Case Name:	Compton v. Superior Court of LA County		03/19/2013
Summary:	COMPTON v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LEASA COMPTON Petioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC et al. , Real Parties in Interest. AMS then propounded special interrogatories on Compton, which she never answered because the district court remanded the action to state court in February 2010. After remand to the superior court, AMS propounded more discovery requests, including form and special interrogatories, document production requests, and requests for admission. According to Compton, when she applied for a job with AMS, she met with Paula Palento, who Compton believed was an administrative assistant for the company. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court discussed its earlier decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 148 (Discover Bank).
Note:	Unconscionability is a defense to the enforcement of an entire contract, or particular provisions of a contract, including agreements to arbitrate disputes.
Citation:	B236669
WCC Citation:	WCC 39932013 CA

Case Name:	Conrad v. 105 St. Assoc., LLC		10/28/2008
Summary:	Conrad v 105 St. Assoc. , LLC NY Slip Op 08180 Decided on October 28, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. 105554/04 4405A 590118/05 [*1]Richard Conrad, Plaintiff, v Street Associates, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, BFC Construction Corp. , et al. , Defendants. 105 Street Associates, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, BFC Construction Corp. , et al. , Third-Party Plaintiffs, Larry E. Knight, Inc. , et al. , Third-Party Defendants, JEM Erectors, Inc. , Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. We reject 105 Street's additional argument for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against JEM based on the latter's failure to remove debris near the opening.
Note:	That the general contractor may have assumed responsibility for erecting a barricade around the opening did not, absent contractual provision to the contrary, absolve JEM of its contractual obligation to implement adequate safety measures itself.
Citation:	4405 105554/04 4405A 590118/05
WCC Citation:	WCC 34432008 CA

Case Name:	Consolidated Structural v. SCIF, et. al.		10/21/2002
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CONSOLIDATED STRUCTURAL MATERIALS, INC. et al. ,Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. ,Defendants and Respondents. The Parks Suit In the First Amended Complaint, the Parks Suit alleged that the decedent was an employee of CSM. State Fund further agreed to "defend at our expense any claim, proceeding or suit against [CSM] for benefits payable by this insurance. "However, State Fund "ha[d] no duty to defend a claim, proceeding or suit that is not covered by this insurance. "However, State Fund did not have to defend "a claim, proceeding or suit that is not covered by this insurance. "
Note:	Coverage B does not require a defense against a civil suit where allegations fall clearly within work comp exclusive remedy.
Citation:	Unpublished
WCC Citation:	WCC 28942002 CA

Case Name:	Contemporary Services v. Staff Pro		08/05/2010
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Both appellant Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC) and respondent Staff Pro Security, Inc. (Staff Pro) provide security and event staffing services to arenas, stadiums, and similar venues in which concerts, athletic events, and trade shows are held. CSC sued Staff Pro and its President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Cory Meredith (collectively Staff Pro). Staff Pro never bid a contract with the knowledge that Staff Pro would not make a profit or that Staff Pro's bid would be below its cost. Even assuming that Staff Pro sold its services below cost whether it did so is a question of fact, [citation] CSC must prove that it [Staff Pro] did so with the express purpose of damaging or destroying competition. Assuming arguendo that Staff Pro did engage in ghost billing, the parties who suffered an "injury in fact" as a result of that practice are the venues Staff Pro ghost billed because they paid Staff Pro for services they never received.
Note:	A security staffing agency's unfair competition suit against a competitor failed because it could not prove that the defendant's alleged 'ghost billing' caused it to suffer an 'injury in fact.'
Citation:	B198981
WCC Citation:	WCC 36552010 CA

Case Name:	Continental Casualty vs. WCAB (Goodin)		04/24/2009
Summary:	Filed 4/24/09 Continental Casualty v. WCAB (Goodin) CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO CONTINENTAL CASUALTY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BERNADETTE GOODIN, Respondents. The workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found no apportionment to be appropriate and it is this element of the award that petitioner Continental Casualty challenges. STATEMENT OF FACTS Applicant, born in 1957, worked at a nursing home operated by petitioner's insured from November 1997 until October 2002. The symptoms progressed to the point where she could no longer work due to chronic and severe airway obstruction.
Note:	[Unpublished] WCJ can not ignore the only evidence on apportionment; if the WCJ did not feel the evidence was sufficient she should have developed the record further under LC 5701.
Citation:	E046117
WCC Citation:	WCC 35172009 CA

