Case Name:	Smith v. Dynalectric Company		12/16/2011
Summary:	SMITH v. DYNALECTRIC COMPANY JEROME SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DYNALECTRIC COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. *fn2 Despite having worked at JPL for, as Caltech put it, "several" years, Caltech never described Smith as its employee. The relationship between Smith and Caltech was governed by the Contract, which was entered into between Caltech and SBAR. As against Caltech, Smith alleged causes of action for negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous condition of public property. Indeed, in the Party Identification Sheet attached to Smith's Case Information Statement, Smith is identified as the sole appellant.
Note:	Caltech was not entitled to summary judgment on its exclusive remedy defense against a personal injury lawsuit because of evidence suggesting that the plaintiff was not its employee, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B228770
WCC Citation:	WCC 38332011 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		12/27/1993
Summary:	[n1] Smith contends that the decision of the WCAB is erroneous in that he was entitled to a presumption that his heart trouble arose out of and in the course of his employment (Lab. However, the WCAB found that Smith's myocardial infarction and bypass surgery were the first manifestation of Smith's heart trouble and since those events occurred more than six years after the last day Smith actually worked as a firefighter, they were well beyond the presumptive period and Smith was not entitled to application of the presumption. Smith contends that even without the benefit of the presumption the WCAB should have found in his favor. ------- n1 After the workers' compensation judge filed an opinion denying his claim, Smith sought reconsideration by the WCAB. Smith filed his petition for a writ of review on the 50th day following the decision of the WCAB.
Note:	Presumption does not apply where manifestation occurs beyond presumptive period and substantial evidence reflects non-employment risks.
Citation:	59 CCC 40
WCC Citation:	WCC 4121993 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		05/11/2009
Summary:	*fn2 In 1997, by stipulation, Smith was awarded partial permanent disability indemnity and future medical treatment. Smith contacted the attorney who filed his original workers' compensation claim and the attorney sought utilization review (§ 4610). Pursuant to court order, Smith was examined by an agreed medical examiner, who concluded he needed the injections to relieve his back pain, which was precipitated by his industrial injuries. Citing section 4607, Smith subsequently sought attorney fees. As with Smith, the insurer was disputing Amar's specific requests, not challenging the validity of his award.
Note:	The plain language of LC 4607 does not support attorney fee awards in situations where an applicant successfully challenges an informal denial of medical care.
Citation:	S150528
WCC Citation:	WCC 35202009 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		07/02/1969
Summary:	OPINION MOSK, J. Otis S. Smith died at the age of 45 on November 24, 1967, as the result of congestive heart failure. Smith returned to work after his discharge from the hospital and, in early July of 1964, injured a toe while at work. Smith did not return to work between his discharge from the hospital on August 10, 1964, and his death three years later. The referee found that Smith had sustained a compensable injury but the board reversed this determination. [71 Cal. 2d 591] The report of May 20, 1967, concludes, '. . . Mr. Smith is suffering from heart disease presumably due to alcoholic disease or ventricular hypertrophy.
Note:	The relevant, considered opinion of one physician, even if inconsistent with other med. opinions, may be substantial evidence.
Citation:	71 Cal.2d 588
WCC Citation:	WCC 27411969 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		12/10/1968
Summary:	December 10, 1968 JO ANNE SMITH, PETITIONER, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COUNTY OF VENTURA ET AL. , RESPONDENTS. Fowler's testimony does not constitute substantial evidence that Smith was not required to provide his own car. Respondents offered no evidence, however, that the department applied the same requirement to Mrs. Sheldon in June 1967 as it exacted of Smith in December 1965. In the present case the employer instructed Smith to have his car available on the job every morning. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App. 1931) 40 S. W. 2d 913; State etc. Fund v. Industrial Com.
Note:	Special mission established where employee's vehicle required for work.
Citation:	69 Cal. 2d 814
WCC Citation:	WCC 30401968 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		09/21/1981
Summary:	CHERYL J. SMITH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ED SMITH WELDING et al. , Respondents. Bobby Burton Morris (Morris) testified that he was employed by Ed Smith Welding and that, on the day of the accident, he began work at the shop at 6:30 a. m. Eddie Smith (Smith) was already there and outlined the work he wanted done. As Morris and Smith talked on the radio, they joked; Smith said he was low on gas and not to pass him. When the witness met Smith at the park, Smith was waiting for trucks to bring clay from the mountains to be put on the diamond. It was not unusual for Smith to drink quite a bit, but, in Chambers' opinion, Smith did not drink to excess.
Note:	Employer's burden met b/c intoxication was substantial factor in accident.
Citation:	123 Cal.App.3d 763
WCC Citation:	WCC 25841981 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB and California Youth Authority, and Amar v. WCAB and Mel Clayton Ford		01/16/2007
Summary:	GRO 16225, 16226, ) d Civil No. B190655 (W. C. A. B. No. GOL 89438) DWIGHT SMITH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, et al. , Respondents. and DAVID AMAR, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MEL CLAYTON FORD, et al. , Respondents. In Amar, the parties previously stipulated to an award of future medical care for a foot injury. Facts and Procedural History Smith Smith sustained industrial injuries from cumulative trauma to his right shoulder, neck and psyche while working for the California Youth Authority (CYA). The award provided that "medical-legal expenses" would be paid by defendant, Mel Clayton Ford.
Note:	Insurance carriers who fail to provide previously awarded medical care may not avoid attorney fees to successful applicants' attorneys through the expedient of an informal denial, even when they do so in good faith.
Citation:	146 Cal. App. 4th 1032
WCC Citation:	WCC 32032007 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB, Alma Piston Co. (Lee)		02/13/2002
Summary:	STEPHEN J. SMITH, as Director, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ALMA PISTON COMPANY, Respondents. Grancell, Lebovitz, Stander, Marx and Barnes, Norin T. Grancell and Lawrence Kirk for Respondent Alma Piston Company, dba Tomadur Engine Company. RELEVANT FACTUAL ANDPROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 1994, Yoon applied to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) for a painting contractor's license. On this matter, Labor Code section 2750. 5 provides that 'any person performing any function or activity for which a [contractor's] license is required . Respondents Alma Piston Company, dba Tomadur Engine Company are awarded their costs.
Note:	Contractor's license status determinative of property owner's liability.
Citation:	96 Cal.App.4th 117
WCC Citation:	WCC 28362002 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB, JRW Contemporary		02/28/2002
Summary:	STEPHEN J. SMITH, as Director of Industrial Relations, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and J. R. W. CONTEMPORARY, INC. , Respondents. At the time, he was working for J. R. W. Contemporary (JRW), a furniture manufacturer. JRW objected to dismissal of the Walker's application and filed its own claim on the Walkers' behalf. The Board allowed the claim to proceed and JRW to make dependency arguments for the Walkers. Instead, JRW repeats the WCJ's position that the Walkers relied upon Joshua's payment in purchasing their house.
Note:	Rent may be evidence of dependency only if such payments contributed to maintaining alleged dependents standard of living.
Citation:	96 Cal. App. 4th 560
WCC Citation:	WCC 28372002 CA

