Case Name:	Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., Inc.		08/23/2007
Summary:	On the authority of Ralphs Grocery, the instant Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment for Ralphs, entered after Ralphs's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint was sustained without leave to amend. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2001, plaintiff, a produce manager in a Ralphs store, filed original and first amended complaints against Ralphs, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Ralphs employees. The Ralphs Grocery court observed at the outset that Ralphs had persuasively demonstrated the beneficial effects of profit-based incentive compensation plans for both employers and employees. Prachasaisoradej is a Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc. (Ralphs) employee. 322- 323 [sustaining regulation making it unlawful to subtract shortages from wages]; Ralphs Grocery, supra, 112 Cal. App. 4th at pp.
Note:	Ralphs' profit-based supplementary ICP, designed to reward employees beyond their normal pay for their collective contribution to store profits, did not violate the wage protection policies of Labor Code sections 221, 400 through 410, or 3751, or Regulation 11070, insofar as the Plan included store expenses such as workers' compensation costs, cash and merchandise shortages, breakage, and third party tort claims in the profit calculation.
Citation:	42 Cal. 4th 217
WCC Citation:	WCC 32442007 CA

Case Name:	Preferred Auto Dealers Self Insurance Program v. Anderson Enterprises Part 1/2		03/02/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             PREFERRED AUTO DEALERS SELF INSURANCE PROGRAM, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             ANDERSON ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. , Defendants and Appellants. .             A148518, A149294, A149446 .             (Contra Costa County Super. .           Section 3700 “establishes the duty of the private employer to provide compensation security by either (1) carrying insurance with an authorized company (subd. .           With this regulatory scheme in mind, we turn to the facts of the present case. .           PADSIP incorporated these factual allegations into one cause of action alleged against all defendants for breach of a written contract.
Note:
Citation:	A148518, A149294, A149446
WCC Citation:	Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC12-0090

Case Name:	Preferred Auto Dealers Self Insurance Program v. Anderson Enterprises Part 2/2		03/02/2018
Summary:	Putnam “was seeking an admission of law rather than fact,” and that legal issue went to the heart of this case. .         PADSIP identifies an independent ground for affirming the CCP section 2033. 420 ruling as to all defendants in the Anderson group except for Putnam. The other defendants in the Anderson group did not establish any basis for recovering their fees under this statute. .         Cross-appellants contend that there is no difference between the purchase orders in Linear and the 2012 resolution. The director’s decisions on such matters may be challenged in the appropriate superior court pursuant to a writ of mandate.
Note:
Citation:	A148518, A149294, A149446
WCC Citation:	Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC12-0090

Case Name:	Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. CIGA		05/30/2008
Summary:	(Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY We take portions of this summary from our opinion in Premier I, supra, 136 Cal. App. 4th at pages 468-472. California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), The Explorer Insurance Company (Explorer), Insurance Company of the West (ICW), and other entities sought a determination by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) that Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. was improperly representing treating physicians in WCAB proceedings. (Premier I, supra, 136 Cal. App. 4th at p. 477, citing Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 82, 88-89. )(Premier I, supra, 136 Cal. App. 4th at p. 478, quoting Ludwig v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 8, 21, fn.
Note:	General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice in challenging attorney fees as excessive. Failure to raise specific challenges in the trial court forfeits the claim on appeal.
Citation:	B195889
WCC Citation:	WCC 33762008 CA

Case Name:	Premier Medical Mgmt. v. CIGA		02/06/2006
Summary:	Under this scheme, an insurer ordinarily must pay all medical or medical-legal bills of an injured employee within 60 days of receipt. In this case, CIGA became responsible for some covered claims because of the insolvency and liquidation of the insurer on those claims. In July 2002, CIGA asked the WCAB to consolidate 13 pending cases involving claims filed by Premier plaintiffs in litigated cases covered by CIGA. They also alleged that Premier and its affiliates were illegally referring business and making improper and excessive charges. Plaintiffs are Premier Medical and five individual physicians affiliated with it (Francis G. D'Ambrosio, Robert Schatz, Frank J. Coufal, Afshin Mashoof, Manuel Anell).
Note:	Plaintiffs not entitled to summary judgment on complaint under Anti-SLAPP law where the action arises from defendants' litigation of claims in WCAB proceedings.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 4th 464
WCC Citation:	WCC 31402006 CA

