to work.
Citation:	B195551
WCC Citation:	WCC 33072008 CA

Case Name:	Shipley v. WCAB		06/29/1992
Summary:	MARSHALL S. SHIPLEY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF WHITTIER, Respondents. OPINION WALLIN, J. Marshall S. Shipley successfully petitioned this court for a writ of review of orders of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturning a compensation award and denying Shipley's petition for reconsideration. The city referred Shipley to Dr. Hillsman, who concluded his injury was '100% non industrial. 'Several months later, Shipley again inquired about the status of the petition and the location of the file. Shipley is entitled to the board's review of his petition and its decision on its merits.
Note:	Time period is subject to tolling by Board when circumstances warrant it.
Citation:	7 Cal.App.4th 1104
WCC Citation:	WCC 26991992 CA

Case Name:	Shipman v. California Dep't of Corrections and Rehabilitation		01/03/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. F050317 January 3, 2008 JAMES SHIPMAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant, Michael W. Pott and Thomas L. Riordan for Defendants and Respondents California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Matthew C. Kramer and Kathleen Prosper. Shipman has no information, however, that Kramer, Prosper or Bollinger ever said Shipman had broken into Bollinger's office. While these counselors didn't indicate Bollinger made any such statements about Shipman, Shipman believed the counselors heard that from Bollinger. H. Shipman's Government Claim and Appeal On July 6, 2004, Shipman filed a government claim with the State of California Board of Control.
Note:	Making comments about an employee's truthfulness in the course of a workplace investigation does not exceed all bounds of conduct usually tolerated in a civilized society.
Citation:	F050317
WCC Citation:	WCC 32972008 CA

Case Name:	Shope v. WCAB		12/02/1971
Summary:	RICHARD SHOPE, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondents (Opinion by Aiso, J. , with Stephens, Acting P. J. , and Reppy, J. , concurring. )That he was entitled to workmen's compensation benefits awarded him by the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (Board) is not disputed. The employer went out of business in December 1968 and has not joined in this review. We hold in favor of petitioner on both questions and order the decision of the Board annulled for the reasons we set forth below. We therefore, hold that petitioner has standing to have this court review the Board's determination as to the insurance coverage.
Note:	Worker can institute review of decision because he was affected adversely.
Citation:	21 Cal.App.3d 774
WCC Citation:	WCC 27081971 CA

Case Name:	Sierra Pacific Industries v. WCAB		06/30/2006
Summary:	Sierra Pacific Industries v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No. C050589 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 06/30/2006) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C050589 June 30, 2006 SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD ET AL. RESPONDENTS. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) petitions for a writ of review to determine the lawfulness of an award and an order denying reconsideration in a proceeding before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB found the treatment reasonable and necessary through February 26, 2004, and denied SPI's petition for reconsideration. Following the recommendation of the WCJ, the WCAB denied reconsideration. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	The reasonableness standard of medical care in SB 899 applies regardless of date of injury.
Citation:	140 Cal. App. 4th 1498
WCC Citation:	WCC 31702006 CA

Case Name:	Signature Fruit Co. v. WCAB		08/31/2006
Summary:	Signature Fruit Company petitions this court to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarding one of its seasonal employees, Eva Ochoa, temporary disability benefits. The record supports the stipulation by revealing that Ochoa could only recall working as a seasonal employee with Signature Fruit Company in recent years. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORIES Eva Ochoa worked as a seasonal sanitation worker for Signature Fruit Company (Signature) since 1998. Lacking any dispute over the underlying facts, Signature presents a pure question of law reviewable by this court de novo. *fn2 An en banc decision of the WCAB binds future WCAB panels and WCJs as legal precedent in the same manner as a published appellate opinion.
Note:	When a seasonal employee does not have any off-season earnings and does not compete in the open labor market during a portion of the year, the employee is not entitled to temporary disability payments during that season.
Citation:	142 Cal.App.4th 790
WCC Citation:	WCC 31772006 CA

Case Name:	Silas v. Arden		12/31/2012
Summary:	SILAS v. ARDEN MARTINA A. SILAS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ELLIS ARDEN, Defendant and Appellant. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. JOHNSON, J. James Ellis Arden (Arden) appeals judgment in favor of Martina Silas (Silas) in Silas's action against Arden for malicious prosecution of a malpractice action against her. Arden understood that for Gunnell to prevail on malpractice that Arden had to prove that Silas would have been successful on the fraudulent misrepresentation theory. Silas argues Vafi, the case upon which Arden relies, should not be applied retroactively, and that Arden waived the defense by failing to raise it earlier. A portion of our factual statement is taken from the opinion in the personal injury action, Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4th 710, the opinion in Gunnell's action against Silas, Gunnell v. Silas (Jan. 27, 2006, B180744), and the opinion in this action regarding Arden's special motion to strike, Silas v. Arden (Dec. 31, 2009, B210297).
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal has decided to publish its decision affirming a $300,756 malicious prosecution award for an attorney who prevailed against an injured worker's malpractice suit.
Citation:	B235835
WCC Citation:	WCC 39672012 CA