Case Name:	Smith vs. Churn Creek Const.; SCIF		06/01/2004
Summary:	We note that on January 16, 2004, Dr. Krohn was within his authority to perform his utilization review. Mr. Smith has stated if surgery is necessary in order to get better, he is ready to proceed. Next, on February 10, 2004, Dr. Crawford stated in a letter to SCIF, as follows: "'Please review the attached consultation letter from Dr. Leppla. As indicated in his letter, Dr. Leppla recommends that Leon Smith proceed with epidural steroid injections. AWARD "AWARD IS MADE in favor [sic] Leon Smith against Churn Creek Construction Company and State Compensation Insurance Fund, as follows:" "Further medical treatment. "
Note:	Though the ACOEM Guides were in effect but not presumed correct, burden still on treating physician to justify treatment request with evidence-based medicine.
Citation:	69 CCC 1012
WCC Citation:	WCC 30622004 CA

Case Name:	Smyers v. WCAB		06/12/1984
Summary:	SUSAN SMYERS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, I. T. T. JENNINGS et al. , Respondents. Petitioners, Susan Smyers and Ethel J. Hoffman, sought and were granted writs of review. In 1977, employer stipulated, in both cases, to findings and awards of 100 percent disability and continuing medical treatment for life. In 1977 the physicians treating both women recommended that housekeeping services be provided as part of medical treatment. These episodes of coughing are clearly related to the amount of physical activity engaged in by both Mrs. Hoffman and Mrs. Smyers.
Note:	Housekeeping (or other) services reasonable and necessary med. treatment.
Citation:	157 C.A. 3rd 36
WCC Citation:	WCC 28341984 CA

Case Name:	Snedecor v. WCAB		08/17/2009
Summary:	Frank Snedecor, a plumber for the Los Angeles Community College District (District), injured his cervical spine at work on February 20, 2003. Snedecor argues that the WCAB is mistaken that section 4660(d) requires Dr. Schiffman to expressly state that permanent disability exists, and the entire record should have been considered under Genlyte. Snedecor argues that the WCAB similarly applied the 1997 schedule based on permanent disability indicated by whole person impairment due to surgical hip replacement in Rosas School District v. Workers' Comp. Since the WCAB did not reach this issue and has extensive expertise and experience in such highly technical matters of workers' compensation, we conclude that the WCAB should determine the issue on remand. In its opinion, the WCAB rejected the WCJ's reasoning because the District's notice was triggered by the requisite period of time Snedecor was out of work and not by a medical opinion that he was a qualified injured worker.
Note:	[Unpublished] Since the record supports the WCJ's finding that 2004 treating physician's reports incorporated diagnostic reports, the WCAB's determination that the WCJ relied solely on diagnostic reports to find indication of the existence of permanent disability under section 4660(d) is not supported by substantial evidence.
Citation:	B209686
WCC Citation:	WCC 35552009 CA

