Case Name:	Gin v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Co.		12/09/2005
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO No.A109541 December 9, 2005 KIMBERLY GIN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v.PENNSYLVANIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. The superior court granted summary judgment to the insurance carrier, Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company (Penn Life), holding that appellant Kimberly Gin's disability was not the result of an "accidental bodily injury" and thus not covered under the policy. On September 13, 1996, Gin applied for a disability insurance policy from Penn Life. Gin made a claim for disability benefits to Penn Life on October 10, 1996. Gin sued Penn Life for breach of contract in the Alameda County Superior Court on March 15, 2001.
Note:	Carpal tunnel syndrome not deemed 'accidental bodily injury' under insurance policy.
Citation:	134 Cal. App. 4th 939
WCC Citation:	WCC 31312005 CA

Case Name:	Glass Containers, Inc. v. IAC		12/03/1953
Summary:	GLASS CONTAINERS, INC.(a Corporation), Petitioner, v.INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and ELIZABETH B.HART et al. , Respondents. The commission thereafter made the award here attacked in favor of Industrial and against petitioner for a portion of the total liability. It is petitioner's position that the commission is without jurisdiction to make such an award. Industrial conceives itself to be a 'third person' in whose favor a liability is imposed for compensation by 'this division' (Lab. [121 Cal. App. 2d 660] Section 4903 imposes certain liens which the commission may allow 'against any amount to be paid as compensation. '
Note:	Liens allowed for advances of credit for nec. living expenses, not for satisfying a contractual debt.
Citation:	121 Cal.App.2d 656, 18 CCC 305
WCC Citation:	WCC 25011953 CA

Case Name:	Globe Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission		11/26/1934
Summary:	November 26, 1934 GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY (A CORPORATION), PETITIONER, v.INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION AND ALOYSIUS MARMUROWICZ, RESPONDENTS. PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for personal injuries. In the course of the argument Miss Marshall told Marmurowicz to "shut up" and then referred to him as a "dirty Polack". Again, in Globe Indemnity Co.v.Industrial Acc. (Globe Indemnity Co.v.Industrial Acc.
Note:	Claimant entitled to benefits for injury caused by assault if traceable to incident of employment.
Citation:	2 Cal. 2d 8
WCC Citation:	WCC 31121934 CA

Case Name:	Go v. Sutter Solano Medical Center		09/25/2017
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD  STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             BELINDA GO, Appllcant, .             v..             SUTTER SOLANO MEDICAL CENTER, permissibly self-insured, Defendant. .             Case No.ADJ10168011 (San Francisco District Office) .             OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION .             Applicant admittedly ·sustained industrial injury to her neck while working for defendant as a registered nurse on June 9, 2013. .             The WCJ provided a Report & Recommendation On Petition For Reconsideration (Report) recommending that reconsideration be denied. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           JOSE H.RAZO .           I CONCUR, .           FRANK M.BRASS .           KATHERINE ZALEWSKI .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           SEP 2 5 2017 Rule 10848 provides as follows: "When a petition for reconsideration, removal or disqualification has been timely filed, supplemental petitions or pleadings or responses either than the answer shall be considered only when specifically requested or approved by the Appeals Board. "Â
Note:
Citation:	ADJ10168011
WCC Citation:	ADJ10168011

Case Name:	Go v. Zimpel		04/18/2017
Summary:	.             A144806 .             (Contra Costa County Super. Go sued Gary Zimpel and Zimpel’s employer, Contra Costa County (County),1 for damages related to the car accident. Zimpel failed to stop and rear-ended the postal truck, which was “pushed into” Go’s sedan. According to Zimpel, he was driving at 10 to 15 miles per hour before the collision, and “the impact of the collision was minor. ” Neither Zimpel, his passenger, nor the driver of the postal truck was injured in the collision. .           We concur: .           _________________________ Richman, Acting P. J..           _________________________ Stewart, J.
Note:
Citation:	A144806
WCC Citation:	Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. C12-00363