Case Name:	Price v. Connolly-Pacific Co.		05/13/2008
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Daniel C. Price ("Price") is a "seaman" under the terms and conditions of the Jones Act which was enacted in 1920 to give protection to any seaman injured in the course of employment. Price was an operating engineer, a licensed merchant mariner, and a crew member of a special purpose derrick barge named the "Long Beach. "Price is referred to in this litigation as a "commuter seaman" or sometimes as a "brown water seaman. "Price sued Connolly in the Los Angeles County Superior Court contending that he was entitled to "maintenance and cure. "Appellant Price was a marine construction worker who resided in La Mesa, in San Diego County.
Note:	Shipowner's generosity in allowing plaintiff to use his RV-camper in an otherwise empty parking lot, without more, is an insufficient basis on which to award plaintiff maintenance and cure.
Citation:	B200083
WCC Citation:	WCC 33552008 CA

Case Name:	Price v. WCAB		12/17/1984
Summary:	Approximately 7:50 a. m. on June 20, 1980, petitioner, Andrew Leo Price, was injured outside his place of employment. As he put the oil into his car, Price straddled the left headlight and extended his right leg to the side. Although Price was not physically on the employer's premises when the accident occurred, he was waiting to be admitted to work. The board relied on the fact that Price was not on the employer's premises when he was injured. Price had finished his journey to work although, because the doors were locked, he had not yet entered his employer's premises.
Note:	Coming and going rule not applicable to employee waiting to be admitted to employer's premises.
Citation:	37 Cal. 3d 559
WCC Citation:	WCC 30361984 CA

Case Name:	Price v. WCAB		10/27/1992
Summary:	STEPHEN M. PRICE et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, G. L. NUNEZ PLASTERING et al. , Respondents. On May 9, 1990, Mr. Cadena, Mr. Price, and counsel for defendants, G. L. Nunez Plastering and Nationwide Insurance Company, signed stipulations with a request for an award. On the stipulation form, Mr. Price requested a $4,270 attorney fee for himself and indicated Mr. Kay requested a $2,135 attorney fee. 3 Mr. Price asserts defendants were informed of Mr. Cadena's death within a few days after he died. On March 28, 1991, Mr. Price filed a letter with the Board, asserting he was entitled to payment of his fee under the stipulated award.
Note:	PD award improper after worker's death where insurer overpaid and no accrued but unpaid indemnity.
Citation:	10 Cal.App.4th 959
WCC Citation:	WCC 25521992 CA

Case Name:	Priest v. WCAB		10/23/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DEANNA PRIEST, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MICHAEL HOUSEPIAN, Respondents. The accident led to a workers' compensation hearing on December 16, 1996, where Priest claimed average weekly earnings of $507. 70 per week. Housepian petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, to which Priest, at this point unrepresented by counsel, did not respond. The WCAB majority noted there was no record of Priest having filed a petition to reopen for good cause prior to August 7, 1999. Priest does not point to any evidence offered to the WCAB to justify its continuing jurisdiction beyond August 7, 1999.
Note:	[Unpublished] Priest's failure to produce evidence supporting the WCAB's continued jurisdiction, coupled with her affirmative conduct in leading to the WCJ's alleged miscalculations in 1997, constituted sufficient evidence and basis for the WCAB to rescind the WCJ's amended award.
Citation:	F055953
WCC Citation:	WCC 34402008 CA

Case Name:	Privette vs. Superior Court		06/19/1993
Summary:	FRANKLIN PRIVETTE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; JESUS CONTRERAS, Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 701139, Read Ambler, Judge. )[FN 1] In support of his motion, Privette presented these undisputed facts: Privette, a school teacher, owned some rental properties, including the duplex where roofing employee Contreras was injured. (Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 465, 468 [165 Cal. Rptr. 858, 612 P. 2d 948, 9 A. L. R. 4th 758], citing § 3602. )Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed with directions to grant the petition for writ of mandate ordering respondent court to enter judgment for defendant.
Note:	Peculiar risk doctrine does not create exception to exclusive remedy of the Work Comp Act.
Citation:	5 Cal.4th 689
WCC Citation:	WCC 30711993 CA

Case Name:	Prock v. Tamura Corporation of America		01/25/2013
Summary:	PROCK v. TAMURA CORPORATION OF AMERICA JUSTIN G. PROCK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TAMURA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Justin Prock appeals a judgment entered after the trial court granted Tamura Corporation of America's (hereafter Tamura) motion for summary judgment. FACTS In his complaint, Prock alleged that he was employed by Tamura and that Tamura is an employer subject to the Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). Tamura "was notified" and was provided with documentation from Prock's doctor that Prock would need leave from work through September 19, 2008. However, it is also undisputed that Tamura summarily dismissed Prock when Prock requested a further extension of his leave.
Note:	The existence of triable issues of fact about whether a worker was a "qualified individual with a disability" barred an employer from obtaining summary judgment against a disability discrimination suit.
Citation:	E054185
WCC Citation:	WCC 39752013 CA