Case Name:	Snodgrass v. WCAB		09/11/1985
Summary:	Howard Snodgrass, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and City of Baldwin Park, Respondents. Section 132a expresses the broad policy that employees who have sustained compensable industrial injuries not be discriminated against. An employee may proceed under this section to obtain increased compensation or reinstatement and reimbursement of lost wages by filing an appropriate petition. Third, applicant's pursuing the civil action without simultaneously pursuing a claim before the Board was reasonable and in good faith. n3 At the time applicant filed his civil action the case of Meyer v. Byron Jackson, Inc. (1981) 46 Cal.
Note:	Filing a civil claim for injury tolls the statute of limitations on the filing of a 132a claim.
Citation:	50 CCC 501
WCC Citation:	WCC 27661985 CA

Case Name:	So. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. Inc. v. WCAB		01/18/1979
Summary:	Manuel [23 Cal3d Page 160] Petitioner Southern California Rapid Transit District, Inc. (RTD) seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration of an award of temporary disability benefits to respondent Elliot Weitzman (Weitzman). RTD's petition for reconsideration was denied by the WCAB on October 18, 1977. (g) Where the injury does not arise out of an altercation in which the injured employee is the initial physical aggressor. "The hearing judge and the WCAB found Laines v. Workmen's Comp. The determination by the WCAB that the injury did not arise out of his employment was annulled by the Court of Appeal.
Note:	Injury compensable where employee required to travel to work to deliver medical release.
Citation:	23 Cal. 3d 158
WCC Citation:	WCC 30501979 CA

Case Name:	Sobiniak v. WCAB		05/25/1984
Summary:	Sobiniak initiated a civil action against the manufacturer of the pump. That action was settled for 'a gross recovery of $135,000,' Sobiniak receiving final payment on January 28, 1982. On January 5, 1983, the WCJ found that Sobiniak sustained industrial injury while employer Rohde was illegally uninsured, and awarded benefits to Sobiniak. The WCJ further opined that Sobiniak, having received compensation for his injury from the third party, is precluded from double recovery by the credit provision. 1598) which had resulted in disputes as to its meaning in several respects in cases involving both civil actions and proceedings before the WCAB.
Note:	UEF entitled to credit for net amt. of employee third party recovery.
Citation:	156 Cal.App.3d 448
WCC Citation:	WCC 24451984 CA

Case Name:	Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California LLC		06/07/2011
Summary:	SODERSTEDT v. CBIZ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC ROGER WILLIAM SODERSTEDT, JR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CBIZ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiffs and appellants Roger William Soderstedt, Jr. , and Ruslan Daych appeal from an order denying class certification in the action they filed against their former employer, defendant and respondent CBIZ Southern California, LLC (CBIZ). Appellant Soderstedt began work as an Associate at CBIZ's Oxnard office in September 2005, immediately following his graduation from college. In connection with this policy, CBIZ issued guidelines for tax return review, which outlined three phases of review. CBIZ sought judicial notice of an order in another matter, California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001, a February 1989 opinion letter from the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and various federal and state regulations.
Note:	A trial court was correct to deny two plaintiff accountants' motions for class certification in a misclassification suit against their former employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B224349
WCC Citation:	WCC 37702011 CA

Case Name:	Soil Engin. Constr., Inc. v. Super. Ct.		10/06/1982
Summary:	SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; EDWARD MORRILL et al. , Real Parties in Interest. Petitioner contends that respondent court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. Real parties are plaintiffs in an action brought in their capacity as nondependent heirs and personal representatives of the deceased employee, their son Edward Francis Morrill. [¶] (c) Where the injury is proximately caused by the employment, either with or without negligence. '[¶] (b) A death benefit, to be allowed to the dependents when the employee leaves any person dependent upon him for support. '
Note:	Superior Court lacked jurisdiction (exclusive remedy rule) even though no recovery by parents as nondependent heirs.
Citation:	136 Cal.App.3d 329
WCC Citation:	WCC 25621982 CA

Case Name:	Solano County Probation Department v. WCAB (Auilar)		01/07/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A129342 January 7, 2011 SOLANO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND PAULA AGUILAR, RESPONDENTS. STATEMENT OF FACTS Respondent Paula Aguilar suffered injuries to her left shoulder, left elbow, low back, and left hip. The injuries arose in the course of her employment with petitioner Solano County Probation Department (Solano). Peter Mandell, M. D. , acting as an agreed medical examiner, examined Aguilar on at least four occasions and prepared several reports on her condition. In his first report, dated in October 2002, Dr. Mandell noted that Aguilar had pre-existing arthritis in her left hip.
Note:	A workers' compensation judge mistakenly assumed that a doctor withdrew his opinion that 33% of a left hip injury should be apportioned to obesity and arthritis when the doctor amended his opinion on apportionment of a spine injury, California's 1st Appellate District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	A129342
WCC Citation:	WCC 36992011 CA

Case Name:	Solis v. Sunset Development Company		12/27/2007
Summary:	Filed 12/27/07 Solis v. Sunset Development CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR JOANNE SOLIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND During the time period relevant to this dispute, respondent Sunset Development Company (Sunset) was responsible for the development, management, and maintenance of office buildings in Bishop Ranch Business Park, including 4000 Executive Parkway, in San Ramon. Sunset was responsible for the landscaping, maintenance, inspection, and repair done in the area around the building. We construe the trial court's August 11, 2006, "Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendants Sunset Development Company and Defendant Alexander Properties Company," which was submitted by respondents' counsel and orders that "judgment is entered in favor of defendants," as an appealable judgment because it evidences a clear intent to finally dispose of appellant's complaint against respondents.
Note:	[Unpublished] Defendant did not owe appellant a duty because she fell in an area not intended for pedestrian traffic.
Citation:	A115772
WCC Citation:	WCC 32942007 CA

