Case Name:	Kirby v. Contra Costa Water District		09/07/2017
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD  STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             TIMOTHYKIRBY, Applicant, .             v. .             CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by YORK RISK SERVICES, Defendants~ .             Case No. ADJ10289629 (Oakland District Office) .             OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION .             We granted Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. .             We received a Report and Reco~endation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) from the WCJ recommending the Petition be denied. .           After examining applicant and reviewing the medical record, Dr. Poston stated: .           "Mr. Kirby's psychiatric condition is such he would be expected to have some difficulty performing in the workplace, but not ·to the extent he is seen as totally or partially disabled. .           For the foregoing reasons, .           IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings, Award and Order issued by the WCJ on November 29, 2016 is AFFIRMED. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           DEIDRA E. LOWE .           I CONCUR, .           MARGUERJTE SWEENEY .           JOSE H. RAZO .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           SEP 0 7 2017 Defendant e-filed a Petition For Leave to File a Reply to Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration and subsequently filed the petition with the WCAB.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ10289629
WCC Citation:	ADJ10289629

Case Name:	Kirk v. First American Title Insurance Co.		04/07/2010
Summary:	PATRICK KIRK et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Appellants. The Underlying Litigation The instant attorney disqualification dispute arose in the context of four related class actions brought against First American Title Insurance Company and related First American entities (collectively, First American). Together, the First American team has defended First American in 80 class actions across the country, and has also been retained to give legal advice to First American. The First American Team Moves to Sonnenschein On February 2, 2009, the First American team moved from Bryan Cave to Sonnenschein. First American also submitted the declaration of its senior vice-president and national litigation counsel, who testified to the key experience of the First American team and their irreplaceability.
Note:	We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, automatic vicarious disqualification is not required, and that, instead, there is a rebuttable presumption that the attorney's knowledge of client confidences is imputed to the firm, which can be refuted by evidence that the law firm adequately screened the attorney from the others at the firm representing the adverse party. In addition, as the disqualified attorney has left the firm, the trial court's examination of the screen's adequacy should be on a retrospective, not prospective, basis.
Citation:	B218956
WCC Citation:	WCC 37322010 CA

Case Name:	Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management		06/26/2017
Summary:	Filed 6/26/17 Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management CA4/3 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(a). 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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             VALERIE KIZER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. .           Plaintiffs and appellants Valerie Kizer and Sharal Williams (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this putative class action against their former employer, defendant and respondent Tristar Risk Management (Tristar), alleging Tristar failed to pay Plaintiffs and its other claims examiners overtime compensation because it misclassified them as exempt from California’s overtime laws. I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .           Tristar provides third party risk management services, including claims adjusting and administrative services, with specialization in handling worker’s compensation and general liability claims. .           Plaintiffs presented evidence showing the standardized job description Tristar applied to claims examiners and the standardized procedures Tristar used to supervise its claims examiners.
Note:
Citation:	G052558
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00707394

Case Name:	Klee v. WCAB		07/12/1989
Summary:	FAYE KLEE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, McDONALD'S et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Abbe, J. , with Stone (S. Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe, Charles E. Finster, Miller & Folse, Deborah L. Gilman and David J. DePaolo for Respondents. 1 At the trial of the permanent disability indemnity issue, applicant Faye Klee testified about specific and cumulative industrial injuries to her back and neck while employed by McDonald's. Two physicians opined in essence that applicant is totally permanently disabled and unable to compete in the open labor market. We denied the petition, concluding that viewed in the light of the entire record, there was substantial evidence of total permanent disability.
Note:	WCAB's order annulled when prior writs were attempts to delay payment.
Citation:	211 Cal.App.3d 1519, 54 CCC 251
WCC Citation:	WCC 26291989 CA

Case Name:	Kleeman v. WCAB		03/02/2005
Summary:	Kleemann petitioned respondent, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), for a ruling that new Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664 did not apply but the WCAB remanded to the WCJ for a final decision. Accordingly, the decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. *FN 1 Kleemann petitioned the WCAB for removal, *FN 2 alleging that the WCJ's retroactive application of apportionment under new sections 4663 and 4664 would cause irreparable harm. The WCAB expressly declined to decide whether new sections 4663 and 4664 applied. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	SB 899 apportionment applies prospectively from the date of enactment of S.B. 899, regardless of the date of injury.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 274
WCC Citation:	WCC 30972005 CA

