Case Name:	Patterson v. Nestle Waters		05/20/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ADRAINE PATTERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Adraine Patterson (plaintiff) was terminated from her employment at Nestle Waters North America (Nestle) after sustaining a job-related injury and then not being able to perform her job or any other available position at Nestle. Plaintiff sued Nestle and Nestle plant manager, Humberto Gomez, (defendants) for violating the California Fair Employment Practice Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. At the time of plaintiff's employment at Nestle, Nestle also produced juice products in aluminum cans at the plant. After filing FEHA discrimination claims against Gomez, Hartfield, Navin, Flynn and Nestle, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in July 2006, against Nestle and Gomez.
Note:	[Unpublished] A worker failed to raise any issues of material fact in a suit alleging that a bottling plant violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	E045764
WCC Citation:	WCC 35262009 CA

Case Name:	Patterson v. Sharp		08/31/1970
Summary:	1 shows the following facts: [10 Cal. App. 3d 993] Albert Patterson, while on the job on April 15, 1965, received an injury which caused his death on July 18 of the same year. At the time of intervention, the total amount expended by intervener pursuant to the 1967 workmen's compensation award was $12,934. 04. (According to the stipulated facts in the agreed statement on appeal, the verdict was 'supported in all respects by substantial evidence. ')5 Granting defendant's motion, the trial court made formal findings of fact that (1) intervener had paid 'to plaintiff' fn. In such case, the latter may assert that the injury or death was a proximate result of the concurrent negligence of the employer.
Note:	Reduction of 3rd party death benefits due to finding of employer negligence.
Citation:	10 Cal.App.3d 990
WCC Citation:	WCC 24741970 CA

Case Name:	PATTERSON vs. THE OAKS FARM		07/24/2014
Summary:	THE OAKS FARM; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, Case No. ADJ3905924 (ANA 0339374) (Oxnard District Office) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (Significant Panel Decision) Defendants. PATTERSON, Jennifer [M. D. ]’s November 10, 2011 report despite numerous emails and phone contact
” 2 attorney filed an objection to applicant’s request for expedited hearing. A case manager has been utilized in the recent past, however, disputes frequently arise between applicant and various assistants, including nurse case manager(s). PATTERSON, Jennifer resultant labryrinthitis/vestibular dysfunction, post traumatic head syndrome, cervical and lumbar injuries and occipital neuralgia. As noted, I had determined that Ms. Patterson continued to be in need of psychological intervention at the time of my initial evaluation.
Note:	OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (Significant Panel Decision)
Citation:	ADJ3905924
WCC Citation:	ADJ3905924

Case Name:	Paul Brothers v. New York State Electric and Gas Corp.		10/21/2008
Summary:	Paul Brothers, Appellant, v. New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, Respondent, et al. , Defendants. READ, J. : In October 1999, defendant New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) applied to the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) for a form highway work permit authorizing it to undertake "electric and gas maintenance work in highway region #8 (Columbia, Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Westchester, Rockland, and Ulster Counties)" between January 1 and December 31, 2000. NYSEG and other utilities providing electric and gas service to customers in upstate New York ask DOT each year for these generic work permits, which allow them to construct, maintain and repair electric and gas network and support facilities in state highway rights-of-way. DOT granted NYSEG the permit, which set forth a detailed outline entitled "Method of Performing Work Within the State Highway Right of Way. "Tamarack employed about a dozen workers on this project, including plaintiff Paul Brothers.
Note:	Although plaintiff presses the point that NYSEG should be held liable because it voluntarily assumed a duty to comply with the safety regulations recited in the permit, NYSEG does not really have a choice in the matter; it cannot shirk maintenance work in state highway rights-of-way.
Citation:	00002
WCC Citation:	WCC 34462008 CA

Case Name:	Pavon, et al v. Glaeser Builders, Inc.		09/26/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE JOSE LUIS PAVON, SR. , ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. GLAESER BUILDERS, INC. , ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Hollins Law, Kathleen Mary Kushi Carter, Tamara M. Heathcote and Johnathan D. Cloud for Defendants and Respondents Glaeser Builders, Inc. , Peter Glaeser and Kristine Glaeser. Plaintiffs sued the Glaesers, Glaeser Builders, Inc. and Glaeser Management Company (Defendants). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 16, 2006, decedent was killed by electrocution while performing concrete work at the home of defendants Peter and Kristine Glaeser. Defendants Glaeser Management Co. and Glaeser Builders, Inc. are remodeling and construction businesses associated with the Glaesers.
Note:	A trial court erred by dismissing a general negligence cause of action after determining a worker who was fatally electrocuted was an independent contractor.
Citation:	B225280
WCC Citation:	WCC 38052011 CA