Case Name:	Solorzano v. Imperial Toy Corp.		06/30/2008
Summary:	In October 2003, plaintiff Cecilia Solorzano commenced employment with defendant Imperial Toy Corporation. As to Imperial Toy, the Family Rights Act was inapplicable because Solorzano had not been employed there for more than 12 months. The FEHA claims and the wrongful termination claim against Imperial Toy failed because Solorzano did not have a physical disability. The question of whether Solorzano was disabled does not necessarily turn on whether Imperial Toy had full knowledge of her condition. But Imperial Toy did not establish that Barth knew about its contents before he chose Solorzano for termination.
Note:	[Unpublished] The ADA's definition of 'disability' applies under the FEHA if it would result in 'broader protection.' Generally, the FEHA, as distinguished from the ADA, does not exclude all temporary, nonchronic impairments.
Citation:	B195855
WCC Citation:	WCC 33892008 CA

Case Name:	Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. The Superior Court of Orange County Part 1/2		02/08/2018
Summary:	Filed 2/8/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA .             SOLUS INDUSTRIAL INNOVATIONS, LLC, et al. , Petitioners, .             v. .             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; .             THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. .             S222314 .             Ct. App. 4/3 G047661 .             Orange County Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00581868 .             The Orange County District Attorney brought an action for civil penalties under this state’s unfair competition law (UCL; Bus. .           Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (Solus) manufactures plastics at its Orange County facility. .           The district attorney also filed the present civil action against Solus.
Note:
Citation:	S222314
WCC Citation:	Ct.App. 4/3 G047661

Case Name:	Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. The Superior Court of Orange County Part 2/2		02/08/2018
Summary:	)  .           Finally, there is no reason to “discount” Congress’s awareness and acceptance of the “background tapestry” of state law in this area. .           WE CONCUR:  .           CHIN, J. .           CORRIGAN, J.   .           LIU, J. (People v. Superior Court (Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC) (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 33. at p. 99) was at issue in Gade because there was no approved state plan that displaced the federal law.
Note:
Citation:	S222314
WCC Citation:	Ct.App. 4/3 G047661

Case Name:	Sonic-Calabasas A v. Moreno		07/12/2011
Summary:	(Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 546, rev. Frank Moreno is a former employee of Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. (Sonic), which owns and operates an automobile dealership. As a condition of his employment with Sonic, Moreno signed a document entitled `Applicant's Statement & Agreement. 'Proc. , § 1281. 2. ) Sonic argued Moreno waived his right to a Berman hearing in the arbitration agreement. By its terms, the agreement precluded Moreno from pursuing any judicial `or other government dispute resolution forum,' subject to certain enumerated exceptions.
Note:	An employer cannot condition a worker's employment upon an arbitration agreement that would require the worker to waive the statutory right to a Berman hearing.
Citation:	B204902
WCC Citation:	WCC 37802011 CA

Case Name:	Sonoma State University & Octagon Risk Services v. WCAB & Lesley Hunton		08/29/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY and OCTAGON RISK SERVICES, Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LESLEY HUNTON, Respondents. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Respondent Lesley Hunton began working as a police dispatcher for Sonoma State University in 1986. Hunton filed a workers' compensation claim in 2000 alleging an injury to her psyche arising out of and in the course of her employment with petitioner Sonoma State. The AME also stated that Hunton would have likely suffered the psychological disability even if she had never worked for Sonoma State. C. Interpretation of "[P]sychiatric [I]njury" as Used in Section 3208. 3 Petitioners Sonoma State and Octagon Risk Services (collectively Sonoma State) argue that Hunton did not meet the predominant causation threshold for compensation eligibility because work-related events had caused only 35 percent of Hunton's overall psychiatric disability.
Note:	Pyschicatric disablities are complensable if the employee can prove that work was predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric disability taken as a whole.
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 500
WCC Citation:	WCC 31752006 CA

Case Name:	Sorbara Construction Corp. v. AIU Insurance Co.		10/21/2008
Summary:	Sorbara Construction Corporation, Appellant, v. AIU Insurance Company, Respondent, HRH Construction Corporation et al. , Defendants. MEMORANDUM: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Ins. Co, 294 AD2d 546, 548 [2d Dept 2002]; 57th Street Management Corp v Zurich Ins. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Note:	The insured did not give notice to the insurer until it was sued in a third party action--some five and one-half years after the accident. Under the circumstances of this case, such notice was unreasonable as a matter of law and relieved the insurer of its obligation to defend or indemnify the insured.
Citation:	00001
WCC Citation:	WCC 34452008 CA

