Case Name:	Kerley vs. WCAB		03/01/1971
Summary:	LONNIE EUGENE KERLEY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GENERAL CABLE COMPANY, Respondents. OPINION BURKE, J. Petitioner Lonnie Eugene Kerley seeks review of a decision, after reconsideration, of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, refusing to assess a 10 percent penalty against respondent employer, General Cable Company, for unreasonable delay in paying compensation. Upon leaving the plant that afternoon, petitioner noticed stiffness in his upper back and numbness in his left leg. The following day, Friday, in the absence of Dr. King, the orthopedist who performed the February surgery, petitioner consulted Dr. Branick. At the conclusion of the hearing, the referee indicated that he intended to find petitioner's condition permanent and stationary.
Note:	The only excuse for delay in payment of benefits is genuine doubt from a medical or legal standpoint; burden on employer to present substantial evidence of such.
Citation:	4 Cal.3d 223
WCC Citation:	WCC 30151971 CA

Case Name:	Kerner v. Superior Court of LA County		05/21/2012
Summary:	KERNER v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LISA KERNER, Petitioner,v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; RICHARD M. WIDOM, Real Party in Interest. STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WIDOM, WOOLVERTON & MUEHL et al. , Petitioners,v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; RICHARD M. WIDOM, Real Party in Interest. Ct. L. A. County, No. BD501681)) and obtained a temporary restraining order against Widom based on allegations of domestic violence. According to a later declaration by McCloskey, her firm began representing Kerner and George ceased his representation of Kerner on that same date. They stated further that Defendants' co-counsel Sedwick LLP also represented Kerner and that the objection was asserted on behalf of both Defendants and Kerner.
Note:	A California appellate court has published a 64-page decision overturning four pre-trial rulings in a long-running dispute between Los Angeles workers' compensation defense attorney Richard Widom, his former law firm and his ex-wife, who has twice accused him of beating her.
Citation:	B233918
WCC Citation:	WCC 38982012 CA

Case Name:	Keulen v. WCAB.		09/23/1998
Summary:	Al Keulen, Jr. (Keulen) petitions this court for a writ of review of the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or the Board) denying reconsideration of its decision that Keulen only suffered a 2. 25 percent permanent disability from industrial injury to his left thumb. Keulen objected to Doctor Mooney's findings and requested an agreed medical examiner pursuant to section 4062. Keulen arranged for his own qualified medical evaluator, Doctor Donald R. Schwartz, to conduct a comprehensive medical evaluation. When Doctor Schwartz examined Keulen, Keulen reported that the pain restricted his activities upwards of 70 percent of the day, and that he had to alter the way he uses his left arm and hand. He determined that Keulen did not sustain injury resulting in ulnar neuropathy, but that Keulen is in need of future medical care.
Note:	New, uncontested med. evidence rebutted presumption that treating physician's findings were correct; Earlier treating physician's opinion no less relevant than QME's.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.4th 1089, 63 CCC 1125
WCC Citation:	WCC 24121998 CA

Case Name:	Key Energy Services, Inc. v. Cal. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Bd.		02/22/2018
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 .             KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; .             DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. .             F073567 .             (Super. Ct. No. S-1500-CV283958) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. .           -ooOoo- .           An employer appeals from the denial of its petition for a writ of mandate. .           _____________________ HILL, P. J. .           WE CONCUR: .           _____________________ GOMES, J.
Note:
Citation:	F073567
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. S-1500-CV283958

Case Name:	Khoury v. Martha		02/08/2010
Summary:	Filed 2/8/10 Khoury v. Martha 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 MASHHOUR KHOURY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MAHER MARTHA, Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. SCV236372) Mashhour Khoury sued Maher Martha for negligence and failure to hold workers compensation insurance after he fell through a ceiling at the premises of a disbanded bakery where he had previously been employed by Martha. He appeals from a judgment in favor of Martha on a jury verdict finding Martha was not negligent and appellant was not working as an employee at the time of the accident. Nimer Martha ( Nimer ), Mahers first cousin and the husband of Mahers sister, worked at the bakery as a delivery person.
Note:	A Sonoma County Superior Court did not err by admitting evidence of a plaintiff's prior work-related drug use at trial.
Citation:	A120651
WCC Citation:	WCC 35962010 CA