Case Name:	Payless Shoe Source v. WCAB		07/08/2008
Summary:	Filed 7/8/08 Payless Shoe Source v. WCAB CA5 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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RHONDA DALERIO, Respondents. -ooOoo- *Before Levy, Acting P. J. , Gomes, J. , and Hill, J. Payless Shoe Source (Payless) petitioned this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). BACKGROUND Rhonda Dalerio worked as a sales and stock clerk for a Payless shoe store in Oakhurst from October 25, 1999, through August 16, 2003. Based on the documentary evidence, the WCJ concluded only the injuries already accepted by Payless were industrially related and awarded her further related medical care.
Note:	[Unpublished] The WCAB must determine whether a report of a treating physician indicated the existence of permanent disability, thereby warranting the use of the 1997 PDRS. If the record is void of such evidence prepared before January 1, 2005, then Dalerio's permanent disability must be rated under the 2005 PDRS pursuant to section 4660, subdivision (d).
Citation:	F053612
WCC Citation:	WCC 33932008 CA

Case Name:	Paz v. Tech Flex		09/12/2019
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD  ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA .             GLADYS PAZ, Applicant, .             v. .             TECH FLEX; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, .             TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP, Lien claimant. .             Case No. ADJ8969504 (Van Nuys District Office) .             OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION .             We previously granted the petition of lien claimant Tri-County Medical Group for reconsideration of the March 8, 2016 Findings And Order of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) as signed the following day and served on March 16, 2016. .             An answer was not received. .           For the foregoing reasons, .           IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the March 8, 2016 Findings And Order of the workers' compensation administrative law judge is AFFIRMED. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           DEIDRA E. LOWE .           I CONCUR, .           MARGUERITE SWEENEY .           FRANK M. BRASS .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           SEP 1 2 2016 Further statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise stated.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ8969504
WCC Citation:	ADJ8969504

Case Name:	PDM Steel Service Centers v. Mullen & Filippi		08/08/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PDM STEEL SERVICE CENTERS, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MULLEN & FILIPPI, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION On July 20, 2006, appellant PDM Steel Service Centers, Inc. , filed a multi-cause complaint in Fresno County Superior Court alleging respondent Mullen & Filippi, LLP, mishandled a worker's compensation matter relating to one of appellant's employees. STATEMENT OF THE CASE*fn2 On April 6, 2007, McLean & McLean LLP, attorneys for appellant PDM Steel Service Centers, Inc. , filed a proof of service in superior court. The proof of service filed with the Court for Mullen & Filippi fails to do so; 'receptionist' appears no where thereon. We impose those sanctions jointly and severally against attorneys Mark A. McLean and Benjamin L. Kennedy, counsel for appellant PDM Steel Service Centers, Inc. B.
Note:	[Unpublished] Given all of the facts and the controlling legal authority, any reasonable attorney would agree this appeal is totally and completely without merit.
Citation:	F054031
WCC Citation:	WCC 34102008 CA

Case Name:	Peak v. IAC		12/18/1947
Summary:	GEORGE PEAK, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, Respondent. Peak September 8, 1945, and that he placed him in the hospital at that time. This letter states 'Copies of these reports are being forwarded to Mr. George Peak, 1601 Fifth Street, San Rafael. 'Peak: Have you got Dr. Tyler's report of the x-rays?Peak: I didn't get Dr. Williams, none of Dr. DeLancey's or Dr. McCarthy.
Note:	Award set aside b/c expert testimony not served to all parties involved.
Citation:	82 Cal.App.2d 926
WCC Citation:	WCC 25781947 CA