Case Name:	Contreras v. Jones		01/04/2011
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Monica P. Contreras met Jones in mid-May 2009, while Jones was a probationary employee with the County of Alameda (County), training to be an Eligibility Technician. After mid-July, Contreras had no further workplace contact with Jones, and the County ultimately dismissed his workplace complaint. In October 2009, Jones filed a small claims action against Contreras alleging she had defamed him during the conference about his performance. Contreras was shocked to see Jones and felt seriously threatened by the fact he had tracked her down. Several days later, Jones sent Contreras a letter stating he would dismiss his small claims case if she paid him several thousand dollars.
Note:	The 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed an Alameda County supervisor's restraining order against a subordinate employee who caused her to fear for her safety.
Citation:	A127068
WCC Citation:	WCC 36972011 CA

Case Name:	Contreras v. WCAB		01/09/2012
Summary:	CONTRERAS v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD SALVADOR CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al. , Respondents. In 2004, petitioner Salvador Contreras timely filed a petition to reopen his industrial claim at the Los Angeles district office of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In June of 2001, the WCAB ruled in favor of Contreras, awarding him a 27 percent permanent partial disability. (Rivera v. WCAB (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1124, 1133; Boehm & Associates v. WCAB (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 513, 515-516. )which request action by the [WCAB] shall be filed with the office of the [WCAB] district office where the case has been assigned for hearing .
Note:	The mistake of accidentally filing a petition to reopen at the wrong Workers' Compensation Appeals Board office should not have barred an applicant's petition to reopen.
Citation:	B233103
WCC Citation:	WCC 38432012 CA

Case Name:	Cooper v. Brannon		09/25/2012
Summary:	COOPER v. BRANNON RANDY COOPER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LARRY BRANNON et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Archer Norris, Gary A. Watt, Teresa Li; Rifenbark & Wolf, Edward O'Connor, for Defendants and Respondents Larry Brannon and Susie Brannon. Cooper contends that homeowners Larry Brannon and Susie Brannon and their company, Brannon, Inc. , dba Smith Electric, Inc. , (Smith Electric) owed a duty to protect him from falling through an unguarded attic stairwell pursuant to Cal-OSHA regulations. Cooper sued Larry and Susie Brannon and Smith Electric for negligence and premises liability. Cooper declared that on one occasion, when the owner of Dream Builders was not present, Larry Brannon directed the Dream Builders employees to retrieve siding materials from the attic.
Note:	The employee of a contractor hired to perform a house remodel was barred from suing the homeowners for their alleged failure to comply with state safety regulations for attic stairwells.
Citation:	B235309
WCC Citation:	WCC 39332012 CA

Case Name:	Cooper v. Dept. of Fire and Police Pensions LA		04/07/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE GARY D. COOPER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND POLICE PENSIONS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. Cooper knew that the Department of Pensions separately handled claims for disability pensions. In February 1992, Cooper lost consciousness while driving to work in an unmarked police car. Cooper continued to work in the Claims Validation Unit until he retired with a service pension on September 3, 1994. Cooper knew that the Department of Pensions separately handled claims for disability pensions.
Note:	In deciding whether he should file an application for a service connected disability pension, it would be unreasonable for appellant to have relied on the opinions of his supervisor and co-worker about whether he should apply for workers' compensation.
Citation:	B210610
WCC Citation:	WCC 36132010 CA

Case Name:	Corbin v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Public Works		02/24/2012
Summary:	NETTIE CORBIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, and Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Nettie Corbin appeals from the trial court's order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement filed by defendants the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Eric Russell, and Mihran Sarkisian. In September 2010, a jury trial commenced before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel. Shortly thereafter, Corbin refused to sign the written settlement agreement prepared by the City.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the terms of a settlement agreement between a municipal agency and an employee which asserted that it would not affect her pending workers' compensation claim, but required that she retire, foreclosing reinstatement as a possible remedy in her workers' compensation action.
Citation:	B230414
WCC Citation:	WCC 38612012 CA