Case Name:	Lamb v. WCAB		04/19/1974
Summary:	ROSE W. LAMB, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, KEYSTONE ENGINEERING COMPANY et al. , Respondents In Bank. John H. Lamb was employed for approximately 24 years prior to his death by respondent Keystone Engineering. After returning to work Lamb continued to make periodic visits to the doctor for approximately six months or until June of 1970. About 10 a. m. Lamb had some difficulty with a gear he was making and called for the assistance of his supervisor. After a few minutes another employee came to tell the supervisor that Lamb was lying on the floor under one of the machines.
Note:	A petition for reconsideration is proper when WCAB reverses referee but isn't prerequisite for writ of review.
Citation:	11 Cal.3d 274, 39 CCC 310
WCC Citation:	WCC 26551974 CA

Case Name:	Land v. WCAB		09/25/2002
Summary:	FACTS Nicole Land was a full-time student at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly). Land paid tuition to attend the year-long class and earned two credits per quarter. In finding that Land was not an employee for purposes of the Act, the WCJ and WCAB majority relied on a case denied review by this court, Coburn v. Workers' Comp. Land was not working shoulder to shoulder with paid workers; the participants in the project were all students in the same position as Land. Decisions of the WCAB reported in California Compensation Cases are citable as authority but are not binding on this court.
Note:	University student is not employee because she participates in profit sharing as part of field work.
Citation:	102 Cal.App.4th 491
WCC Citation:	WCC 28842002 CA

Case Name:	Lanier Lewis et al., v. Pepper Construction Company Pacific		02/26/2010
Summary:	LANIER LEWIS et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PEPPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PACIFIC, Defendant and Respondent. He and his wife seek to recover in tort from Pepper Construction Company Pacific (Pepper), the general contractor, alleging that Pepper owed Lewis a duty of care. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Pepper, finding that Pepper did not owe Lewis a duty of care. [Pepper] shall require all Subcontractors to provide [Pepper] with a safety plan prior to the commencement of work. "Again, Lewis does not provide a citation to the record supporting his assertion that Pepper knew that ISE was not providing fall protection.
Note:	An injured subcontractor employee failed to show that the general contractor owed him a common law duty of care.
Citation:	C060212
WCC Citation:	WCC 36042010 CA

Case Name:	LaPlante v. WCAB		07/31/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SANDRA JILL LaPLANTE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WAL-MART STORES, INC. , Respondents. Parker, Kern, Nard & Wenzel, David H. Parker, for Respondent, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -ooOoo- Vartabedian, Acting P. J. , Dawson, J. , and Kane, J. Sandra Jill LaPlante petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). LaPlante contends the WCAB erred in concluding Wilkinson v. Workers' Comp. Agreeing with the WCAB and First Appellate District's reasoning in Benson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. Unlike WCAB three-member panel decisions, en banc decisions carry the weight of "legal precedent under the principle of stare decisis" on all WCJs and WCAB panels.
Note:	[Unpublished] The Wilkinson doctrine allowing combined awards of permanent disability in successive injury cases is inconsistent with the requirement contained in Sen. Bill No. 899 that apportionment be based on causation rather than disability.
Citation:	F054923
WCC Citation:	WCC 35482009 CA

Case Name:	Lara v. WCAB		02/25/2010
Summary:	Lara filed a workers' compensation claim against Metro Diner's then sole shareholder, Scott Broffman, personally and against Metro Diner. The WCJ also found that Metro Diner did not rebut the presumption that Lara was its employee on the date of the injury, and hence, Lara was entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Based on the factors of employment set forth in Borello, Lara was an independent contractor at the time of his injury. The question before us is whether Lara was an employee or an independent contractor when he was injured. Sometimes Lara charged by the hour and sometimes by the job and so Lara was paid on a job-by-job basis, with no obligation on the part of either Metro Diner or Lara for work in the future.
Note:	A gardener hired to prune bushes, where the gardener has control over the time and manner in which to do the job, is an independent contractor.
Citation:	B214234
WCC Citation:	WCC 36032010 CA