Case Name:	Godinez vs. Buffets, Inc.; SRS		10/04/2004
Summary:	As noted above, the RU issued its determination on July 17, 2003. Defendant filed an appeal (which was served on applicant's attorney) at the District Office that was stamped:"DWC/WCAB-RECD/Filed Aug 05 2003-San Jose. "For this reason, and cognizant of public policy in favor of hearing cases on their merits (Litzmann v.Workers' Comp. Nevertheless, there remains a question as to what "timely" means when the statutory definition of "timely" has been repealed. In 2004, former section 139. 5 was re-enacted, with modifications, to apply to injuries occurring before January 1, 2004 (2004 ch.
Note:	Timeliness of voc rehab appeal for injuries prior to 1/04 governed by former Labor Code section 4645(d).
Citation:	69 CCC 1311; Panel
WCC Citation:	WCC 30632004 CA

Case Name:	Golchini v. State		02/28/2012
Summary:	GOLCHINI v.STATE HASSAN GOLCHINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, et al. , Defendants and Respondents. When Golchini began to "speak up" about the matter in December 2005, he allegedly found himself in a "hostile environment. "On March 14, 2008, at a hearing at which Golchini did not appear, he was expelled from the university. CSU is a state government entity, and to the extent Golchini seeks to hold CSU liable for damages, he must allege compliance with the claims presentation requirement of the Tort Claims Act. The second amended complaint does not mention section 1983, and Golchini did not raise this argument in the trial court.
Note:	The exclusive remedy of workers' compensation barred a student librarian's suit against the Board of Trustees of California State University.
Citation:	A129409
WCC Citation:	WCC 386329012 CA

Case Name:	Gold v. City of San Diego		09/03/2009
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115.COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN GOLD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant and Appellant. Ct.No.No.37-2007-00073294-CU-WM-CTL) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan M.Lewis, Judge. The City of San Diego (City) denied city employee Steven Gold's request for an industrial leave benefit after he injured his back on the job. Background Gold has been employed by the City as a deputy city attorney since 1988. In opposition, the City asserted the hearing officer properly rejected Gold's claim because Gold never filed a written report for the 1992 injury.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because there is no requirement that a preexisting injury be documented in a written report to qualify it as service connected, and based on the showing that claimant's 2005 injury was an aggravation of a preexisting back condition that was work related and not the result of a congenital condition, claimant is entitled to the industrial leave benefit.
Citation:	D053367
WCC Citation:	WCC 35602009 CA

Case Name:	Goler v. W&J Sloane Co. (WCAB En Banc)		12/07/1979
Summary:	The Workers' Compensation Judge allowed an attorney fee of $ 5,000 to the law firm of Bryan and Etting, petitioners herein. Section 10775 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board provides as follows: '§ 10775. 'For many years, the 'rule of thumb' has been that attorney fees should approximate 10% of the award or compromise and release. The Board will therefore affirm the workers' compensation judge's finding that $ 5,000 represents a reasonable fee for applicant's attorney's services. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Melvin S.Witt, Chairman John F.Dunlap Gordon R.Gaines Mervin N.Glow H.J.Martin C.L.Swezey Robert E.Burton
Note:	Complexity determination for awarding attorney fee in 100% PD cases; 621.25 week limit, WCJ discretion.
Citation:	44 CCC 1065
WCC Citation:	WCC 27131979 CA

Case Name:	Gomez v. LA County Employees Retirement Assn.		09/25/2012
Summary:	GOMEZ v.LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSN. RICHARD GOMEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS SUZUKAWA, J.Appellant Los Angeles County Employees' Retirement Association (LACERA) appeals from a judgment granting respondent Richard Gomez's petition for a writ of mandate. It entered a judgment directing LACERA to vacate its prior decision and to enter a new decision granting Gomez a service-connected disability retirement. BACKGROUND In October 1989, Gomez was hired as a deputy sheriff by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
Note:	A former deputy sheriff with a history of on-duty back injuries and an aggressive tumor in his spine was not entitled to service-connected disability retirement benefits.
Citation:	B237426
WCC Citation:	WCC 39342012 CA

Case Name:	Gomez v. Sharon Baptist Bd. of Directors, Inc.		10/28/2008
Summary:	Gomez v Sharon Baptist Bd. 23476/04 84824/05 [*1]Geraldo Gomez, et al. , Plaintiffs, v Sharon Baptist Board of Directors, Inc. , Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, S. M.Construction Co. , Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. ), entered February 27, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the cross motion of defendant/third-party plaintiff Sharon Baptist Board of Directors, Inc.(Sharon Baptist) for summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant S. M.Construction Co.(SMC), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff Gomez, an employee of SMC, was injured as a result of falling from a scaffold that shifted as he performed SMC's work on premises owned by Sharon Baptist. Supreme Court correctly denied Sharon Baptist summary judgment against SMC based in its indemnification claim.
Note:	There has been no finding that either SMC or its agents were negligent let alone that such negligence proximately caused plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim is premature.
Citation:	4229 23476/04 84824/05
WCC Citation:	WCC 34412008 CA