Case Name:	Pearl v. WCAB (Sup. Ct.)		07/19/2001
Summary:	He subsequently petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to determine whether the injury was industrial, entitling him to increased benefits. On another occasion, while Pearl was in a toilet stall, his supervisor set off a packet of firecrackers in the stall. Pearl also believed that his supervisor had given him an unfair performance evaluation that had damaged his career. During this period, Pearl also suffered family pressures, including his brother's spousal murder and suicide, which occurred shortly before Pearl began work at the university, and Pearl's own divorce and custody dispute. Pursuant to Government Code section 21166, Pearl petitioned the WCAB for a finding of fact on the issue.
Note:	Gov't Code sect. 20046, and not Labor Code 3208.3, governs whether disability of a PERS member is
Citation:	26 Cal.4th 189, 64 CCC 470
WCC Citation:	WCC 28102001 CA

Case Name:	Pearson Dental Supplies v. Superior Court of Los Angeles		04/26/2010
Summary:	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA PEARSON DENTAL SUPPLIES, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Los Angeles County Respondent; S167169 Ct. App. 2/4 B206740 Super. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Luis Turcios was hired as a janitor by defendant Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. , in February 1999. On October 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging age discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. Defendant petitioned the superior court to confirm the award on December 5, 2007. Second, if the arbitrator did make such an error, was that sufficient grounds for the trial court to vacate the arbitration award?
Note:	Where a clear error of law by an arbitrator means that an employee subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement will be deprived of a hearing on the merits of an unwaivable statutory employment claim, the award may be vacated.
Citation:	S167169
WCC Citation:	WCC 36172010 CA

Case Name:	Pearson Ford v. WCAB (Hernandez)		10/06/2017
Summary:	Filed 10/6/17; Certified for Publication 11/1/17 (order attached) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             PEARSON FORD et al. , Petitioners, .             v. .             WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; .             LEOPOLDO HERNANDEZ, Real Party in Interest. .             D070915 .             (WCAB No. ADJ4081602) .             Petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. .           The WCJ's determination Hernandez met the second requirement is also vigorously disputed by Pearson Ford. .           Filed 11/1/17 .           CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION .           COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .           DIVISION ONE .           STATE OF CALIFORNIA .           PEARSON FORD et al. , Petitioners, .           v. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; .           LEOPOLDO HERNANDEZ, Real Party in Interest. .           D070915 .           (WCAB No. ADJ4081602) .           ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION .           THE COURT: .           The opinion in this case filed October 6, 2017, was not certified for publication.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal has ordered publication of its decision from last month allowing a worker to collect benefits even though he had been convicted of workers’ compensation fraud.
Citation:	D070915
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ4081602

Case Name:	Pebworth vs. Allan Hancock College, PSI		08/08/2003
Summary:	Note: This case was OVERRULED by the Second Appellate District decision in Pebworth vs. WCAB (2004). WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. GRO 0023699 CLARENCE A. PEBWORTH, Applicant, vs. ALLAN HANCOCK COLLEGE, Permissibly Self-Insured; and WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATORS (Third Party Administrators), Defendant(s). The ability to settle such claims beginning January 1, 2003 applies to all injuries, regardless of date of injury. The Amendments To Section 4646 Were Substantive, Not Procedural; Therefore, They Do Not Apply Retrospectively In The Absence Of Clear Legislative Intent. (Charlesworth) (1947) 30 Cal. 2d 388, 393 [12 Cal. Comp. Cases 123, 125]; American Psychometric Consultants, Inc. v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Voc rehab from pre 1/1/03 injury cannot be settled for lump sum.
Citation:	68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1168
WCC Citation:	WCC 29532003 CA

Case Name:	Pebworth vs. WCAB		03/09/2004
Summary:	Petitioner Clarence Pebworth sustained a specific industrial injury in 1997 and a cumulative industrial injury from 1985 to August 20, 2003. In a Compromise and Release approved by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) in November 2002, the parties settled all issues except vocational rehabilitation benefits. In response to both parties' petitions for reconsideration, the WCAB issued a lengthy en banc opinion, agreeing with the RU and WCJ that the statute does not apply to Pebworth because his injuries occurred prior to January 1, 2003. The WCAB reasoned that applying the amendments in this case would be an impermissible retroactive application of the statute. The WCAB is instructed to honor the January 23, 2003 stipulation between Pebworth and his employer agreeing to settle vocational rehabilitation compensation for a lump sum of $10,000 pursuant to section 4646, subdivision (b).
Note:	4646 settlement of VR benefits available for injuries prior to 1/1/03.
Citation:	116 Cal.App.4th 913
WCC Citation:	WCC 29732004 CA