Case Name:	Larson v. Fraysse		11/16/2017
Summary:	In mid-2014, Philipson, Fraysse, and Danowitz met multiple times with Larson or his attorney in this case, Michael Blue, to discuss the action against Anguizola and potentially Larson. Larson alleged Fraysse and Danowitz attended between two and four of the five meetings as partners of Knox Ricksen and were “acting in the ordinary course of business of the partnership and/or with the authority of the partnership in committing the acts alleged. ” Larson alleged Philipson attended all of the meetings and acted “within the scope of his agency or employment when he harmed [Larson]. ” .           Larson alleged that, prior to the first meeting on or about June 18, 2014, Philipson contacted Larson “for the purposes of arranging for a personal meeting. ” At the meeting, Philipson allegedly “threatened to accuse [Larson] of a crime by adding [Larson] to pending criminal proceedings unless [Larson] were to pay money. ” Larson did not allege anyone else attended the June 18 meeting. Larson alleged that at these meetings Philipson again threatened to accuse Larson of criminal wrongdoing unless Larson “pa[id] money. ” Larson alleged Philipson demanded Larson “facilitate and persuade [his] managed medical providers to withdraw all of [their] liens and accounts receivable flowing from certain workers compensation claims denied by insurance companies represented by Defendant Knox-Ricksen. ” Larson again did not allege anyone else attended the July or August meetings. .           Larson alleged that two more “personal” meetings occurred on or about September 15, 2014 and November 15, 2014, and that, in addition to Philipson, Fraysse and Danowitz attended “as partners of Knox-Ricksen. ” According to Larson’s allegations, at the September and November meetings both Philipson and Fraysse allegedly “threatened to accuse [Larson] of a crime by adding [Larson] to pending criminal proceedings unless [Larson] were to pay money. ” Larson alleged that at the November meeting Philipson, as he had at the July and August meetings, demanded Larson “facilitate and persuade [his] managed medical providers to withdraw all of [their] liens and accounts receivable flowing from certain workers compensation claims denied by insurance companies represented by Defendant Knox-Ricksen. ” Larson did not allege Danowitz threatened or even spoke to Larson. Philipson stated he attended several meetings with Larson prior to the meetings with Fraysse and Danowitz, and the purpose of those meetings was to resolve claims against Larson.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a trial judge’s decision to toss a chiropractor’s extortion suit against the Knox Ricksen law firm and three attorneys.
Citation:	B270061
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC580579

Case Name:	LaTourtette vs. WCAB, Long Beach Comm Coll Dist		03/12/1998
Summary:	SHEILA LaTOURETTE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Respondents. Beginning in December 1979, decedent Elston LaTourette was employed as a supervising groundskeeper for the Long Beach Community College District, which is permissibly self-insured for workers' compensation liability. "Certainly it is possible that he would have died when he did, as he did, even absent his . . . employment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, adopting the recommendation and report of the workers' compensation judge. [1] The applicant for workers' compensation benefits has the burden of establishing the "reasonable probability of industrial causation. "
Note:	Injury or death from a non-occupational disease not compensable unless intervening occupational event.
Citation:	17 Cal.4th 644
WCC Citation:	WCC 29811998 CA

Case Name:	Le Parc Comm Assoc vs. WCAB, Curren		07/25/2003
Summary:	In the complaint Curren alleged that Martinez and Le Parc were presumed negligent under section 3708 fn. On July 16, 2002 Curren and Le Parc, as well as Le Parc's general liability insurance carrier, settled the civil action. In addition to releasing Le Parc, Curren agreed to indemnify Le Parc and hold it harmless against any action, claim or demand by Curren himself or by any other person for damages or compensation resulting in any way from the August 23, 2000 incident. Le Parc's Motion to Dismiss the Workers' Compensation Case On September 25, 2002 Le Parc moved to dismiss Curren's workers' compensation claim on the ground the settlement agreement resolved all of Curren's claims against Le Parc, including the application for workers' compensation benefits. c. Curren Is Not Foreclosed by the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel from Establishing that Le Parc Was His Employer The issue of Martinez's status as an independent contractor or employee of Le Parc, and therefore whether Le Parc was Curren's employer, was not actually litigated in the dismissed civil action.
Note:	Civil settlement ineffective against work comp claim.
Citation:	110 CA4th 1161
WCC Citation:	WCC 29492003 CA

Case Name:	Leamon v. WCAB		04/07/1987
Summary:	Initially, Leamon made no claim that any of the three absences were excused. Leamon had informed Campbell that the remaining two absences were personal in nature. Some nine months later, after he was fired, Leamon recanted, claiming these absences also were caused by industrial injury. The panel directed that Leamon be reinstated as of the date of the decision without backpay and benefits. . . . ' It concluded: '[The] evidence establishes that when it terminated [Leamon, Campbell] was not acting on the basis that [Leamon] had been industrially-injured or absent from work because of his industrial injury; it acted solely on the basis that, under [Campbell's] Code of Conduct, [Leamon] appeared to be an unsatisfactory employee.
Note:	Increased compensation due to failure to correct corporate record to reflect industrial nature of absences.
Citation:	190 Cal App 3d 1409; 52 CCC 146
WCC Citation:	WCC 3391987 CA

