Case Name:	Furtado v. State Personnel Board		01/07/2013
Summary:	FURTADO v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD BRUCE FURTADO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Alvin Gittisriboongul for Defendants and Respondents California State Personnel Board and Suzanne Ambrose. INTRODUCTION Bruce Furtado appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate directing the California State Personnel Board (SPB) to set aside its order sustaining the decision of California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) to medically demote Furtado to a non-peace officer position, and not to place Furtado in a newly-created administrative correctional lieutenant peace officer position. The instructor who tested Furtado concluded that Furtado had failed multiple aspects of the test. The instructor gave Furtado an overall rating of "Fail," and noted that Furtado had "very little control over [the] baton when both hands [were] required. "
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to medically demote an injured guard to a non-peace officer position as a result of his physical limitations from an off-duty car accident.
Citation:	D059912
WCC Citation:	WCC 39712013 CA

Case Name:	Gaiera v. WCAB		03/28/1969
Summary:	EMILIO GAIERA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ROSALIE GAIERA et al. , Respondents. We have concluded that when the appeals board denies a petition for reconsideration, its order may incorporate and include therein the report of the referee. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 753 [68 Cal. Rptr. 825, 441 P. 2d 633], wherein the appeals board issued its order granting reconsideration. Dr. Gaiera, the son of petitioner, stated that petitioner's 'major complaint is irremediable. '[4] The referee's instructions to the Permanent Disability Rating Bureau are, in effect, findings of fact on these issues.
Note:	Selection of factors for disability rating and percentage are sole discretion of WCAB.
Citation:	271 Cal.App.2d 246, 34 CCC 182
WCC Citation:	WCC 25381969 CA

Case Name:	Gallamore v. WCAB		03/26/1979
Summary:	JIM D. GALLAMORE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAN RAMON GLASS COMPANY et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Richardson, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Carrier did not inform applicant of his right to reimbursement for any transportation expenses related to necessary medical examinations. Applicant's attorney advised carrier in late August 1976 that such payments should be made "to avoid the possibility of a penalty. "Thus, as of September 1976, applicant had sought three separate 10 percent penalties pursuant to the two petitions then pending before the board. The question of delay and the reasonableness of the cause therefor shall be determined by the appeals board in accordance with the facts.
Note:	Multiple penalties proper for multiple delinquencies in benefits.
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 815
WCC Citation:	WCC 28731979 CA

Case Name:	Gallo v. WCAB		10/31/2007
Summary:	The WCJ admittedly declined to consider new medical evidence proffered by Gallo at trial after discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference and concluded Gallo did not sustain any additional industrial injuries. Gallo petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration on April 19, 2007, primarily contending the WCJ refused to consider his medical evidence. The WCAB's order indicates the WCAB served Gallo by mail at his current post office box. On May 29, 2007, Gallo wrote a "To Whom it May Concern" letter to the WCAB stating he "received a letter of order denying reconsideration. "There is no indication Gallo petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration on the supplemental award.
Note:	[Unpublished] When a party fails to seek review within the time allotted, both the WCAB and the court is without jurisdiction to hear future challenges to the decision.
Citation:	F053819
WCC Citation:	WCC 32752007 CA

Case Name:	Galloway v. WCAB		05/05/1998
Summary:	Galloway selected Dr. John Kayvanfar as the qualified medical examiner to examine him and evaluate his status following the surgery. Insurer objected to the preliminary rating report in that Galloway had made no claim for a neck injury. As a result, a rating was made by the disability evaluation unit, a copy of which was sent to Galloway. On March 29 and April 1, 1993, Galloway, who was not represented by counsel, telephoned Insurer to discuss his status. In reversing that decision, the WCAB found that Galloway knew or should have known by at least April 1, 1993, making the claim untimely.
Note:	Failure to notify applicant of time limits for filing injury comp. claim tolled statute of limitations.
Citation:	63 Cal.App.4th 880, 63 CCC 532
WCC Citation:	WCC 3751998 CA