Case Name:	Peck v. WCAB		07/29/1988
Summary:	Sarah Arlene Peck, Petitioner, v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California et al. , Respondents. Sarah Peck was knocked down by her employer's dog on May 2, 1983. Peck had a preexisting back problem and underwent a lumbar laminectomy in 1975. Peck received a new rating of 21. 2 percent for permanent disability on the board's order. Peck petitioned this court for relief, and we reviewed a copy of the record before the board.
Note:	Board 'must give great weight' to judge's findings in report and can't ignore supporting evidence, e.g. applicant's testimony.
Citation:	53 C.C.C. 315
WCC Citation:	WCC 27631988 CA

Case Name:	Pelayo v. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services		02/22/2012
Summary:	ROSA PELAYO, Plaintiff and Appellant,v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. On September 19, 2008, Rosa Pelayo, a "Mexican female," filed this action, alleging four causes of action under the FEHA against her employer, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and three of its employees. It did not allege that Pelayo had exhausted her administrative remedies under the FEHA and received a right-to-sue letter. She stated she was "in the process of obtaining her right to sue letters from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing [(DFEH)]. "Again, the DCFS attacked the FEHA claims on the ground Pelayo had not exhausted her administrative remedies.
Note:	An employee's Fair Employment and Housing Act claims failed because she filed her civil suit before obtaining her right-to-sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Citation:	B230780
WCC Citation:	WCC 38602012 CA

Case Name:	Pellegrino v. J. Metcalf Construction		09/12/2011
Summary:	JOSEPH PELLEGRINO et al. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. J. METCALF CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Joseph Pellegrino appeals a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant J. Metcalf Construction, Inc. (Metcalf). Metcalf knew that Eclipse would be performing work at the Ganzes' house at the same time Metcalf would be performing its work. Metcalf did not provide equipment, wire, or tools to Pellegrino or any other Eclipse employee, and did not direct Eclipse or Pellegrino to run audio/video wire through the attic space. Pellegrino also submitted portions of the deposition of another Metcalf employee, Gregory Wieder, who later acted as superintendent of the project.
Note:	The Privette/Toland doctrine barred an injured audio/video worker from suing the general contractor on a residential remodeling project.
Citation:	A128893
WCC Citation:	WCC 37992011 CA

Case Name:	Pence v. Industrial Accident Commission		06/28/1965
Summary:	2d 48 June 28, 1965 DEWEY PENCE, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, DEL E. WEBB CORPORATION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS. PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for personal injuries. On August 15, 1963, Pence, while working as a cement finisher in Pasadena for Del E. Webb Corporation, suffered an industrial injury that caused him to leave his work. The commission, on May 11, 1964, held a hearing pursuant to Pence's application for a temporary and permanent disability award. The award is annulled, and the matter remanded to the Industrial Accident Commission for further proceedings.
Note:	The rating expert did not rate, although so instructed, on the effect of Pence's inability to work in areas of high temperature or extreme sunshine. Rebuttal testimony should have been permitted to allow petitioner to establish what a proper rating would have been under all of the referee's instructions.
Citation:	63 Cal. 2d 48, 403 P.2d 140, 45 Cal. Rptr. 12
WCC Citation:	WCC 33691965 CA

Case Name:	Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing		04/06/2007
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SAL 0110868 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) JOSH PENDERGRASS, Applicant, vs. DUGGAN PLUMBING; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant. Defendant, being newly aggrieved, seeks reconsideration of the en banc decision issued by the Appeals Board on January 24, 2007. The three dissenting commissioners disagreed with the majority's interpretation of section 4660(d), and would have affirmed the WCJ's decision. The Labor Code expressly allows an aggrieved party to seek reconsideration of any final decision "made and filed by the appeals board" (Lab. Therefore, we would deny reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration of January 24, 2007.
Note:	If section 4660(d) is to be construed so as to effectuate the Legislature's intent to provide relief 'at the earliest possible time', it must be construed in the manner that ensures that the revised rating schedule applies 'at the earliest possible time.'
Citation:	72 CCC 456
WCC Citation:	WCC 32132007 CA