Case Name:	LeBoeuf v. WCAB		08/03/1983
Summary:	RICHARD GENE LeBOEUF, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, Respondents (Opinion by Bird, C. J. , with Mosk, Kaus, Broussard, Reynoso, JJ. , and Sims, J. , concurring. Petitioner, Richard LeBoeuf, was employed as a bus driver for Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (A. C. 3 [34 Cal. 3d 239] On April 9, 1979, petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration of the permanent disability rating with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB denied the petition on May 9, 1979. fn. The WCAB contends that allowing reopening under these circumstances will create a disincentive for applicants to present any more than a perfunctory case to the Bureau.
Note:	Disqualification from voc rehab constitutes good cause to reopen case on permanent disability.
Citation:	34 Cal.3d 234, 48 CCC 587
WCC Citation:	WCC 28162003 CA

Case Name:	Lee v. Harbor Distributing, LLC		02/28/2013
Summary:	LEE v. HARBOR DISTRIBUTING, LLC RONNIE LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HARBOR DISTRIBUTING, LLC et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Lee was a 53-year-old African American truck driver who worked for Harbor, a beer distributor, for about 10 years. According to Murata, Harbor permitted Lee to work as a "transfer driver" on a temporary basis in 2007 while Lee was awaiting shoulder surgery, even though Harbor did not need another transfer driver during much of that time. At the meeting, Hughes told Lee that he could not return to work as a "side loader" with his physical restrictions and discussed other positions at Harbor that Lee might perform. Lee stated that he was not qualified for the positions identified, and suggested only one position at Harbor that he could performtransfer driver.
Note:	A beer distributor is getting a second chance to prove his former employer discriminated against him on the basis of his disability and wrongfully terminated him.
Citation:	B238872
WCC Citation:	WCC 39902013 CA

Case Name:	Lee v. Yang		12/02/2012
Summary:	.             Claremont Law Group, David K. Lee and Shirin R. Delkhah for Defendant and Respondent Jun Yang. INTRODUCTION .             Plaintiffs and appellants Joung Hyen Lee, Hyen Uk Lee, and Esther Lee (plaintiffs) are former employees of The Christian Herald, Inc. (the Herald), a corporation they allege is solely owned and was managed by their former boss, defendant Jun Yang. Hyen Uk Lee asserted three additional causes of action (assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Yang, and premises liability against the Herald) arising out of alleged physical confrontations with Yang. Joung Hyen Lee was a reporter, while Hyen Uk Lee and Esther Lee were administrative assistants. .           Plaintiff Hyen Uk Lee asserted three additional causes of action: two against Yang (assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress) and one against the Herald (premises liability).
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation law did not bar a worker from suing her former supervisor after he allegedly threw a phone at her and knocked her unconscious by pushing her into a door.
Citation:	B266853
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC543345

Case Name:	Lee vs. Miracle Ford; CIGA		02/18/2003
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. LAO 781284 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL ALFRED R. LEE, JR. (Deceased), VALERIE L. LEE (Widow), Applicant, vs. Therefore, we will grant removal, rescind the order allowing election against CIGA, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings. We also conclude that it is premature to dismiss CIGA as a party defendant at this point in the proceedings. The application named Miracle Ford as the employer and HIH as the insurance carrier. However, the WCJ also issued the rulings disputed here, approving applicant's election against CIGA and submitting this matter for decision.
Note:	Applicant may not elect against CIGA when there are other viable carriers having liability during the alleged CT period.
Citation:	68 CCC 213 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29192003 CA

Case Name:	Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. Diaz		08/18/2005
Summary:	The Complaint On June 17, 2003, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. (Leegin) filed a fraud complaint against Carolina Diaz Santiaguin alleging the following facts. On January 3, 2003, Santiaguin informed Leegin that she was suffering from work-related injuries based on an event that had occurred on December 2, 2002. Leegin sent Santiaguin to the industrial health clinic it uses to diagnose and treat its employees for work-related injuries. From January 4, 2003 to April 8, 2003, Santiaguin worked "on light duty" because Leegin "reasonably believed" Santiaguin had suffered work-related injuries. Leegin alleged that Santiaguin falsely represented that she had been injured on the job "with the intent to have [Leegin] rely upon [those false representations] and with the foreseeable consequence of having [Leegin] submit [her] claim to its workers' compensation carrier[. ]"
Note:	Employer cannot bring civil suit for fraud against claimant.
Citation:	131 Cal.App.4th 1517
WCC Citation:	WCC 31142005 CA