Case Name:	Gomez vs. Casa Sandoval; Nokes vs. Placer Savings		05/27/2003
Summary:	OAK 234515; OAK 239085; OAK 240882 CAROL NOKES, Applicant, VS.PLACER SAVINGS BANK; FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY; PAULA INSURANCE COMPANY (IN LIQUIDATION); CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION (IN LIQUIDATION); CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; DEFENDANTS. SAC 289506; SAC 289507 The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) granted reconsideration to further study the record in these two cases. "Case OAK 234515 for cumulative trauma period from August 1988 to December 8, 1995, wherein California Compensation/CIGA is the only defendant. Since the apportionment of liability has been reduced to a final judgment, CIGA remains liable for the now-insolvent carrier's already-established liability. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Board (En Banc) in Nokes v.Placer Savings Bank (SAC 289506, 289507), that the Findings, Award and Order of July 24, 2002 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Note:	Limitations on CIGA liability where mix of solvent and insolvent carriers.
Citation:	68 CCC (2003) (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29362003 CA

Case Name:	Goni Enterprises v. Dept. of Industrial Relations		04/10/2018
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 THREE .             GONI ENTERPRISES, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v..             DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. .             B277670 .             Los Angeles County Super. .             California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and Edna Garcia Earley for Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION .             In November 2013, the Office of the State Labor Commissioner (Commissioner) within the California Department of Industrial Relations (Department) cited plaintiff Goni Enterprises, Inc.(Goni) for failing to secure workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS .           LAVIN, J.
Note:	A California Appellate Court ruled that an employer could not challenge a lien against its property, imposed because of failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, since it had not followed the proper process to challenge a stop order and penalty assessment.
Citation:	B277670
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC059643

Case Name:	Gonzales v. WCAB		12/22/1998
Summary:	CONNIE GONZALES, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and HUNT-WESSON, INC. , Respondents. She petitioned this court for a writ of review of the board's decision [68 Cal. App. 4th 846] on this narrow legal issue. She stipulated she did not have any plans to look for work elsewhere once retired from the employ of Hunt-Wesson, Inc. The referee issued a report finding the petitioner's average weekly earnings for purposes of temporary disability were zero after August 10. 'Average weekly earnings' are determined for both temporary and permanent disability payments according to various provisions of section 4453.
Note:	Worker not entitled to TTD after date of retirement because no earning capacity.
Citation:	68 Cal.App.4th 843, 63 CCC 1477
WCC Citation:	WCC 24891998 CA

Case Name:	Gonzalez v. ATI Systems International		05/20/2011
Summary:	GONZALEZ v.ATI SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.ROLAND GONZALEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.ATI SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. On September 15, 2005, Gonzalez provided ATI with a note from his doctor stating, "Roland Gonzalez is under my care for a serious cardiovascular condition and is temporarily disabled. ATI stated that it had no information as to when, or even if, Gonzalez would be able to return to work. ATI argued that Gonzalez never gave notice that he was eligible to return to work under certain circumstances, and therefore, ATI was not required to engage in an interactive process. In this case, ATI presented evidence that granting Gonzalez an additional unpaid leave of absence would have caused ATI undue hardship.
Note:	An accountant who was fired after he used all the 12 weeks of unpaid leave allowed to him while recovering from a surgery has a valid discrimination claim that should go to trial, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B223779
WCC Citation:	WCC 37642011 CA