Case Name:	Sotelo v. MediaNews Group, Inc.		07/02/2012
Summary:	SOTELO v. MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC. CYNTHIA SOTELO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Appellant Sotelo began as a carrier and then became a distributor, contracting exclusively with one newspaper. "Class members are `ascertainable' where they may be readily identified without unreasonable expense or time by reference to official records. The theoretical ability to self-identify as a member of the class is useless if one never receives notice of the action. They propose contacting those class members for whom respondents do have records, and posting notices in respondents' facilities.
Note:	Class-action status was denied to a group of newspaper carriers who allege a Southern California media group illegally classified them as independent contractors instead of employees.
Citation:	A130585
WCC Citation:	WCC 39112012 CA

Case Name:	Soto v. Vujicic		08/25/2011
Summary:	SOTO v. VUJICIC HECTOR LARES SOTO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DARIO VUJICIC, Defendant and Respondent; LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Intervenor and Appellant. Soto was injured in a head-on collision when his work vehicle was hit by a diesel Dodge Ram pickup truck that was owned by defendant Vojislav Vujicic and his wife (not parties to this appeal; referred to together as V. Vujicic). In June 2008, Soto sued Dario, V. Vujicic and other family members, and Eric, on two causes of action, negligence and negligent entrustment. C. Opposition; Reply Both Soto and Intervenor filed opposition to the defense motions, lodging other deposition excerpts from Soto, Eric, the Vujicic defendants, and the third passenger in the truck, Nicholas West. Soto vigorously responds that this is a new argument on appeal of "superseding joint entrustment," and that Soto should be able to proceed on his original negligent entrustment theory equally against Dario and V. Vujicic.
Note:	An applicant and his workers' compensation insurer failed to prove that another motorist had owed the applicant a duty not to let his 19-year-old friend drive a truck.
Citation:	D056946
WCC Citation:	WCC 37952011 CA

Case Name:	Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. WCAB		10/22/1997
Summary:	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GARY A. TATE, Respondents. Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter, WCAB) disagreed and held that the credit threshold cannot be offset by such payments. Facts On November 13, 1984, petitioner Southern California Edison Company's (hereinafter, SCE) employee and real party in interest, Gary Tate (hereinafter, Tate), sustained injuries while servicing a General Electric meter which exploded. SCE filed a petition for reconsideration with respondent WCAB on November 3, 1995, asking the WCAB to reconsider the WCJ's finding and to hold that SCE may offset its past payments to meet its requisite credit threshold. 1 Respondent WCAB held and Tate contends that the $85,000 threshold cannot be offset by previous workers' compensation payments.
Note:	An employer's credit threshold is reduced by settlement received from a 3rd party.
Citation:	58 Cal.App.4th 766
WCC Citation:	WCC 23931997 CA

Case Name:	Southern Insurance Company v. WCAB (EJ Distribution Corporation)		05/10/2017
Summary:	Filed 5/10/17 Certified for Publication 5/22/17 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS%u201F COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, EJ DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. .             B278412 .             (WCAB No. ADJ6865421) .             PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers%u201F Compensation Appeals Board. .             Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton & Muehl, Alexander G. Abdoulin and George Woolverton for Petitioner. .           Workers%u201F compensation insurance policy number WSI0006904-01 (hereafter “the policy”) was issued by Southern Insurance Company2 for an annual period beginning on January 1, 2009. .           __________________________, Acting P. J. CHAVEZ .           We concur: .           __________________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           __________________________, J.
Note:
Citation:	B278412
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ6865421

Case Name:	Southwest Airlines v. WCAB		10/07/1991
Summary:	SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and SUSAN BELAND, Respondents. Introduction Petitioner Southwest Airlines (Southwest) seeks review of an opinion and order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) denying reconsideration of a ruling that Labor Code section 3600. 5, subdivision (a),fn. [234 Cal. App. 3d 1423] [1a] Beland contends that the petition for writ of review must be denied as untimely under section 5950fn. Factual and Procedural Background Beland filed an application for adjudication of claim in 1988, alleging an injury to her back while 'in flight' as a flight attendant for Southwest. [1b] The petition herein is untimely under section 5950 unless the time for filing it was extended by the provisions of section 1013.
Note:	45 day limit for filing petition not extended by Reg. S. 10500, Civ. Code S. 1013; 'Villa' case not followed.
Citation:	234 Cal.App.3d 1421
WCC Citation:	WCC 27771991 CA

Case Name:	Spatafore & Wheeler v. WCAB		09/08/1987
Summary:	Spatafore & Wheeler, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California; W. G. Nolan Plastering, Inc. ; and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Respondents. Cases 1065], payable to Spatafore & Wheeler. Permanent disability indemnity in accordance with paragraph 3 above, less the sum of $ 5,000. 00 payable to applicant's attorney as the reasonable value of services rendered and commuted per Goler and paid per [Labor Code section] 4903 to Spatafore & Wheeler . . . Spatafore petitioned for reconsideration of the Board's decision, contending that the reasonable value of Spatafore's services is $ 5,000 and that Spatafore should have been afforded a hearing before the WCJ's commutation order was rescinded. Spatafore appended to its petition a detailed summary of its services performed in obtaining the award.
Note:	Commuting an atty. fee requires a board hearing on 'appropriateness' factors.
Citation:	52 CCC 412
WCC Citation:	WCC 26161987 CA