Case Name:	Simi Corp. vs. John Garamendi, as Ins. Comm.		06/26/2003
Summary:	Neither Simi Corporation, the employer, nor its insurer rejected liability for the claims at issue within 90 days of the claims' filing. The experience rating plan in effect when Simi Corporation's employees made the three claims at issue here sets out the rules governing experience rating. Simi Corporation sued Superior Pacific Casualty Company at some point before 1998, alleging that the insurer's erroneous report of data regarding the three claims referenced above had damaged Simi Corporation. Simi Corporation then appealed that decision to the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Insurance Code section 11753. 1, subdivision (a). In summary, the trial court erred in adopting Simi Corporation's interpretation of the pertinent regulation rather than the Insurance Commissioner's interpretation.
Note:	Deference given to Ins. Commisioner's interpretation of regulations governing the reporting status of claims.
Citation:	109 Cal.App.4th 1496
WCC Citation:	WCC 29412003 CA

Case Name:	Simi vs. Sav-Max Foods, Inc.		02/01/2005
Summary:	Defendant initially denied the claim but eventually accepted liability after obtaining an "AOE/COE report" from Dr. Michael A. Uro, a podiatrist. On February 23, 2004, Dr. Weiner observed that applicant was having problems with a "Baker's cyst" in the left knee. Defendant's notification letter stated that the QME exam was being set "[i]n accordance with Section 4060 et. On July 27, 2004, the WCJ issued the "Order Compelling Attendance at Defense QME and to Suspend Benefits" disputed here. The Appeals Board reasoned that it was still "possible" to return to the original psychiatrist to address the WCJ's concerns.
Note:	LC 4062 as it existed prior to SB 899 applies to represented employees injured before 1/1/05.
Citation:	70 CCC 217
WCC Citation:	WCC 30782005 CA

Case Name:	Simmons v. Dep't of Mental Health		06/17/2005
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. LBO 0340807 LISA SIMMONS, Applicant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH (METROPOLITAN STATE HOSPITAL), Legally Uninsured; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). Lisa Simmons (applicant) sustained an industrial injury to her right shoulder and bilateral wrists on August 20, 2002. At the time of her injury, she was employed as a janitor by the State of California, Department of Mental Health (Metropolitan State Hospital), legally uninsured and adjusted by State Compensation Insurance Fund (collectively, SCIF). The WCJ, however, prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the May 6, 2004 decision be affirmed. However, AOE/COE [injury arising out of and in the course of the employment] issue re: R shoulder has not been resolved.
Note:	Utilization review report is not admissible for determining whether the injury caused the need for a particular treatment.
Citation:	70 CCC 866
WCC Citation:	WCC 31062005 CA

Case Name:	Singh v. Southland Stone		07/01/2010
Summary:	SINGH v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U. S. A. , INC. GURPREET SINGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U. S. A. , Inc. , et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Factual Background Johar is the president and owner of Southland Stone, an importer and distributor of natural stone based in North Hollywood. During a visit to India in November 2003, Johar informed Singh that Southland Stone was seeking a general manager for Internet sales. Singh returned to the Los Angeles area for three weeks in November and December 2004 to work as a consultant for Southland Stone. According to Choti, she gave the envelope containing the three checks to another Southland Stone employee to mail to Singh.
Note:	The exclusive remedy of workers' compensation barred an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against an employer, according to a decision from the California 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	B208620
WCC Citation:	None

Case Name:	Singh v. WCAB (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)		08/25/2017
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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             RAVINDERJIT SINGH, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Respondents. .             F075483 .             (WCAB No. ADJ8763257) .             OPINION THE COURT*  .             * Before Gomes, Acting P. J. , Franson, J. , and Smith, J. .             Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone and Ryan T. Trotta for Petitioner. .           Carla Anene, Mary Huckabaa, and Ryan J. Artola for Respondent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. .           -ooOoo- .           Ravinderjit Singh (Singh) petitions for a writ of review from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
Note:	The 5th District Court of Appeal has sent a worker’s claim for temporary disability benefits back to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board for reconsideration after the board admitted that it failed to consider all the legal theories that could have entitled the worker to benefits.
Citation:	F075483
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ8763257

Case Name:	Six Flags Inc. v. WCAB		11/27/2006
Summary:	[1] IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE [2] No. B184245 [4] November 27, 2006 [5] SIX FLAGS, INC. [24] PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND [25] Bantita Rackchamroon, an operator hostess for Six Flags, Inc. , sustained industrial injury and death on April 9, 2004. Pursuant to section 4706. 5, the workers' compensation judge also awarded $125,000 to the Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit. The workers' compensation judge issued a report recommending that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) deny the petition for reconsideration. [37] Thus, at present, article XIV, section 4, does not include estates as a class of beneficiaries entitled to workers' compensation death benefits.
Note:	Section 4702(a)(6)(B) is unconstitutional because the constitutional enabling provision, article XIV, section 4, does not identify estates as a class of beneficiaries entitled to workers' compensation death benefits.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 91
WCC Citation:	WCC 31952006 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. City of Oakland		06/22/2012
Summary:	SMITH v. CITY OF OAKLAND QUINCY SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF OAKLAND et al. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS MARCHIANO, P. J. Quincy Smith, employed by the City of Oakland (City), sued the City and individually named defendants, including Brook Levin and David Ferguson, alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). About two weeks after the plaintiffs submitted a complaint about the appointment to the City Auditor, Robles-Wong began a campaign of harassment against them. The City filed a general demurrer to the first amended complaint at the end of December 2010. Smith alleged he was "an African-American male, age 39," while McConnell, alleged he was "a disabled Caucasian male, age 62. "
Note:	A city employee who thrice failed to state a cognizable claim for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act despite receiving multiple opportunities to amend his complaint was not entitled to yet another chance.
Citation:	A133070
WCC Citation:	WCC 39092012 CA