Case Name:	Gonzalez v. Luzaich Striping, Inc.		04/10/2008
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ruben Gonzalez appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants Luzaich Striping, Inc.and Bruce Freebury (jointly LSI). Freebury personally informed Gonzalez that he was being laid off, and told Gonzalez that he was being let go because "work was slow. "Freebury did not give Gonzalez his final paycheck at the time he informed Gonzalez he was being dismissed. After Gonzalez filed this lawsuit, Luzaich asked an office assistant to prepare a worksheet setting forth Gonzalez's absences during his employment with LSI. Luzaich also offered a "worksheet that [he] had prepared after Mr.Gonzalez presented his claim in this matter" that Luzaich believed "confirmed [his] understanding upon laying [Gonzalez] off that he had a poor attendance record. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff does not claim on appeal that he was improperly terminated because of his alleged disability. Rather, plaintiff contends that it is employer's failure to rehire and/or failure to accommodate him in the rehiring process that represents the actionable disability discrimination. This argument is meritless.
Citation:	D050693
WCC Citation:	WCC 33392008 CA

Case Name:	Gonzalez v. WCAB (Hunt Wesson)		12/22/1998
Summary:	She petitioned this court for a writ of review of the board's decision [68 Cal. App. 4th 846] on this narrow legal issue. She stipulated she did not have any plans to look for work elsewhere once retired from the employ of Hunt-Wesson, Inc. The referee issued a report finding the petitioner's average weekly earnings for purposes of temporary disability were zero after August 10. 'Average weekly earnings' are determined for both temporary and permanent disability payments according to various provisions of section 4453. (1947) 79 Cal. App. 2d 711, 722 [180 P. 2d 972] [earning capacity is 'touchstone' in determining average earnings]. )
Note:	Applicant not entitled to TTD after date of retirement (NOTE: distinguishing cases cited within opinion).
Citation:	68 Cal.App.4th 843
WCC Citation:	WCC 28191998 CA

Case Name:	Gordon v. Symantec Corp.		10/17/2011
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Appellant Sarah Gordon was employed by respondent Symantec Corporation (Symantec) from 2004 until November 2007, when she was terminated from her position as senior principal engineer. Gordon filed a wrongful termination action against Symantec alleging that Symantec's decision to terminate her was based upon her physical disability, which Symantec had accommodated by allowing her to fly business class on flights longer than three hours. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Symantec met its burden on summary judgment to show legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Gordon. Gordon continued to work for Symantec as a contractor until 2004, when she accepted Weafer's offer of employment with Symantec as a senior principal research engineer. While working for Symantec as an employee and as a contractor, Gordon lived in Florida and worked from her home.
Note:	A disabled senior principal research engineer did not present enough evidence for a court to conclude that her employer terminated her because of her disability.
Citation:	H036239
WCC Citation:	WCC 38112011 CA

Case Name:	Gorman v. WCAB		07/19/1982
Summary:	RICHARD GORMAN, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE et al. , Respondents. Richard Gorman (petitioner) was employed as a police officer by the City of San Clemente from 1973 through May 23, 1979. It was adjudicated in 1980 that petitioner had suffered several industrial injuries resulting in permanent partial disability. The Rehabilitation Bureau ordered the defendants to pay temporary disability indemnity pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 139. 5. Defendants appealed to the Board, and both the WCAB trial judge and the Board ruled that the petitioner's right to temporary disability benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act terminated pursuant to section 4853 fn.
Note:	Retired policeman not eligible to continue receiving rehab. TD indemnity.
Citation:	133 Cal.App.3d 998, 47 CCC 745
WCC Citation:	WCC 27031982 CA

Case Name:	Gourley v. City of Napa		03/18/1975
Summary:	OSMER B.GOURLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.CITY OF NAPA, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Taylor, P.J. , with Kane and Rouse, JJ. , concurring. )Richard L.Knickerbocker, City Attorney (Santa Monica), Rosario Perry, Deputy City Attorney, Chalmers E.Lones, City Attorney (Signal Hill), Warren J.Lynch, City Attorney (Salinas), and Raymond M.Haight, Assistant City Attorney, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Pursuant to this statute, the temporary disability payments that would otherwise have been payable to Gourley by the city's workmen's compensation insurer were paid to the city. Upon receipt of this notification, the city terminated payments to Gourley under Labor Code section 4850 and applied to the PERS for disability retirement of Gourley to be effective July 1, 1972. On July 11, 1972, Gourley's attorney wrote to PERS stating that Gourley did not consent to the retirement date sought by the city.
Note:	Fireman cannot be retired with PD benefits and still be receiving full salary with leave of absence.
Citation:	48 Cal.App.3d 156, 40 CCC 888
WCC Citation:	WCC 26901975 CA