Case Name:	Kleinman v. California State Personnel Board		03/20/2012
Summary:	SUSAN KLEINMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Susan Kleinman (Kleinman) appeals a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, defendant and respondent California State Personnel Board (the Board). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1994, Kleinman began working at the Board as an administrative law judge (ALJ). Following Kleinman's rejection of the offer, the Board continued to interact with Kleinman about the offer and other alternatives. On September 21, 2009, Kleinman responded, requesting that the Board file for disability retirement on her behalf.
Note:	An administrative law judge attempting to return to work after suffering a back injury failed to raise a triable issue as to the reasonableness of her employer's effort to accommodate her.
Citation:	B226239
WCC Citation:	WCC 38712012 CA

Case Name:	Kmart Corp. v. Lewis Brisbois et al		07/19/2010
Summary:	KMART CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP et al. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Jana I. Lubert, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Respondent Kmart Corporation sued its former attorneys, Appellant Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, for professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Kmart's complaint included allegations that, while representing Kmart in a related matter, Appellant filed a declaratory relief action on behalf of an insurer whose interests were adverse to Kmart. Although Kmart notified National Union of the lawsuit, Kmart retained its own counsel and did not involve National Union in the litigation.
Note:	An appellate court denied Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP's motion to strike its former client's malpractice complaint based on the firm's role in complex personal injury litigation.
Citation:	B209833
WCC Citation:	WCC 36492010 CA

Case Name:	KMS Courier, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.		11/30/2007
Summary:	APPEAL from a judgment of dismissal of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan M. Lewis, Judge. The Plaintiffs are employee-based courier service providers that do business throughout California. We decline to consider their arguments to this effect raised for the first time in their reply brief. Although the Plaintiffs point out that the Unfair Practices Act is to be liberally construed to promote its purposes (Bus. Finally, the Plaintiffs contend in passing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying them leave to amend.
Note:	[Unpublished] Standing alone, the Customer Defendants' requests for bids from, and entrance into service contracts with, the Plaintiffs' competitors do not constitute solicitations of a violation of the Unfair Practices Act.
Citation:	D049775
WCC Citation:	WCC 32842007 CA

Case Name:	Knight v. United Parcel Service		10/12/2006
Summary:	AHM 127807 AHM 129147 BRUCE KNIGHT, Applicant, vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE; and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. FACTS In 1973, applicant was first employed as a delivery person/driver with United Parcel Service (UPS), insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty). "As Mr. Knight was aware the MPN was in place and elected to treat with you anyway, we are considering any and all treatment with you self-procured. Therefore, Mr. Knight will be responsible for all medical treatment and service charges. "Also be advised that if Mr. Knight elects to continue treatment with you, he will be responsible for all medical treatment and service charges. "
Note:	Employer or insurer's failure to provide required notice to an employee of rights under the MPN that results in a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment renders the employer or insurer liable for reasonable medical treatment self-procured by the employee.
Citation:	71 CCC 1423 (2006)
WCC Citation:	WCC 31862006 CA

Case Name:	Knopfer v. Flournoy		09/20/1973
Summary:	JACK KNOPFER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HOUSTON I. FLOURNOY, as State Controller, et al. , Defendants and Respondents (Opinion by Friedman, J. , with Richardson, P. J. , and Janes, J. , concurring. ). . . ' In this mandate action appellants complain that the State Controller is making unauthorized deductions from the payments directed by section 4800. This cryptic allegation is the only hint in the record or briefs that income tax withholding may be involved. Federal and state tax agencies are not parties to this litigation and questions of taxability have not been briefed. We do not decide whether the payments in question are subject to federal or state income taxation or income tax withholding.
Note:	Payments made in lieu of disability payments indemnify him for work-connected disability.
Citation:	34 Cal.App.3d 318, 38 CCC 913
WCC Citation:	WCC 27071973 CA

Case Name:	Koch v. Markel Insurance Co., et al.		01/26/2011
Summary:	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS WOODS, J. Blake Koch sued his business liability insurer, Markel Insurance Company (Markel), for refusing to defend or indemnify him in a personal injury lawsuit. Kopstein told Koch that he wanted to sell Koch insurance coverage for Koch's new business and property and represented to Koch that selling garage policies was a specialized area of insurance in which he and Blum were well qualified because of their extensive experience. Had the Blum Defendants advised Koch that he required different or additional coverage, Koch would have purchased it. B. Koch Divides His Business In early 2003, Koch sought to expand his business by purchasing another garage called Adair's Automotive. After Markel denied coverage, Koch asked Kopstein what had gone wrong, and Kopstein replied it appeared Koch had bought the wrong policy.
Note:	The owner of an auto repair shop sufficiently alleged a number of causes of action against his broker and business liability insurer for a coverage gap that left him uncovered against a personal injury suit.
Citation:	B213610
WCC Citation:	WCC 37062011 CA