Case Name:	Spinks v. EQR-Briarwood		10/18/2012
Summary:	According to Brown, Mobile Medical offered to have someone pack up Spinks' belongings and also offered to fly her back to her home in Texas, but Spinks refused. Tauala offered to find an apartment for Spinks but Spinks replied that she had already made a hotel reservation at the Tropicana Lodge in Palo Alto. Tauala also offered to look into obtaining government assistance for Spinks, but Spinks declined that offer. Spinks' mother, who was staying with Spinks after her surgery, was also present in the apartment. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1057 (Spinks I). )
Note:	A temporary worker who was kicked out of her employer-provided apartment after she could no longer work because of an on-the-job injury had abandoned the property and had no cause of action against her former employer.
Citation:	H036448
WCC Citation:	WCC 39412012 CA

Case Name:	St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v. Mark Davis Masonry, Inc.		02/14/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK DAVIS MASONRY, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. * * * INTRODUCTION St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) paid money to settle a personal injury lawsuit. On September 11, 1999, Darren McLaren and Mark Davis, employees of MDM, were injured when scaffolding erected by Waco collapsed. McLaren, Davis, and Davis's wife filed a personal injury action against RAS, Waco, and other subcontractors on May 4, 2000. The trial court also ruled Travelers could recover the attorney fees it incurred in the indemnity case, and invited Travelers to submit a request for those fees.
Note:	[Unpublished] A party seeking nonstatutory costs or expenses (such as expert witness fees) under a contractual prevailing-party attorney fees clause must plead and prove its entitlement to those costs or expenses. Travelers failed to do so.
Citation:	G037661
WCC Citation:	WCC 33172008 CA

Case Name:	Stanley v. Richmond		06/14/1995
Summary:	These claims against respondents Diana Richmond (Richmond or respondent) and her law firm, Richmond & Chamberlin (collectively, hereinafter, respondents), arose out of a dissolution proceeding in which Richmond represented appellant, and C. Rick Chamberlin (Chamberlin), an attorney with whom Richmond was in the process of forming a new law firm, represented appellant's husband, Dr. John Stanley (Dr. Stanley). Later the same day, however, appellant called Richmond back to say she had struck a deal with the Nossaman firm and to propose paying Dr. Stanley "$250,000 via a loan. "Apparently, Chamberlin also informed Richmond that, if appellant obtained a $250,000 bank loan, Dr. Stanley might be willing to take a note from appellant for the $110,000 balance. Stanley further testified that she understood "taking offices together" to mean that Richmond and Chamberlin would be renting space in the same building as Richmond had done with the Nossaman firm but not that they would be starting a new law firm together. She informed Richmond that she considered Dr. Stanley's and Chamberlin's pursuit of the motion to compel sale to be sanctionable in the circumstances, and admonished Richmond to "[b]e an advocate. "
Note:	The appellant established a prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and breach of contract.
Citation:	A062468
WCC Citation:	WCC 37311995 CA

Case Name:	Starving Students Inc vs. Dept of Indust Relations		01/24/2005
Summary:	STARVING STUDENTS, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION KRIEGLER, J. - Appellant Starving Students, Inc. (Employer) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094. 5. However, the DLSE presented evidence that Kemper had not agreed to provide coverage to Employer through their policy with Omni. On March 19, 2003, the deputy labor commissioner visited Employer's office and cited Employer for violating the stop work order. [¶] (b) By securing from the Director of Industrial Relations a certificate of consent to self-insure .
Note:	Dept of Labor Stds Enforcement does not have discretion to withdraw penalty assessed against employer insured by unauthorized carrier.
Citation:	125 Cal. App. 4th 1357
WCC Citation:	WCC 30742005 CA

Case Name:	State Compensation Fund v. WCAB (Guzman) CA6		01/30/2018
Summary:	State Compensation Fund v. WCAB (Guzman)
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a construction worker was not entitled to benefits for a psychiatric injury from an accident where his compacter overturned.
Citation:	H044300
WCC Citation:	W.C.A.B. No. ADJ6839277

Case Name:	State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Notis Enterprises		06/07/2010
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) was created in 1914 to issue workers' compensation policies to employers. The premium for the 2004 policy was calculated by the State Fund to be $497,265. 48. State Fund claims that Notis failed to pay the premium for the 2004 policy. State Fund assigned its claim against Notis to Collecto, Inc. Collecto filed a complaint against Notis for goods and services sold and delivered, account stated, and open book account. Each is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the assignment by State Fund to Collecto, and the reassignment to State Fund. Notis asserts: "Even if the account was properly transferred to Collecto from State Fund, then how is State Fund conducting re-audits of the account on 'March 10, 2008' when it transferred the account in 2006?," citing a declaration by an employee of State Fund filed in the trial court.
Note:	[Unpublished] Discovery order upheld.
Citation:	B213079
WCC Citation:	WCC 36362010 CA