Case Name:	Galt v. WCAB		09/21/2007
Summary:	Filed 9/21/07 City of Galt v. WCAB (Ramos) 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) CITY OF GALT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CONCEPCION RAMOS, Respondents. As we will explain, we agree with petitioner City of Galt (the city) that the WCJ used the wrong schedule. While that petition was pending, the WCAB (sitting en banc) decided Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 95. The three dissenting members of the WCAB concluded that the "plain language" of sections 4061 and 4660(d) required a different result.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because a medical report submitted by the plaintiff did not contain an indication of permanent disability, the 2005 schedule applies.
Citation:	C055118, SAC327100
WCC Citation:	WCC 32602007 CA

Case Name:	Galvan v. WCAB		12/20/1990
Summary:	Marcus Galvan, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, and Ford Motor Company, Respondents. Accordingly, we will annul respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision in this case. Facts and Procedural History Petitioner Marcus Galvan (employee) was employed as a paint mixer by respondent Ford Motor Company (Ford) when the plant closed on July 15, 1983. 1990) 569 A. 2d 697; Dugan v. W. C. A. B. (Fuller Co. ) (Pa. Comwlth. We agree with the board's assessment that MacDonald is distinguishable from the case at bar based on this factual finding. These factual findings will determine whether employee became entitled to receive temporary disability indemnity after his decision to retire.
Note:	Receiving voluntary retirement benefits does not terminate right to disability indemnity.
Citation:	55 CCC 483
WCC Citation:	WCC 24871990 CA

Case Name:	Galvao v. WCAB		12/19/2008
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Petitioner Lavender Galvao (Galvao) petitions for review of an order by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board). Galvao did not return to work at Kinko's, but began working at a less physically-demanding job for a different employer. Specifically, Zurich did not send Galvao a Notice of Potential Eligibility (NOPE) for vocational rehabilitation, did not provide an appropriate written offer of modified work, and did not send Galvao a denial of vocational rehabilitation services. Zurich concludes that allowing Galvao to receive both VRMA and her wages would result in a windfall to Galvao. Galvao should not be penalized for obtaining work to support her family, nor should Zurich be rewarded for its delays in providing services to Galvao.
Note:	Employers are not entitled to credit against vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits for wages earned by an employee because VRMA benefits are not wage replacement benefits.
Citation:	A122284
WCC Citation:	WCC 34712008 CA

Case Name:	Gamble v. WCAB		09/21/2006
Summary:	We agree with Gamble and conclude the Board's finding is unsupported by the statutory or case law. He noted, there was unrebutted trial testimony Gamble and his family were dependent on his two incomes, and concluded Gamble should not be penalized for his continuing work in a much less physically demanding occupation with the School District. United again disputed Gamble was a Qualified Injured Worker and reasserted it should be given credit for wages earned by Gamble at the School District. United did not file a petition to challenge the Board's determination Gamble was a Qualified Injured Worker or its finding Gamble was entitled to receive VRMA benefits. Simply stated, Gamble is entitled to all components of VRMA benefits because he a Qualified Injured Worker.
Note:	An employee's earnings from his second job are not a proper consideration in calculating an employer's liability for VRMA benefits.
Citation:	143 Cal. App. 4th 71
WCC Citation:	WCC 31822006 CA

Case Name:	Gapusan v. Jay		09/09/1998
Summary:	EDMUND GAPUSAN et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DAVID PATRICK JAY et al. , Defendants; CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Intervener and Appellant. Factual and Procedural Background In 1994, Gapusan and McGee were seriously injured when a drunk driver, David Patrick Jay, caused his pickup truck to collide with their patrol car. 3 Jay had liability insurance of $100,000 per injured person and apparently no ability to pay additional damages. 4 City and plaintiffs accepted the policy limits in settlement of their respective claims against Jay, but failed to agree on any apportionment of the funds. In sum, we conclude the court erred in equitably distributing a portion of the settlement proceeds to Gapusan and McGee.
Note:	Employer no subrogation rights to loss of consortium claim.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.4th 734, 63 CCC 1144
WCC Citation:	WCC 23891998 CA