Case Name:	Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing and State Compensation Insurance Fund		01/24/2007
Summary:	See Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing (4/06/07) WCC 32132007 CA. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SAL 0110868 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) JOSH PENDERGRASS, Applicant, vs. DUGGAN PLUMBING; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his right lower extremity/ankle on June 29, 2004, while employed as a plumber by Duggan Plumbing, State Compensation Insurance Fund's insured on the date of injury, when he fell at work. Defendants accepted liability for applicant's industrial injury and paid temporary disability indemnity uninterrupted from June 30, 2004, through July 19, 2005. Thus, applicant argues that the 4061 notice exception to application of the 2005 Schedule to pre-2005 injuries applies.
Note:	Defendants' duty to provide the notice required by section 4061 arose when the first payment of temporary disability indemnity was made, therefore the 1997 Schedule applies to calculate applicant's permanent disability.
Citation:	72 CCC 95
WCC Citation:	WCC 32062007 CA

Case Name:	Pennington v. WCAB		09/17/1971
Summary:	FREDERICK E. PENNINGTON, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Files, P. J. , with Jefferson and Dunn, JJ. , concurring. )He filed a claim for workmen's compensation and was paid temporary disability payments from January 19, 1969, through February 1, 1970. We issued a writ of review to bring the record of the appeals board here. (Gaudin) (1965) 232 Cal. App. 2d 305 [42 Cal. Rptr. 822] and City of Palo Alto v. Industrial Acc. Both of those cases deal with the question whether the injured man was entitled to receive permanent disability benefits.
Note:	Sheriff's TD credited against PD was wrong, 4850 doesn't deny rights of 4661.
Citation:	20 Cal.App.3d 55
WCC Citation:	WCC 25431971 CA

Case Name:	Penny v. WCAB		07/12/1983
Summary:	She complained of constant back pain, inability to do chores, difficulty in lifting more than five pounds, and difficulty bending and stooping. She demonstrated how she had to walk; slowly, hanging onto a wall and bent over. The defendant introduced motion pictures into evidence showing Ms. Penny performing all of the above activities, including walking normally, without any apparent difficulty. The WCJ stated that the motion picture films 'drastically reduced' Ms. Penny's credibility and that it was clear she had willfully misstated the facts regarding her condition to the examining physicians. NOTE: This is a summary of the CCC - the user should review the actual case prior to citation.
Note:	Unreasonable to require defs. to pay applicant depo. fees if depo. is deceitful, fraudulent.
Citation:	48 CCC 468
WCC Citation:	WCC 3741983 CA

Case Name:	People ex rel Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. v. Thompson		01/04/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. H026396 January 4, 2006 THE PEOPLE, EX REL. Meanwhile, Thompson and Kifle-Thompson represented these corporations and their affiliated clinics to the public and to Monterey Mushrooms as providers of medical services. "*fn9 Defendants' opposition to the court's assumption of jurisdiction resembles that of the defendants in People ex rel. Joint and Several Liability As noted earlier, the Thompson defendants (Thompson, Kifle- Thompson, and their corporate entities) were found jointly and severally liable for civil penalties. *fn3 The reference to the "Thompson defendants" encompassed Thompson, Kifle- Thompson, Practice Management Systems, Inc. (doing business as Nevada Practice Management Systems, Inc. ) PMG, IFMG, and two of their affiliated clinics.
Note:	Civil action allowed for workers' compensation fraud.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 4th 24
WCC Citation:	WCC 31382006 CA

Case Name:	People of the State of California v. Culpepper		04/30/2018
Summary:	NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT .             PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. TIG Insurance Company et al. , Plaintiffs-Appellants, .             v. .             BRAD CULPEPPER, DOES, 1-100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. .             No. 16-56639 .             D. C. No. 8:16-cv-01555-CJC-JCG .             MEMORANDUM*  .             * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. .             Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California  .             Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding   .           Argued and Submitted April 10, 2018  .           Pasadena, California .           Before: BEA, MURGUIA Circuit Judges; KEELEY, ** District Judge .           ** The Honorable Irene Keeley, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. .           Brad Culpepper, Defendant-Appellee, is a former professional football player for the Chicago Bears.
Note:	Exclusive remedy doesn’t prevent an insurance carrier from proceeding with a suit against a former professional football player who appeared on the television show 'Survivor" after settling his workers’ compensation claim for fraud, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Citation:	No. 16-56639
WCC Citation:	D.C. No. 8:16-cv-01555-CJC-JCG