Case Name:	Kohler vs. Interstate Brands Corp.		11/25/2002
Summary:	RENAE KOHLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. [103 Cal. App. 4th 1098] OPINION ROBIE, J. - In this action for gender-based harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Interstate Brands Corporation (Interstate) on the ground plaintiff Renae Kohler (Kohler) had released Interstate from liability for her FEHA claim by signing a standard workers' compensation compromise and release agreement releasing "all claims and causes of action" against Interstate. Kohler appeals, arguing the broad language of the workers' compensation release was not sufficient to release her civil claims against Interstate. While working at Interstate, she claims she was physically and verbally harassed by fellow Interstate employee Ralph Gallego. 1 Paragraph 3 states "said employee [Kohler] releases and forever discharges said employer [Interstate] .
Note:	Broad settlement language in C&R sufficient to cover previously undisclosed FEHA claim.
Citation:	103 Cal.App.4th 1096
WCC Citation:	WCC 29772002 CA

Case Name:	Konig v. State Bar of California		09/28/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE No. A113742 September 28, 2007 ALAN KONIG, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Plaintiff is a former attorney on the staff of the State Bar of California (State Bar). His complaint alleges that he became aware of unethical and improper conduct by judges of the State Bar Court (Bar Court). For example, plaintiff alleges that, "[b]eginning in or about May 2003, Plaintiff repeatedly advised Defendants of rulings and orders in several State Bar Court matters that violated Defendant STATE BAR's state and federal constitutional rights, violated witnesses' state and federal constitutional rights, and disregarded binding precedent, including that of the California Supreme Court. "The State Bar argues that because the individual defendants obtained a judgment against plaintiff, the State Bar, as employer of those defendants, can assert the preclusive effect of the judgment.
Note:	[Unpublished] A negative employment action motivated by retaliation for an employee's efforts to report unethical or improper judicial behavior would fall outside the exclusive remedy provisions of workers' compensation because such conduct violates public policy. However, the collateral estoppel effect of the district court's decision precludes any claim that defendants' actions were so motivated.
Citation:	A113742
WCC Citation:	WCC 32632007 CA

Case Name:	Kopitske v. WCAB		08/24/1999
Summary:	Victoria Kopitske (Kopitske) petitions for review of the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration of its ruling that the penalty assessed for unreasonable delay in paying PDA should only be against VRMA supplemented by PDA, and not against PD. [74 Cal. App. 4th 627] We annul the order and direct the WCAB to enter a new order assessing the penalty against PD. Kopitske chose to enter vocational rehabilitation (VR) and received vocational rehabilitation temporary disability (VRTD) payments of $372 per week. Because Kopitske had received VRMA of $11,300 and PDA of $5,800 for a total of $17,100, the 10 percent penalty assessed was $1,710. The WCAB denied reconsideration of the decision and Kopitske petitioned this court for review.
Note:	Failure to pay PDA on request while applicant in rehab results in penalty against PD.
Citation:	74 Cal.App.4th 623, 64 CCC 972
WCC Citation:	WCC 3811999 CA

Case Name:	Kopping v. WCAB		09/11/2006
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1996, Kopping injured his spine while working as a traffic officer for the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The parties stipulated that the injury caused permanent disability of 29 percent, and Kopping was awarded $20,357. 50 in permanent disability benefits. Kopping filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board challenging the WCJ's construction of section 4664(b). Thus, the Board returned this case to the WCJ to determine whether Kopping had disproved (or could disprove) overlap, not to allow Kopping to prove medical rehabilitation from the disabling effects of his earlier injury. Kopping petitioned this court for a writ of review of the Board's decision after reconsideration, which we granted to consider the intended meaning of section 4664(b).
Note:	If section 4664(b) is understood as representing the Legislatures common sense recognition that there can be no recovery from a permanent disability, then there is no inconsistency between that statute and section 4664(a).
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 1099
WCC Citation:	WCC 31812006 CA