Case Name:	Leek v. Cooper		04/15/2011
Summary:	DONNA LEEK et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JAY COOPER, Defendant and Respondent. The plaintiffs responded to the summary judgment motion, arguing that Cooper was the alter ego of Auburn Honda on the apparent theory that Cooper was their employer. They pointed to evidence that Cooper was the president of Auburn Honda, and that there were no directors of the corporation, that Cooper "individually" fired the plaintiffs, that Cooper "individually" makes all policy, procedure, and management decisions for Auburn Honda, that Cooper "individually" owns the land on which the dealership is located, and that he raises the rent as he sees fit. Instead, they argue that Cooper was in fact the employer because of the control he exercised over them. In fact, plaintiffs pleaded that Cooper was their employer. 2 Defendant's summary judgment motion adduced facts showing that plaintiffs were employed by Auburn Honda, rather than Cooper.
Note:	Although several plaintiff employees of a sole shareholder's auto sales business could not show that he was an alter ego of his corporation, he still could be personally liable for their Fair Employment and Housing Act claims if the plaintiffs prevail and his corporation cannot pay the judgment.
Citation:	C061510
WCC Citation:	WCC 37482011 CA

Case Name:	LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court of LA County		08/20/2012
Summary:	LeFIELL MANUFACTURING CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LeFIELL MANUFACTURING CO. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; O'NEIL WATROUS et al. , Real Parties in Interest. The Court of Appeal nonetheless concluded the spouse's loss of consortium claim as pleaded in the civil action remained viable. Consequently, under settled principles of workers' compensation law, the exclusivity rule bars a dependent spouse's claim for loss of consortium. The trial court overruled employer's demurrer to employee's causes of action for negligence and products liability. That aspect of the Court of Appeal's judgment is not contested, and as such, shall be affirmed.
Note:	The California Supreme Court on Monday overturned a published appellate court decision allowing the wife of an injured worker to proceed with a loss-of-consortium claim against her husband's employer based on Labor Code Section 4558's exception to workers' compensation exclusivity.
Citation:	S192759
WCC Citation:	WCC 39212012 CA

Case Name:	LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Ct of LA (Watrous et al.)		03/30/2011
Summary:	LeFiell also "failed to properly provide guarding so as to prevent material from flying up into or out of the machine . The form pleading seeks to recover for strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied and express written and oral warranties. LeFiell also contended Watrous's spouse lacked standing to pursue any cause of action arising from the power press injury (first, second, and fourth causes of action). Moreover, LeFiell argued her loss of consortium claim for damages (third cause of action) was barred by the exclusive remedy rule (§ 3600 et seq. )(Jones v. Keppeler (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 705, 709; see also Flowmaster, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1019, 1029. )
Note:	The California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that an applicant may not sue his employer for products liability and general negligence under the Labor Code 4558's exception to exclusive remedy, but allowed his wife to file a loss-of-consortium claim because her claim falls outside the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation.
Citation:	B226240
WCC Citation:	WCC 37402011 CA

Case Name:	Legrone v. Mogenson		06/28/2011
Summary:	LEGRONE v. MOGENSON GENEVA LEGRONE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THOMAS MOGENSON et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff, Geneva Legrone, injured her ankle during a work-related activity and was seen by Thomas Mogensen, M. D. (Mogensen), at Central Occupational Medical Providers (COMP), the provider of medical care for injured workers employed by the City of Perris. A month after sustaining the injury, an MRI was finally ordered, and plaintiff had to undergo surgery to repair the injury. Mogensen recommended physical therapy and prescribed pain medication, directing plaintiff to return to work with restrictions of intermittent standing and no walking. Plaintiff was reexamined by Mogensen on March 31, 2006, and was instructed to return to work with restrictions.
Note:	A worker's medical malpractice suit against an occupational physician was untimely, because she filed it after the one-year statute of limitations expired.
Citation:	E050274
WCC Citation:	WCC 37792011 CA