Case Name:	Prudential Ins. Co. v. WCAB		12/15/1978
Summary:	OPINION MANUEL, J. Petitioner Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) seeks review of an order of the respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying its claim of lien filed against an award in favor of respondent Thomas Wright (Wright), an airline employee. Pursuant to the policy, Prudential made payments to him without offset for workers' compensation benefits to which he may have been entitled. In August 1976, Wright filed an application with the WCAB, alleging the October injury was industrial in nature. Prudential filed with the WCAB a notice and request for allowance of lien seeking to recover back these payments to the extent Wright received workers' compensation benefits. The original findings and award of WCAB failed to dispose of Prudential's claim, apparently because the WCAB had misplaced the claim of lien.
Note:	Overpaid disability benefits are outside reach of group disability insurer's liens.
Citation:	22 Cal.3d 776
WCC Citation:	WCC 24481978 CA

Case Name:	Public Service Mutual Ins. Co. v. Svetlik		01/13/2017
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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE .             PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervener and Appellant, .             v. .             STEVEN M. SVETLIK, Defendant and Respondent. .             A144803 .             (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13676541) .             Steven M. Svetlik drove his car into a restaurant where Jennifer Carranza was working, injuring her. The restaurant’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), paid $18,388. 14 in workers’ compensation benefits and medical expenses on Carranza’s behalf. Rules of Court, rule 8. 278. ) .           _________________________ Jones, P. J. .           We concur: .           _________________________ Needham, J.
Note:
Citation:	A144803
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13676541

Case Name:	Pugh v. WCAB		11/03/2008
Summary:	Delores Pugh petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding that her claim for benefits is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. In August 2003, Pugh filed a claim with the WCAB alleging that she suffered cumulative psychological and physical injuries while employed by the County during the period April 1972 through July 1999. The WCAB did not reject the judge's factual findings that the County had not posted the statutory notice and that Pugh was unaware of her rights. Rather, the WCAB concluded that Pugh knew in 1998, or at the latest 1999, that her stress was work related and such knowledge was sufficient to trigger the one-year period for filing a claim under sections 5405 and 5412. The WCAB did not address the County's arguments relating to the merits of Pugh's disability award, finding those issues moot.
Note:	[Unpublished] if an employer fails to post the notice of employees' workers' compensation rights required by Labor Code section 3550 and the employee is otherwise unaware of her rights, then the statute of limitations is tolled until the employee gains actual knowledge that she may be entitled to benefits.
Citation:	B201677
WCC Citation:	WCC 34572008 CA

Case Name:	Pullman Kellogg vs. WCAB (Normand)		02/04/1980
Summary:	PULLMAN KELLOGG et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MARTIN G. NORMAND, Respondents (Opinion by Mosk, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Normand's employer, Pullman Kellogg, and its insurance carrier, Eldorado Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as Pullman Kellogg) seek review of the board's decision, asserting primarily that the medical evidence before the board compelled the conclusion that part of the disability was due to Normand's smoking habit, and therefore apportionment was required. We see no reason, nor does Pullman Kellogg offer any, to distinguish between a cumulative trauma and a specific injury in these circumstances. Another contention made by Pullman Kellogg is that Normand is bound by Dr. Sills' opinion because he introduced the doctor's report into evidence. (1966) 243 Cal. App. 2d 380 [52 Cal. Rptr. 276], upon which Pullman Kellogg relies, is not persuasive authority.
Note:	Apportionment is question of fact and must be supported by substantial evidence.
Citation:	26 Cal3rd 450
WCC Citation:	WCC 30261980 CA

Case Name:	Quadri v. Alkayali		03/09/2011
Summary:	QUADRI v. ALKAYALI AKRAM QUADRI et al. , Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. AHMAD ALKAYALI et al. , Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and cross-defendants Akram Quadri and Fatma Boukhari, who are married to each other (individual plaintiffs), and NeoCell Corporation against defendants and cross-complainants Ahmad Alkayali (Alkayali) and Terri Alkayali, finding the individual plaintiffs owned all the shares in NeoCell and defendants owned none. In the breach of contract count defendants pleaded that pursuant to the 2002 amendment 66 percent of the shares were transferred to Alkayali and plaintiffs breached that agreement by claiming Alkayali owned no shares. Alkayali was "intelligent and sophisticated" whereas Quadri who was 81 was less sophisticated and completely trusted Alkayali, so much so that he would sign anything Alkayali requested. But they fail to include evidence on which the court relied that Quadri would "sign any paper put in front of him [by Alkayali]" because he had "placed all of his faith and confidence in [him] .
Note:	The forgery of an employer's stock certificates to defraud a workers' compensation carrier played a role in a breach of contract suit about who actually owned a business, according to a decision from the 4th District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	G042758
WCC Citation:	WCC 37252011 CA