Case Name:	People v. Alvarez		02/11/2010
Summary:	Several witnesses testified they paid Alvarez to do construction work during the time he was receiving workers' compensation benefits. Alvarez completed a "new patient" questionnaire, on which he stated he had not been working since February 20, 2002. Defense Case Alvarez testified that Doshi lied when he testified that Alvarez had told him he had not been working at all. When Shoemaker asked Alvarez if he was currently working he answered no because he had not returned to his previous employer. Forfeiture Because counsel for Alvarez agreed that no further inquiry of Juror No. 1 or the foreperson was needed after the jury returned their verdicts, Alvarez has forfeited this issue on appeal.
Note:	A note from a juror complaining about fellow jurors did not warrant a hearing about any potential misconduct as the jury convicted a construction worker of six counts of workers' compensation fraud.
Citation:	D053339
WCC Citation:	WCC 35972010 CA

Case Name:	People v. Amin		10/30/2000
Summary:	THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BELQUIS AMIN, Defendant and Appellant. [85 Cal. App. 4th 60] OPINION JONES, P. J. - The trial court ordered appellant, Belquis Amin, to pay restitution to an insurance carrier which she had defrauded. He said that '[v]arious aspects of the history and record review suggest that deliberate symptom exaggeration is a factor here . At present, I cannot identify sufficient psychiatric factors preventing Ms. Amin from returning to work. '[¶] Because of malingering demonstrated by Ms. Amin, her subjective report of symptoms is not an accurate representation of her subjective disability .
Note:	WCAB has no exclusive jurisdiction over restitution in fraud cases; civ. ct. jurisdiction may override (spec. in Insur. Code).
Citation:	85 Cal.App.4th 58
WCC Citation:	WCC 4012000 CA

Case Name:	People v. Blick		07/24/2007
Summary:	Blick was kept off work and Dr. Baciocco's note indicated Blick was presently walking with the aid of crutches. *fn2 On April 10, 1996, Blick visited Dr. Conrad with a letter from her attorney requesting a statement Blick was unable to drive or use public transportation. On September 4, 1996, Dr. Conrad wrote to the Cities Group stating Blick continued to experience considerable discomfort in the knee, a return to work under even modified conditions was contraindicated, and Blick was considered totally and permanently disabled. Dr. Conrad noted Blick was becoming less dependent on assistive devices, but was still under the impression Blick was using crutches the majority of the time. Blick was placed under video-taped surveillance on December 26, 2000, February 1, 2001, March 7, 2001 and November 15, 2001.
Note:	In order to violate subsection (b)(3) of Insurance Code section 550, a person, in addition to concealing or knowingly failing to disclose, must intend to obtain benefits to which they would not be entitled if they had made the disclosure. In short, the person must intend to commit a fraud.
Citation:	153 Cal. App. 4th 759; 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 260
WCC Citation:	WCC 32402007 CA

Case Name:	People v. Boulware		04/10/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUBEN O. BOULWARE, Defendant and Appellant. Ruben O. Boulware (appellant) was found guilty by jury of two counts of workers' compensation fraud (Ins. (People v. Ruben Odell Boulware, B171283, filed Oct. 26, 2004 [unpub. Appellant had also filed a petition for habeas corpus that this court considered concurrently with the appeal, In re Ruben O. Boulware, B174108. The trial court dismissed the charges of workers' compensation fraud, leaving appellant with only the one conviction of insurance fraud.
Note:	[Unpublished] After the appellant has obtained an order for a new trial, a trial court is limited to imposing a sentence no greater than that originally imposed. Thus, the trial court here was unhampered during resentencing by its former choice of middle-term punishment for the insurance fraud.
Citation:	B199914
WCC Citation:	WCC 33402008 CA

Case Name:	People v. Chavez		04/02/2008
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE MARIA CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant. Ct. No. SS062827A) Defendant Jose Maria Chavez filed a workers compensation claim in which he sought benefits for a back injury that occurred while he was working as a drywall hanger for All Pro Drywall on June 4, 2003. Defendant also testified at a hearing before the Workers Compensation Appeals Board that he had not worked since the June 4, 2003 job injury. At the time of sentencing, defendant did not object to the sentence or any of the conditions of probation.
Note:	[Unpublished] Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues. The court notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and the court received no response from defendant. There is no triable issue on appeal.
Citation:	H031813
WCC Citation:	WCC 33362008 CA