Case Name:	Leinon vs. Fishermen's Grotto, Mid-Century Insurance Company		08/25/2004
Summary:	BACKGROUND Applicant claimed a cumulative trauma (CT) injury to his spine, left hip, and right knee for the period ending November 1, 1998. Defendant disputed injury from the outset by sending applicant a timely delay letter; later it timely denied the claim. Thereafter, applicant claimed that defendant failed to pay a section 4650(d) penalty when it paid the TDI required by the May 30, 2001 Findings and Award. In the decision reconsidered here, the WCJ found defendant liable for a section 4650(d) penalty on the TDI due under the May 30, 2001 Findings and Award. "(b) If the injury causes permanent disability, the first payment shall be made within 14 days after the date of last payment of temporary disability indemnity.
Note:	No 4650 penalty due if denied claim later determined compensable and benefits paid within 14 days after Award.
Citation:	68 CCC 1460 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 30212004 CA

Case Name:	Leo's Assoc. Inc. v. DIR		07/12/2004
Summary:	LEO'S ASSOCIATES, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. The policy had lapsed before that date and had not been reinstated at that time. It is appellant's position, in the trial court and in this court, that because of this reinstatement, the penalties should have been set aside. Egan asked to see proof of workers' compensation insurance in force, as required by Labor Code section 3700. The court distinguished Woodline because there was "no question of retroactive or backdated coverage" in the case before it.
Note:	Penalties enforced for lack of insurance even though reinstated retroactively.
Citation:	120 Cal.App.4th 628
WCC Citation:	WCC 29982004 CA

Case Name:	Leon v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.		10/27/2011
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Julia Leon began working as a union employee for Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific Bell) in 2001. In September 2006, Pacific Bell provided Leon with an ergonomic evaluation that resulted in modifications to her workstation. On September 12, 2007, Leon was informed that her employment with Pacific Bell had been terminated, effective September 11, 2007. Pacific Bell filed its reply, and moved to strike Leon's late-filed supplemental opposition, to which Leon also filed opposition. *fn4 The complaint named as defendants Pacific Bell Telephone Company, AT&T Communications of California, AT&T, and AT&T Corp.
Note:	An injured worker who was temporarily laid off because she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job, but later rehired after a reasonable accommodation was found, failed to show any facts that would have supported a Fair Employment and Housing Act claim.
Citation:	H034995
WCC Citation:	WCC 38152011 CA

Case Name:	Leonel v. American Airlines, Inc.		03/04/2005
Summary:	The opinion of the court was delivered by: Fisher, Circuit Judge FOR PUBLICATION Argued and Submitted October 4, 2004 -- San Francisco, California OPINION Appellants Walber Leonel, Richard Branton and Vincent Fusco, who all have the human immunodeficiency virus ("HIV"), applied for flight attendant positions with American Airlines ("American"). Immediately after these interviews, members of the American Airlines Flight Attendant Recruitment Team extended the appellants conditional offers of employment. *fn3 After making the offers, American Airlines representatives directed the appellants to go immediately to the company's medical department for medical examinations. Because American Airlines strictly adheres to the requirements of the [ADA], I have not been informed of your particular situation. American Airlines will consider for employment any qualified individual if they can safely perform the essential functions of the job .
Note:	Employer cannot conduct medical exam until after other preliminary hiring requirements are completed.
Citation:	400 F.3d 702
WCC Citation:	WCC 30862005 CA

Case Name:	Leprino Foods v. WCAB (Barela)		04/30/2010
Summary:	LEPRINO FOODS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOEY BARELA, Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION THE COURT[ 1 ] Leprino Foods (Leprino) petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Rules of Court, rule 8. 495. ) Leprino contends the WCAB erred in awarding an injured employee a higher level of permanent disability after self-procuring a medical surgery legally denied by the employer. BACKGROUND Joey Barela injured his low back on August 31, 2005, while working as a dry mixer operator for Leprino. As the WCAB found, Leprino appropriately exercised its authority to conduct a utilization review and obtain a second medical opinion, which both disagreed with Barela's treating physician.
Note:	A worker is entitled to a higher permanent disability award after undergoing an unauthorized surgery that proved successful in hindsight.
Citation:	F058809
WCC Citation:	WCC 36192010 CA

Case Name:	Leroy T. v. WCAB		08/28/1974
Summary:	LEROY T. , a Minor, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. , Respondents In Bank. In the summer of 1969, petitioner Leroy T. was a 16-year-old court ward, a status imposed upon him apparently after he was found to have disturbed the peace. Petitioner subsequently sought workmen's compensation benefits pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 883 and Labor Code section 4455. Claiming that he was entitled to more than minimum compensation, petitioner subsequently and unsuccessfully sought reconsideration before the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board. 2 Eighty dollars and seventy-seven cents was the maximum weekly earnings figure then prescribed by Labor Code section 4453. fn.
Note:	Juvenile court ward working in fire suppression is entitled to same benefits as county employee
Citation:	12 Cal.3d 434, 39 CCC 569
WCC Citation:	WCC 23921974 CA