Case Name:	Koscki v. Herbert		10/12/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAURA C. KOSCKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GERALD HENRY HERBERT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Laura C. Koscki was seriously injured when her coworker, Gerald Henry Herbert, negligently operated a tractor-trailer rig, causing it to leave the roadway. Koscki sued Herbert and their employer, Consolidated Freightways Corporation (Consolidated), for her injuries. Herbert requested the trial court take judicial notice of these documents to establish that Koscki had filed a workers' compensation claim. Koscki admitted in her moving papers that her injuries arose out of her employment and that Herbert was her coemployee.
Note:	[Unpublished] It is reasonably probable that the claimant could have have cured the defect in her complaint through amendment.
Citation:	F051098
WCC Citation:	WCC 32662007 CA

Case Name:	Koscki v. Herbert		05/26/2010
Summary:	Plaintiff Laura Koscki appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted the summary judgment motion of defendants Gerald Henry Herbert (Herbert) and Consolidated Freightways Corporation (Consolidated). From our nonpublished opinion (Koscki v. Herbert et al. (Oct. 12, 2007, F051098), to be discussed below, it appears that Koscki filed a form complaint alleging that Herbert's negligent operation of the tractor caused her injuries. It also objected to various exhibits submitted by Koscki as lacking in relevance, as inadmissible hearsay, and on the ground that Koscki failed to provide a foundation to establish the documents were as claimed by Koscki. And, as Koscki admitted, attempts were made to reimburse Koscki for these payments, although Koscki found the attempts unsatisfactory. Koscki did not allege her action against Herbert was not precluded by Labor Code section 3601, subdivision (a).
Note:	[Unpublished] Claim barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, because injury occurred within course and scope of employment while employer was actively insured.
Citation:	F057422
WCC Citation:	WCC 36312010 CA

Case Name:	Kosowski v. WCAB		07/25/1985
Summary:	RICHARD KOSOWSKI, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF SANTA ROSA et al. , Respondents. Kosowski was paid full salary, in lieu of temporary disability, beginning August 4, 1980, pursuant to section 4850. When an orthopedic surgeon, after an examination of Kosowski at the request of City, reported he was permanent and stationary and could not return to work, City instituted disability retirement proceedings. Kosowski was involuntarily retired for disability on April 6, 1981, and payment of his full salary was terminated on April 30, 1981. Kosowski sought reconsideration, which the Board granted for further study of 'an issue of first impression. '
Note:	Employer may credit amounts independently earned by employee during leave against disability liabilities.
Citation:	170 Cal.App.3d 632, 50 CCC 427
WCC Citation:	WCC 24591985 CA

Case Name:	Koszdin v. SCIF		07/06/2010
Summary:	Ct. No. BC392986) KENTON KOSZDIN et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. [Kenton Koszdin et al. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company (No. BC393290); Gilbert Lipman v. Explorer Insurance Company (No. BC393291); Gilbert Lipman v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (No. BC393292); Kenton Koszdin et al. v. Marriot Claims Services (No. BC393295); Gilbert Lipman v. Stater Bros. Markets (No. BC393296). Kazandjieff & Traney and Nick Kazandjieff; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich; Novak & Ben-Cohen and Pejman Ben-Cohen for Plaintiffs and Appellants Kenton Koszdin and Gilbert Lipman. In this case, the attorney fee awards ordered by the WCAB expressly directed the payment of attorney fees to either Koszdin or Lipman. [3] In the complaints where both Koszdin and Lipman were named as plaintiffs, relief was sought on behalf of both proposed sub-classes.
Note:	A trial court did not have jurisdiction over a suit seeking unpaid interest on Workers' Compensation Appeals Board attorney fee awards because the board did not specify that the awards should include interest, an appellate court ruled.
Citation:	B214481
WCC Citation:	WCC 36472010 CA

Case Name:	Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co.		01/19/1979
Summary:	THOMAS L. KOWALSKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Bird, C. J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Plaintiff, Thomas L. Kowalski, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant, Shell Oil Company, in an action for personal injuries. This court must decide whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that plaintiff was not Shell Oil Company's special employee. On February 1, 1974, Kowalski filed a complaint against Shell and other defendants seeking damages for personal injuries. Shell could also request Peterson to remove an employee whose work Shell found unsatisfactory.
Note:	Since there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Kowalski was not Shell's special employee, the trial court erred in granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Therefore, that judgment is reversed and the trial court is directed to enter judgment for plaintiff.
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 168
WCC Citation:	WCC 39361979 CA