Case Name:	People v. DiGiorgio		10/20/2009
Summary:	On April 30, 2003, roughly a week after the accident, DiGiorgio went to see Dr. Adam Vigil at his office. On June 9, 2004, Merendino interviewed DiGiorgio for the purpose of determining the cause of the injury. DiGiorgio told Merendino that in August or September of 2003, she was struck by a suspect's vehicle while working patrol. DiGiorgio advised Diaz that the pain she was experiencing was a result of being struck by a vehicle while on duty. Subsequent to his examination of DiGiorgio, Chun reviewed a report by Vigil regarding treatment of DiGiorgio in April 2003, and testified the report indicated DiGiorgio had experienced and reported similar physical complaints to Vigil.
Note:	[Unpblished] Police officer's conviction for insurance fraud upheld.
Citation:	G041559
WCC Citation:	WCC 35732009 CA

Case Name:	People v. Diop		03/08/2021
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E073789 v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1705383) NDIAWAR DIOP, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. The doctor testified that a feature of PTSD is “an amnesic response,” which is the inability to recall important aspects of the trauma. On August 28, 2017, after reviewing defendant’s file, agent Oden spoke to Correctional Deputy Marc Escarcega and recorded their conversation. The deputy added: “If staff had been assaulted, the inmate would have had a rules violation report or a 115 written up on him. You just gonna have Hep C. It’s not like malaria in—you’re not gonna have malaria like in Africa.
Note:
Citation:	E073789
WCC Citation:	E073789

Case Name:	People v. Galante		02/04/2008
Summary:	No. B190373 February 4, 2008 THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT GALANTE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Robert Galante appeals from a judgment following his conviction after a jury trial of two counts of insurance fraud. BACKGROUND Appellant worked as a power line truck operator for the Glendale Department of Public Works for 17 years. In July 2002, his right ankle "gave way" and felt painful while he was walking at work. He did not present the testimony of Dr. Nagelberg to establish the diagnosis supporting his referrals to Abe and Pinkston.
Note:	[Unpublished] Appellant failed to establish the relevance of testimony from his proffered medical experts. The court's exclusion of irrelevant evidence did not violate appellant's right to present a defense.
Citation:	B190373
WCC Citation:	WCC 33132008 CA

Case Name:	People v. Grigsby		02/27/2008
Summary:	At the sentencing hearing, the court allowed Grigsby to cross-examine Gutierrez on the factual basis for the restitution request. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered Grigsby to pay $4,403. 05 in restitution without specifying who should receive the restitution. The court sentenced Grigsby to a three-year middle term to run consecutively to the sentences he was already serving. Certificate of Probable Cause The People urge us to dismiss this appeal because Grigsby did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. The court's decision to order Grigsby to pay $4,403. 05 in restitution to the prison arose after entry of the plea.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the prison was not a direct victim of the defendant and so not entitled to restitution, the restitution order should be modified to change the payee to the injured prison guard.
Citation:	A116118
WCC Citation:	WCC 33232008 CA

Case Name:	People v. Groce		08/31/2010
Summary:	Groce's employer (Theodore Claudat) testified that Groce was his sole employee and that Groce had a key to the business premises. Claudat told Groce that he did not have workers' compensation insurance, but he agreed to provide Groce with assistance for his medical expenses. Regarding the August 20 that letter Groce wrote to Claudat, the jury convicted Groce of attempting to dissuade a witness from making a report of a crime. However, the court stated its ruling did not preclude Groce from cross-examining Claudat about whether the checks were written to compensate Groce for his injuries. Groce also notes that Claudat testified that he interpreted the August 20 letter as a threat that he should not testify against Groce.
Note:	Excluded evidence that an employer failed to provide workers' compensation insurance would not likely change the outcome in the trial of a man accused of forging company checks which he claimed were advances for medical treatment, a California appeals court held.
Citation:	D055456
WCC Citation:	WCC 36622010 CA