Case Name:	State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Zamora		03/21/2011
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND v. NANCY H. ZAMORA No. 10-796. Supreme Court of United States. March 21, 2011. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Note:	The U.S. Supreme Court will not review a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed a bankruptcy trustee to recoup a $101,531 restitution payment made to State Compensation Insurance Fund.
Citation:	10-796
WCC Citation:	WCC 37332011 CA

Case Name:	State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Sana Khan		01/27/2018
Summary:	  Plaintiff-Appellant State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees. Specifically, State Fund had the opportunity to be heard regarding the validity of the 2009 Settlement before the arbitrator and decided to negotiate the superseding 2010 Settlements instead. State Fund had the opportunity to investigate the fraudulence of the Zaks Entities’ billings before entering into the 2010 Settlements and did so in depth, with the help of outside counsel. State Fund then had the opportunity to contest the fairness of the 2010 Settlements before the     arbitrator as well, and did not.   Finally, State Fund failed to take the additional steps required to effect rescission under California law.
Note:	Broad liability releases in lien settlements prevent California’s State Compensation Insurance Fund from suing Accident Help Line and providers that the carrier says overbilled for medical treatment.
Citation:	No. 16-55501
WCC Citation:	D.C. No. 8:12-cv-01072-CJC-JCG

Case Name:	State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WallDesign, Inc.,		10/20/2011
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND v. WALLDESIGN INCORPORATED STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WALLDESIGN INCORPORATED, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION State Compensation Insurance Fund (the Fund) provided workers' compensation insurance to WallDesign Incorporated (WallDesign) under two insurance policies. WallDesign failed to pay the premium the Fund claimed was owing; the amount of the final premium was determined through an audit of WallDesign's records by the Fund. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Fund issued two workers' compensation insurance policies to WallDesign. DeLeon filed a first amended complaint on May 17, 2010, seeking $1,045,905. 35 in damages for the unpaid workers' compensation premium.
Note:	The four-year statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit to collect unpaid premium begins running after the insurer completes an audit and demands payment, if the policy states those terms, the California 4th District Court of Appeal ruled on Thursday in a case of first impression.
Citation:	G044354
WCC Citation:	WCC 38142011 CA

Case Name:	State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (Guzman)		01/30/2018
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOSE A. GUZMAN, Respondents. .             H044300 .             (W. C. A. B. No. ADJ6839277) I. )1 Petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), the workers’ compensation carrier for Guzman’s employer, petitioned for reconsideration. .             For reasons that we will explain, we agree with SCIF. .           WE CONCUR: .           __________________________ ELIA, ACTING P. J. .           __________________________ MIHARA, J.
Note:
Citation:	H044300
WCC Citation:	W.C.A.B. No. ADJ6839277

Case Name:	State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (Jose Echeverria)		01/22/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOSE C. ECHEVERRIA, Respondents. A114505 (WCAB No. SRO 131702) The State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) petitions for review (Labor Code § 5952)*fn1* of the decision after reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) affirming an award to respondent, Jose C. Echeverria. State Fund is the insurer for Echeverria's employer, Hiatt Logging. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOSE C. ECHEVERRIA, Respondents. For Petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund Robert W. Daneri, Chief Counsel Suzanne Ah-Tye, Assistant Chief Counsel Don E. Clark, Senior Appellate Counsel For Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board No appearance for Respondent For Respondent Jose C. Echeverria FERCHLAND LAW OFFICE William T. Ferchland, Esq.
Note:	The court agreed to publish an opinion issued on Jan. 5 at the request of State Fund.
Citation:	146 Cal. App. 4th 1311
WCC Citation:	WCC 32052007 CA

Case Name:	State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (Romero)		05/24/2011
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and VINCENTE ROMERO, Respondents. State Compensation Insurance Fund, Suzanne Ah-Tye, Chief Counsel, Patricia Brown, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Don E. Clark, Senior Appellate Counsel, for Petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund. State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) petitioned for a writ of review of an opinion and order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration of the findings of fact and award of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), who had declined to reopen and set aside the parties' stipulation that Vicente Romero had suffered an industrial injury but did reopen and increase the stipulated award of 35 percent permanent disability to 100 percent. State Fund was Four Winds' workers' compensation insurance carrier. State Fund asserted section 5803 provided the WCAB with continuing jurisdiction to reduce or rescind the original award for good cause.
Note:	A petition to reduce disability filed more than five years after the date of injury was untimely, but a workers' compensation judge also erred by increasing an applicant's award, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in an unpublished decision.
Citation:	B224825
WCC Citation:	WCC 37652011 CA

Case Name:	State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (SANDHAGEN)		11/14/2006
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BRICE SANDHAGEN, Respondents. C048668 (WCAB No. RDG0115958) BRICE SANDHAGEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Respondents. Robert W. Daneri, Suzanne Ah-Tye, and Don E. Clark for petitioner and respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund. The employer's insurer, State Compensation Insurance Fund (Fund), disagrees and asserts that only monetary penalties can be imposed for its tardiness; it retains the right to deny the treatment request under the UR process and may pursue remedies under the dispute resolution procedures set forth in section 4062. Fund also asserts the WCAB may impose penalties under section 5814 if an employer delays completion of the UR process.
Note:	The WCAB acted within its authority in prohibiting the use of a report generated by an untimely utilization review process in subsequent proceedings challenging the treatment decision.
Citation:	144 Cal. App. 4th 1050
WCC Citation:	WCC 31902006 CA