Case Name:	Kielar v. Metropolitan Museum of Art		10/28/2008
Summary:	Kielar v Metropolitan Museum of Art NY Slip Op 08177 Decided on October 28, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. 4402A 115524/04 591277/04 [*1]Wioleta Kielar, etc. , et al. , Plaintiffs-Respondents, v The Metropolitan Museum of Art, et al. , Defendants-Appellants, Total Safety Consulting, L. L. C. , Defendant. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, R. Smith Restoration, Inc. , Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. Bivona & Cohen, P. C. , New York (Curtis B. Gilfillan of counsel), for appellants and appellant-respondent. The motion court properly granted the museum and the City summary judgment on their contractual indemnity claims in view of the employer's indemnification agreement with the museum and the City.
Note:	The museum did not have actual or constructive notice of any unsafe practices, and no issues of fact as to whether the museum was affirmatively negligent are otherwise raised.
Citation:	4402 4402A 115524/04 591277/04
WCC Citation:	WCC 34422008 CA

Case Name:	Kifle-Thompson v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners		07/20/2012
Summary:	In August 2008 the Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) issued a decision revoking Aster Kifle-Thompson's chiropractic license. (Kazensky v. City of Merced (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 44, 52; see also Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners (1984) 32 Cal. 2d 301, 308-309. )The Board granted Kifle-Thompson a chiropractic license in 1993, after she received a Doctor of Chiropractic (DC) degree that year. Kifle-Thompson argues the Board also exceeded its jurisdiction because the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had already adjudicated claims raised by insurer or lien-claimants with respect to the billings examined by the Board. F.  Bias of Board Members Kifle-Thompson argues the Board acted improperly because it did not afford her a fair hearing in accordance with due process.
Note:	The Board of Chiropractic Examiners did not err when it upheld an administrative law judge's recommendation to revoke the license of a chiropractor who conspired to defraud insurance companies.
Citation:	A130819
WCC Citation:	WCC 39142012 CA

Case Name:	King v. CompPartners, Inc.		01/05/2016
Summary:	Filed 1/5/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             KIRK KING et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             COMPPARTNERS, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             E063527 .             (Super. Ct. No. RIC1409797) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. .             Murchison & Cumming, William D. Naeve, Ellen M. Tipping and Terry L. Kesinger for Defendants and Respondent. .           CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION .           MILLER J. .           We concur: .           McKINSTER Acting P. J.
Note:
Citation:	E063527
WCC Citation:	Super.Ct.No. RIC1409797

Case Name:	King v. WCAB		07/03/1991
Summary:	JEWELL KING, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LYNWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondents. Dr. Curtis reported that the symptoms associated with those disorders were largely transitory and did not contribute to applicant's depression. Dr. Dean Wiese, an internist, noted that applicant was treated for hypertension and congestive heart failure in 1980 and 1982. Dr. Scott concluded applicant's conflict with and harassment by Ms. Webb exacerbated applicant's preexisting hypertension, causing shortness of breath, dizziness, and fatigue. Dr. Scott recommended that applicant be permanently limited to light work with a minimum of physical effort and no stress.
Note:	Apportionment to preexisting disability must be based on evidence that preexisting condition was labor disabling.
Citation:	231 Cal.App.3d 1640, 56 CCC 408
WCC Citation:	WCC 24761991 CA

Case Name:	Kinsman v. Unocal Corp.		12/19/2005
Summary:	Kinsman argued that given industry knowledge, Unocal should have warned Kinsman's employer or adopted various safety measures. But Unocal argued that Kinsman was not exposed to levels of asbestos that were considered unsafe at the time. Kinsman, in closing argument, pointed to the lack of evidence that Unocal complied with the industry standards, as well as testimony questioning the validity of those standards. Kinsman submitted his case on two theories of liability: first, a premises liability theory, that Unocal was negligent in the use, maintenance, or management of the areas where Kinsman worked; second, that Unocal was negligent in the exercise of retained control over the methods of the work or the manner of the work performed by Kinsman. It assigned Unocal 15 percent of the fault in causing Kinsman's mesothelioma, with the remaining 85 percent of fault attributable to "all others," and awarded Kinsman over $3 million in compensatory damages against Unocal.
Note:	Landowner hiring independent contractor liable for injuries if landowner knows about and fails to warn contractor of hazardous condition.
Citation:	37 Cal. 4th 659
WCC Citation:	WCC 31332005 CA