Case Name:	People v. Hammond		10/11/2012
Summary:	Dr. Hensle believes that Robert Hammond, defendant's husband, would drive defendant to the visits with Dr. Hensle, and Hammond would be waiting for defendant when she finished treatment. Hammond, defendant's husband of 33 years, testified at trial that from 2003 through 2005 defendant was in poor condition. Hammond testified that he "generally" drove defendant to her medical appointments, including during the period of 2003 through 2005. Hammond does not believe that he told defendant's attorney that defendant had driven, despite Hammond having seen her drive. Hammond testified that defendant's counsel told defendant to answer non-medical questions generally "unless they ask for a specific point .
Note:	A California appellate court upheld a former bank employee's conviction for workers' compensation insurance fraud based on her testimony that she was unable to drive; a claim which was belied by surveillance video taken just days before the hearing at which she made this assertion.
Citation:	B231927
WCC Citation:	WCC 39402012 CA

Case Name:	People v. Henderson		10/15/2010
Summary:	Dodge saw Henderson in January 2006, he believed that Henderson could continue working. Dodge saw Henderson later that month, Henderson claimed to be in pain and unable to freely move his neck. Dr. Tontz concluded that Henderson had "slight restriction of range," and that Henderson could not work. In the meantime, unbeknownst to Henderson or his physicians, Henderson's employer learned that Henderson had been observed at a gym playing basketball. Dodge denied any conversation with Henderson in which he authorized or recommended that Henderson play basketball, Henderson claimed that Dr.
Note:	A trucker must repay a carrier $64,645 in benefits after a private investigator videotaped him regularly shooting jump shots and practicing lay-ups at the local gym.
Citation:	D055580
WCC Citation:	WCC 36802010 CA

Case Name:	People v. Hernandez		01/11/2018
Summary:	Ct. No. BA435685)   THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   LUIS HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.     A jury found defendant Luis Hernandez guilty of insurance fraud and attempted perjury. Within a month or two, defendant’s primary physician placed him on “total temporary disability. ”2 Defendant initiated a worker’s compensation proceeding against Farmer John. In early 2014, she was called to the company’s security shack to meet defendant, who was dropping off benefits paperwork. (People v. (Hernandez) Amaya (May 18, 2017, B278794. )
Note:	A California appellate court upheld a worker’s conviction and sentence for insurance fraud and attempted perjury after he lied about needing a cane because of a plethora of alleged on-the-job injuries.
Citation:	B279922
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA435685

Case Name:	People v. Javed		12/27/2011
Summary:	THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v. NUSRAT JAVED, Defendant and Appellant. A jury convicted defendant Nusrat Javed of one count of general insurance fraud (Pen. Additionally, on September 25, 2006, defendant represented on her medical history form that she did not have a history of dizziness. It was later discovered that defendant took a trip to Pakistan from November 16 through December 24, 2006. Defendant was charged with one count of insurance fraud and six counts of workers' compensation fraud.
Note:	A malingering applicant should not have to repay all of the benefits received as criminal restitution, because she only started misrepresenting the extent of her symptoms after suffering a compensable injury.
Citation:	C064881
WCC Citation:	WCC 38372011 CA

Case Name:	People v. Jay Bryan Waterman		02/18/2010
Summary:	Ct. No. SCD205179) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAY BRYAN WATERMAN, Defendant and Appellant. A jury convicted Jay Bryan Waterman of making false or fraudulent statements to obtain workers' compensation benefits (Ins. what [Waterman] said he couldn't do or how he felt and what we saw on examination. "Waterman reported continued severe headaches, increased pain in his back, neck and right foot, and numbness in his left arm and fingers. His former employer, Michael Mallonee, stated that before the accident Waterman worked long hours and afterwards he never saw Waterman engage in physical activities.
Note:	Videos and other evidence provided sufficient evidence to support a trial court's conviction of an injured worker on several fraud charges.
Citation:	D053479
WCC Citation:	WCC 35982010 CA

Case Name:	People v. Jones		05/04/2012
Summary:	PEOPLE v. JONES THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL PATRICK JONES, Defendant and Appellant. For the same reason, we concluded defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the alleged misconduct. (People v. Jones (Sept. 5, 2007, F049837) [nonpub. (People v. Jones, review den. Defendant claimed newly discovered evidence established that the CHP and/or the prosecution had suppressed exculpatory evidence.
Note:	The conviction of a former Highway Patrol officer for workers' compensation fraud was upheld for a second time.
Citation:	F062094
WCC Citation:	WCC 38922012 CA