Case Name:	Krause v. WCAB		07/23/2010
Summary:	NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION THE COURT*fn1 Cynthia Krause petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (Krause v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (F049301) (Krause I). )By way of a petition for writ of review, Krause contended the WCAB erred in finding she did not also sustain a psychological injury and by not authorizing a referral for a gastric bypass evaluation. The WCJ also recommended the WCAB impose sanctions against Krause for improperly trying to "`backdoor'" evidence refuting the existence of Wal-Mart's MPN that had not been submitted at trial. As the WCAB concluded, Krause "cannot claim to be aggrieved by the inclusion of AHA at this time. "
Note:	The 5th District Court of Appeal denied an applicant's petition for a writ of review that attempted to continue treatment outside of an insurer's medical provider network.
Citation:	F058778
WCC Citation:	WCC 36512010 CA

Case Name:	Kreigsman v. WCAB		04/10/1993
Summary:	Therefore, our summary of those events is based on the petition for writ of review, the answer to the petition, and the return. As the Stump case progressed, it appeared that the trial was not going to be finished until late in the afternoon. At 3 p. m. , the WCJ referred counsel for Zenith and Attorney Sparagna to PWCJ Bate for a discussion of the situation. On April 15, 1992, PWCJ Bate issued an order allowing Dr. Kriegsman $ 6,895. 06 of his lien claim and denying $ 5,554. 44 of the lien claim. We must therefore remand this matter for further proceedings including a trial on the merits of Dr. Kriegsman's lien claim.
Note:	Lien claimant denied due process by lien reduction with no opportunity to argue for full amount due to scheduling conflict.
Citation:	58 CCC 244
WCC Citation:	WCC 27761993 CA

Case Name:	Kroger Co. v. WCAB (Rodriguez)		10/30/2012
Summary:	KROGER CO. v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD THE KROGER CO. et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, Respondents. The employer, The Kroger Company (Kroger), through its adjustor, Sedgwick CMS (Sedgwick), filed its notice of appeal on November 27, 2007. He apparently sustained a second injury on December 30, 1999; both injuries were admitted and involved as employer a predecessor or subsidiary of petitioner Kroger. According to the WCJ, there was no clear indication that the DOR had ever been filed with the WCAB. We are not bound by determinations of questions of law by the WCAB (Dimmig v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	A Declaration of Readiness to Proceed does not need to be filed along with a notice of appeal challenging a vocational rehabilitation award for the appeal to be effective.
Citation:	B239771
WCC Citation:	WCC 39472012 CA

Case Name:	Kroger Co. v. WCAB (Velasquez)		06/04/2012
Summary:	KROGER COMPANY v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD THE KROGER COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GEORGE VELASQUEZ, Respondents. In practice, parties aggrieved by an award of the Rehabilitation Unit had 20 days within which to file a notice of appeal, which went to the WCAB. The Rehabilitation Unit acknowledged, in writing, that the notice of appeal had been filed with the WCAB. Rather, it was the WCAB position that the award was final because petitioners' appeal was defective and of no effect. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the cause is remanded with directions to proceed with petitioners' appeal to the WCAB as deemed timely filed.
Note:	An employer's failure to file a declaration of readiness to proceed along with its notice of appeal of an administrative ruling did not invalidate its timely filed appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
Citation:	B236608
WCC Citation:	WCC 39022012 CA

Case Name:	Kunz vs. Patterson Floor Coverings		12/05/2002
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SJO 0224503 SCOTT KUNZ, Applicant, vs. PATTERSON FLOOR COVERINGS, INC. ; and GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CO. In the August 9, 2002 decision, the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that applicant, Scott Kunz, sustained industrial injury to his left knee on February 3, 2000, while employed as a carpet installer by Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc. , the insured of Golden Eagle Insurance Company ("Golden Eagle"). On April 4, 2001, applicant had left knee surgery, performed by Michael Butcher, M. D. , at Alpine's outpatient surgery center. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 57, 67 [50 Cal. Comp. Cases 411, 418]; Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acc. (Obernier) (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 1204, 1210 [60 Cal. Comp. Cases 289, 291-292]; Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Failure to make specific objection does not waive it; OFMS applies to services prescibed by DR at outpatient center; Outpatient fees must be reasonble.
Citation:	67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588
WCC Citation:	WCC 28982002 CA