Case Name:	State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. WCAB (Felts)		05/14/1981
Summary:	STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and FRED FELTS, Respondents. 2 Preliminarily, there exists a question of the timeliness of the petition for review and, thus, our jurisdiction. The Board's order denying reconsideration was filed on June 10, 1980; the petition for review was not filed in this court until December 10, 1980. Here, the petition for review was filed well within 45 days after State Farm first received notice on October 27, 1980, and the petition was therefore timely filed. [2] A brief review of the record indicates that the contention of State Farm is well founded.
Note:	Statutory period for filing petition begins with receipt of notice when service/notice of order is not timely.
Citation:	119 Cal.App.3d 193
WCC Citation:	WCC 27801981 CA

Case Name:	State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. WCAB (Leonard)		12/18/1997
Summary:	STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PATRICK A. LEONARD, JR. , Respondents. This case presents the question whether Leonard, Jr. , is a covered employee under the workers' compensation law and the State Farm policy. In January 1989, Leonard, Sr. , and his wife purchased a homeowners policy from State Farm. In October 1994, State Farm admitted that Leonard, Sr. , was insured under the policy. Ironically, it is State Farm, not Leonard, Jr. , that asserts the existence of his 'right' not to be subject to the workers' compensation provisions.
Note:	Regardless of relationship, if parties jointly consent to WC coverage, liability will be found against 'employer'.
Citation:	16 Cal.4th 1187
WCC Citation:	WCC 4191997 CA

Case Name:	State Farm Insurance et al. v. WCAB (Pearson)		01/26/2011
Summary:	INTRODUCTION State Farm Insurance Company (State Farm) petitions for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950*fn1 of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's opinion and order denying reconsideration of a joint supplemental findings and award. Without giving notice to State Farm, counsel for Apparicio and Pearson contacted Dr. Barras and provided her with several medical reports. State Farm also argued that the WCJ's finding regarding reimbursement of Pearson for caregiver services was excessive and unreasonable. State Farm alleged that Apparicio and Pearson scheduled an appointment with Dr. Barras without notifying State Farm, and did not provide State Farm with notice of the time, date, or location of the evaluation. The WCJ also cited Pearson's testimony that State Farm provided services at a $30 hourly rate during 2002 before terminating those services for reasons State Farm never explained.
Note:	The California 2nd District Court of Appeal created new case law Wednesday when it ruled that an applicant improperly had ex parte communication with a medical examiner in a case.
Citation:	B211431
WCC Citation:	WCC 37112011 CA

Case Name:	State of CA Division of Occupational Safety and Health v. Superior Ct. of LA County		04/23/2012
Summary:	STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; MARGARITA ALVAREZ BAUTISTA et al. , Real Parties in Interest. Cal-OSHA has produced those files, along with all the 2009 files, totaling 1,100 files and 100,000 pages of records. Proc. , § 2016. 010) (the Act) applies to traditional mandamus proceedings brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 (Code Civ. Cal-OSHA moved for clarification of these proceedings in the superior court, but the court declined to rule on the motion. Cal-OSHA contends that had the superior court ruled on the motion (and narrowed the proceedings), it would not have granted Bautista's broad discovery request.
Note:	The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health does not need to produce the 2,200 files requested by a litigant.
Citation:	B235419
WCC Citation:	WCC 38892012 CA

Case Name:	State of CA v. IAC (Corsinotti)		10/03/1961
Summary:	STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, MARINO CORSINOTTI, an Incompetent Person, etc. , et al. , Respondents. He performed manual tasks with gross clumsiness; he was best suited to activities involving large arm movements performed under supervision. At the time of the accident he attended the Sheltered Workshop of Aid Retarded Children, Inc. (hereinafter designated 'ARC'). The program consisted of the sorting of old newspapers for sale to florists, van and storage companies and other purchasers. The commission ordered that 'State of California, Subsequent Injuries Fund be joined as a party defendant.
Note:	Imbecility of worker didn't foreclose finding that he suffered compensable permanent partial disability.
Citation:	196 Cal.App.2d 10
WCC Citation:	WCC 25481961 CA

Case Name:	State of CA v. Super. Ct.		12/12/1997
Summary:	THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; STACI BETH GLOVSKY et al. , Real Parties in Interest. COUNSEL Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Richard J. Rojo, Susan Kawala and D. L. Helfat, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioners. Bollington & Roberts, Wayne Hunkins, James D. Roberts, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, Thomas N. Charchut and Caroline E. Chan for Real Parties in Interest. *- Statement of the Case Petitioners, cross-defendants in the cause below, petitioned this court for a writ of mandate on July 21, 1997. State Compensation Insurance Fund filed a complaint in intervention to recover benefits it paid to Falquez.
Note:	Third-party barred from cross-complaining against employer for indemnity and contribution.
Citation:	60 Cal.App.4th 659
WCC Citation:	WCC 23961997 CA