Case Name:	Garau v. Department of Industrial Relations		10/30/2017
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             OLGA H. GARAU, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B276212 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Christopher G. Jagard, Chief Counsel, Christopher Frick, Assistant Chief Counsel, Marilyn Bacon, Counsel, State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Office of the Director, Legal Unit, for Defendants and Respondents. Facts .           Plaintiff worked as an attorney for the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), a division within the State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations (Department). .           ______________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           We concur: .           _________________________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           _________________________, J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that former Division of Occupational Safety and Health attorney who agreed to settle her disability discrimination action could not back out of the deal after cashing the check covering part of the settlement and demanding additional money.
Citation:	B276212
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC483476

Case Name:	Garcia v. Becker Bros. Steel Co.		04/18/2011
Summary:	GARCIA v. BECKER BROS. STEEL CO. ELIAS GARCIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BECKER BROS. STEEL CO. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The original slitter line was sold to Becker Brothers Steel Supply Company in 1973, and Becker Brothers operated the line for 26 years. *fn5 Three years later, Garcia amended his complaint to add Becker Brothers and Shama LLC as defendants. Warren Becker and Sheldon Becker are both principals of both Becker Brothers and Shama and operated the businesses on a day-to-day basis. Garcia filed a non-opposition to Becker Brothers' and Shama's demurrer to Garcia's strict liability claim as to these defendants.
Note:	A steel business that sold its used steel-cutting machinery did not owe a duty of care to the employees of future businesses that bought the machinery.
Citation:	B221096
WCC Citation:	WCC 37452011 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. ESS Prisa II, LLC		09/13/2011
Summary:	ANDREW GARCIA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ESS PRISA II, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Andrew Garcia was seriously injured when he fell through a skylight while performing rooftop air conditioning repairs for his contractor/employer on a building owned by defendant and respondent ESS Prisa II, LLC (ESS). On the day of the injury, Garcia met with ESS manager, Von K. Stroff, who told him there was a problem with one of the air conditioning units. ESS never instructed Garcia about how to do his job and did not supply him with tools or equipment. Here, even if Garcia is correct that ESS maintained control over the premises a dubious point there is no evidence ESS exercised the type of control of the worksite that affirmatively contributed to Garcia's injury.
Note:	The California Supreme Court's decision in Seabright v. US Airways barred another independent contractor's employee from suing the party that hired the contractor.
Citation:	B222128
WCC Citation:	WCC 38002011 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Industrial Accident Commission		11/13/1953
Summary:	2d 689; 263 P. 2d 8 November 13, 1953 EVERARDO GARCIA ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission granting lien. Schauer [41 Cal2d Page 691] Everardo Garcia, an applicant for workmen's compensation, and Pacific Indemnity Company, carrier of the workmen's compensation insurance of Garcia's employer, seek review of an Industrial Accident Commission award of a lien (allowed pursuant to Lab. On August 3, 1950, the employe filed with the commission his application for adjustment of claim for an allegedly industrial injury which was sustained March 17, 1950. The final determinations whether an employe is entitled [41 Cal2d Page 694] to workmen's compensation, the amount of such compensation and the period during which he is eligible therefor, must be made by the Industrial Accident Commission. In such circumstances, the Industrial Accident Commission properly might infer that the disability was work connected and determine that the Department of Employment had established a prima facie case for the amount of its claim.
Note:	The employee and the insurance carrier, if they object to allowance of the lien, must show that it should be disallowed.
Citation:	41 Cal. 2d 689, 263 P.2d 8
WCC Citation:	WCC 33421953 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Oceans Sports Bar, Inc.		04/28/2010
Summary:	FACTS Plaintiffs' father, Reyes A. Garcia (Garcia) worked as a doorman/bouncer at Oceans, located at 14302 Telegraph Road in a strip mall in the City of Whittier. Plaintiffs alleged that while Garcia was working at Oceans on February 9, 2007, a group of men in gang attire attempted to enter Oceans. Plaintiffs alleged that when the men attempted to enter Oceans, Garcia told them to leave the bar and parking lot. While Garcia was in the parking lot, Nunez, who was one of the men who Garcia had kept out of the bar, shot and killed Garcia. They sought adjudication that Garcia was not an employee of Oceans; Oceans did not own or control the property on which Garcia was killed; Oceans did not owe Garcia a duty to protect him from Nunez's unforeseeable criminal acts; Oceans did not breach any duty to Garcia; and Oceans' acts or omissions were not the proximate cause of Garcia's death.
Note:	A bar did not owe a bouncer a duty of care to protect him from a parking lot shooting because it was not foreseeable.
Citation:	B217207
WCC Citation:	WCC 36182010 CA