Case Name:	L.A. Co. Professional Peace Officers Assoc. v. Co. of L.A.		02/11/2004
Summary:	LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION et al. , Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Respondents. [FN 2] Under the applicable County ordinances, D. A. investigators may accumulate up to 320 hours in current and deferred vacation time. (L. A. County Code, § 6. 20. 070F. 1. ) When Kupper and Layne retired, each was paid back for all accumulated vacation hours. Kupper, Layne, and their union, the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Association (the Association) brought a mandate petition (Code Civ. By failing to make the payment, they alleged, the County violated its obligation to fully compensate them during that period (Lab.
Note:	Accrued vacation time does not count towards 4850 calculation.
Citation:	115 Cal.App.4th 866
WCC Citation:	WCC 29702004 CA

Case Name:	L.A. County Dept. of Parks v. WCAB		06/06/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MERRELL LEE CALVILLO, Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Merrell Lee Calvillo, a cashier/clerk for the Los Angeles County Department of Parks & Recreation (County), injured her neck, back and right knee in a fall at work on September 24, 1997. *fn10 The County petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration and contended that the March 9, 1999, order transformed the March 8, 1999, stipulation into a formal award under Huston v. Workers' Comp. However, the award of attorney's fees under section 5814. 5 should be vacated as contended by the County. The WCAB has original jurisdiction to award temporary total disability indemnity more than five years from the date of injury under State of California v. Ind.
Note:	[Unpublished] The stipulations and order to comply was not a formal award requiring a petition for continuing jurisdiction under the Labor Code.
Citation:	B200215
WCC Citation:	WCC 33812008 CA

Case Name:	L.A. Unified School Dist. v. WCAB		01/11/1984
Summary:	LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RUSSELL L. MATTHEWS, Respondents. Respondent Russell Matthews, employed as a custodian for petitioner Los Angeles Unified School District, suffered industrial injuries during the period of his employment from 1949 through September 22, 1978. Petitioner appealed the order, claiming it was entitled to a credit for retirement disability payments against rehabilitation temporary disability indemnity. In Gorman, an industrially injured police officer took a one-year leave of absence with pay pursuant to section 4850 fn. Respondent, a retired school custodian, is clearly not a 'safety' employee under the terms of sections 4850 et seq. , but rather a school member of PERS whose occupational functions do not involve public safety or law enforcement.
Note:	Applicant entitled to TD indemnity concurrently with PERS retirement payments.
Citation:	150 Cal.App.3d 823, 49 CCC 48
WCC Citation:	WCC 27021984 CA

Case Name:	La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co.		12/19/1994
Summary:	LA JOLLA BEACH AND TENNIS CLUB, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. On May 9, 1986, the Trust tendered defense of the Saleh complaint to its workers' compensation carrier, defendant Industrial Indemnity Company (Industrial) fn. The Current Action On or about August 29, 1990, plaintiff La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club, Inc. , the Trust's successor in interest, and Kellogg (La Jolla) brought this action against Industrial and American. La Jolla appealed solely on the ground that Industrial had a duty to defend under part 1 of the policy, or the workers' compensation coverage. Accordingly, we discuss only those claims by La Jolla against Industrial with regard to the Saleh action.
Note:	Coverage A in a work comp policy does not give rise to duty to defend a civil suit.
Citation:	9 Cal.4th 27
WCC Citation:	WCC 28911994 CA

Case Name:	Laeng vs. WCAB		03/06/1972
Summary:	JOHN L. LAENG, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF COVINA et al. , Respondents In Bank. After granting a petition for reconsideration of the referee's decision, the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), by a 2-1 vote, denied the claimant all compensation benefits; Laeng attacks the decision of the WCAB by the present petition. [6 Cal. 3d 775] Pursuant to these instructions, Laeng, with 13 other applicants who had also successfully completed the written examination, [FN 1] reported to the high school gymnasium. Laeng successfully completed the first three parts of the test and then was directed to participate in the final "obstacle course" phase. Laeng immediately went to his family doctor who, after X-raying the foot referred the patient to an orthopedic surgeon.
Note:	Injury incurred during the 'tryout' phase of employment is compensable.
Citation:	6 Cal.3d 771; 100 Cal.Rptr. 377
WCC Citation:	WCC 30731972 CA