Case Name:	Les Hall vs. Valley Media (WCAB No. SAC 309589)		09/12/2002
Summary:	We further find that this provision improperly attempts to re-write the C&R, as drafted by the parties. He agreed to settle his case by way of a C&R for $35,000 and signed the settlement papers on November 13, 2001. The entry of this Order of Rehabilitation shall not constitute an anticipatory breach of any such contracts. "The WCJ asked applicant if he wished to be examined by a panel qualified medical examiner (QME). The purpose of this letter is to provide clarification of our procedures of handling workers' compensation claims under Rehabilitation Order.
Note:	C&R valid despite subsequent rehabilitation of carrier; Foreign state no jurisdiction on WCAB; Penalty invalid without hearing
Citation:	67 Cal.Comp. Cases 1147
WCC Citation:	WCC 28752002 CA

Case Name:	Lett vs. LACMTA; Travelers		03/05/2004
Summary:	Defendant apparently had no objection as to the monetary amount of the fee requested. Labor Code section 5710 requires only that the employer or insurance carrier requests a deposition be taken of the injured worker. Furthermore, this defendant's reliance on People v. Post (2001) 94 Cal. App. 4th 467, 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 1503 is completely misplaced. In addition, defendant has failed to show how it is prejudiced in any way by the applicant's failure to sign his deposition. This is because under Penal Code section 124, a conviction for perjury requires that the deponent execute his or her deposition transcript.
Note:	Payment of attorney fees under LC 5710 is not dependent on applicant signing the transcript.
Citation:	68 CCC 250 ; Panel
WCC Citation:	WCC 29742004 CA

Case Name:	Levesque v. WCAB		01/22/1970
Summary:	On March 21, 1968, Dr. Dedinsky cleared petitioner for work: "To Whom It May Concern: Louis LeVesque is under my care for an orthopedic problem. "*fn4 Again on April 8, 1968, Dr. Dedinsky filed a report which the referee quoted: "Mr. LeVesque is showing good progress at the present time. Dr. Dedinsky has reported further visits with petitioner on December 12, 1968, February 14, 1969, and May 22, 1969. We also undertook consideration of the issue whether the appeals board's denial of temporary disability compensation rests upon substantial evidence. The referee summarized the evidence concerning the lifting required by the job: "He [LeVesque] used one overhead crane, but sometimes had to lift stock by hand, in certain areas.
Note:	Appeals Board's order can incorporate referee's report if basis of decision is clear.
Citation:	1 Cal. 3d 627
WCC Citation:	WCC 30341970 CA

Case Name:	Levin v. Canon Business Solutions		03/04/2010
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. [12] Defendants and appellants Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (Solutions) and Canon U. S. A. , Inc. (CUSA)*fn1 appeal from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Gregg Levin (Levin) and from the order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) after a jury returned a special verdict in favor of Levin on his claims for false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. [14] FACTUAL BACKGROUND [15] Levin was employed by Solutions for 21 years as a field technician who serviced Canon copy machines. Later that day, when Levin returned to Solutions' offices to retrieve his car, Cerame again approached Levin, warned him this was his "last chance" to avoid criminal prosecution, and urged Levin to confess to stealing Canon parts and inventory. [68] "Canon Business Solutions, Inc. ____ Yes __X__ No [69] "Canon, U. S. A. , Inc. ____ Yes __X__ No [70] [¶] . [¶] [71] "Question No. 20: [72] "Was Michael Cerame acting on behalf of Canon Business Solutions, Inc. or Canon U. S. A. , Inc. in the conduct identified above?
Note:	Exclusive remedy does not protect an employer that a jury found conducted a campaign of harassment and intimidation against an employee suspected of theft.
Citation:	B218815
WCC Citation:	WCC 36082010 CA

Case Name:	Lewis v. Los Angeles County MTA		04/02/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             FERGUS LEWIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent. .             B280604 .             (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC582105) .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. .             Plaintiff Fergus Lewis was a bus driver for defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). He sued the MTA and the County of Los Angeles, alleging whistleblower retaliation (Lab.
Note:
Citation:	B280604
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC582105