Case Name:	Garcia V. Paramount Citrus Association, Inc.		07/21/2008
Summary:	on rehearing) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IGNACIO GARCIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PARAMOUNT CITRUS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. Similarly, in the present case, this court's original opinion and judgment were vacated automatically upon the grant of rehearing. In both of those cases, an appeal had been decided by a three-member panel of the federal circuit court of appeals. We set forth our opinion and judgment in this case, as follows: Facts and Procedural History This is an appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent Ignacio Garcia and against appellant Paramount Citrus Association, Inc. On April 2, 2001, Andrade had a crew picking oranges on the Burdick Ranch, which was adjacent to appellant's Abercrombie Ranch, which also consisted of citrus groves.
Note:	Appellant owed no legal duty to respondent.
Citation:	F050528
WCC Citation:	WCC 34002008 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. Paramount Citrus Association, Inc.		03/26/2008
Summary:	Filed 3/26/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IGNACIO GARCIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PARAMOUNT CITRUS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- This is an appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent Ignacio Garcia and against appellant Paramount Citrus Association, Inc. On April 2, 2001, Andrade had a crew picking oranges on the Burdick Ranch, which was adjacent to appellant's Abercrombie Ranch, which also consisted of citrus groves. At about 7 a. m. , Andrade drove west on Abercrombie Road at about 35 miles per hour, looking for Road 172. Without slowing appreciably, he rammed a van in which respondent and other farm workers were being transported to a worksite.
Note:	The foreseeability of the type of negligent act at issue in the present case does not outweigh the high burden the proposed duty would place upon rural landowners to prevent such conduct.
Citation:	F050528
WCC Citation:	WCC 33312008 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. The Vons Co. (WCAB En Banc)		03/14/2001
Summary:	On or about March 10, 1999, Valley Subrogation served the Board with notice that it was now representing La Mirada. On March 23, 1999, the matter came on for trial on all pending issues, including La Mirada's lien. On May 20, 1999, the Board served notice of the June 21, 1999 lien trial on La Mirada. On July 9, 1999, Valley Subrogation filed a letter objecting to the June 21, 1999 notice of intention to disallow La Mirada's lien. The July 16, 1999 order also set the issue of La Mirada's lien for another trial on August 31, 1999.
Note:	Duty on petitioner to apprise WCAB of correct address; WCAB service of decision is effective, petition untimely.
Citation:	66 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 27862001 CA

Case Name:	Garcia v. The Vons Co. (WCAB En Banc)		03/14/2001
Summary:	On or about March 10, 1999, Valley Subrogation served the Board with notice that it was now representing La Mirada. On March 23, 1999, the matter came on for trial on all pending issues, including La Mirada's lien. On May 20, 1999, the Board served notice of the June 21, 1999 lien trial on La Mirada. On July 9, 1999, Valley Subrogation filed a letter objecting to the June 21, 1999 notice of intention to disallow La Mirada's lien. The July 16, 1999 order also set the issue of La Mirada's lien for another trial on August 31, 1999.
Note:	Sanctions may be awarded for frivolous Reconsideration.
Citation:	66 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 3552001 CA

Case Name:	Garcia-Laverentz v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services		04/17/2017
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             KARLA GARCIA-LAVERENTZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. .             B267176 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiff Karla Garcia-Laverentz filed a complaint against her employer Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (Sedgwick), alleging myriad disability-related claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .           Sedgwick provides workers’ compensation and disability claims administration and related services to large employers throughout the United States. .           On April 20, 2010, Sedgwick retained engineers to conduct an air quality study, which did not uncover any dangerous air contaminants.
Note:
Citation:	B267176
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC485324