Case Name:	Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District		04/19/2017
Summary:	Filed 4/19/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Plumas) .             REBECCA MEGAN QUIGLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             GARDEN VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             C079270 .             (Super. She sued, inter alia, defendants and respondents Garden Valley Fire Protection District, Chester Fire Protection District, and their employees Frank DelCarlo, Mike Jellison, and Jeff Barnhart for damages, claiming she was injured as a result of their negligence, a dangerous condition of public property, and defendants’ failure to warn. The three men, all retired Forest Service employees, became employees of defendant local fire agencies Chester Fire Protection District and Garden Valley Fire Protection District in order to serve on NorCal 1. .           We concur: .           /s/ DUARTE, J.
Note:
Citation:	C079270
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. CV1000225

Case Name:	Quinn v. State of California		09/10/1975
Summary:	Case no. 23146 THOMAS QUINN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent; INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Claimant and Respondent (In Bank. Plaintiff sued the state, which owned the construction site, alleging its negligence as the proximate cause of his injuries. California courts have long applied this principle of apportionment. Furthermore, we point out below that the Legislature has clearly referred to this general equitable precept in the statute before us. (See Lasky, Subrogation Under the California Workmen's Compensation Laws -- Rules, Remedies and Side [15 Cal. 3d 182] Effects (1972) 12 Santa Clara Law.
Note:	When an injury involves a negligent third party, the employer should bear his share of litigant's attorney fees due to the equitable principle of apportionment.
Citation:	15 Cal.3d 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 32121975 CA

Case Name:	Quinn v. U.S. Bank		06/06/2011
Summary:	QUINN v. U. S. BANK NA ROBERT QUINN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U. S. BANK NA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Robert Quinn (plaintiff) is a former senior vice president of defendant U. S. Bank NA. Peatros was brought by a bank vice president who contended that Bank of America (bank) terminated her because of her race and age in violation of FEHA and other state laws. Two of the cases cited do not assist the Bank: Andrews v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (4th Cir. In the third case cited by the bank, Arrow v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (6th Cir.
Note:	A federal statute does not preempt bank officers from filing disability discrimination suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B226143
WCC Citation:	WCC 37722011 CA

Case Name:	Rabin v. Lotta		12/07/2009
Summary:	Rabin met Lotta at the Workers Compensation Appeals Board in the first half of the 1990s. Lotta represented Rabin in collecting his liens from workers compensation cases. Lotta cross-complained against Rabin, Rabins son Mathew, and Mathews wife, Jennifer Rabin. According to Lotta, Rabin was supposed to trade services to Lotta on a quid pro quo basis in exchange for the time Lotta spent on the Pourzia matter. According to Lotta, this list represented way less than 10 percent of the cases Lotta had with Rabin over the years. Rabin testified that Lotta was behind in payments to him, that Rabin was in his 80s, and felt the need to memorialize what Lotta owed him for his services.
Note:	[Unpublished] Probable cause for quantum meruit exists if any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.
Citation:	B211590
WCC Citation:	WCC 35852009 CA

Case Name:	Rail Services of America vs. SCIF		07/09/2003
Summary:	RAIL SERVICES OF AMERICA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION CROSKEY, J. - Rail Services of America and Pacific Rail Services (collectively, plaintiffs) sued State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for alleged misconduct related to premiums SCIF charged them for workers' compensation insurance. SCIF stated that it would provide coverage, but only in exchange for a non-refundable agreed minimum premium of $1,365,000. Although plaintiffs' risk manager tried to persuade SCIF to agree to different and more favorable terms, SCIF would not do so. c. SCIF Had the Right to Make the Minimum Premium Nonrefundable Plaintiffs contend that SCIF could not make the minimum premium nonrefundable, citing section 11841.
Note:	Retention of non-refundable agreed minimum premium for only 15 days coverage upheld; willful failure to comply with discovery order compels dismissal.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 323
WCC Citation:	WCC 29432003 CA

Case Name:	Raine v. City of Burbank		01/25/2006
Summary:	Dennis Barlow, City Attorney, and Carol A. Humiston, Senior Assistant City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. Following the injury to his knee, Raine had difficulty running, jumping, kneeling and lifting, activities Raine concedes are essential to perform the duties of a patrol officer and school resource officer. Raine does not challenge the trial court's findings with respect to his claims for age discrimination, retaliation and harassment. Raine argues the City failed to meet this burden because it presented no evidence relating to the economic hardship the requested accommodation would impose. The City was not required to reclassify (and thus substantially alter) the front-desk job to accommodate Raine.
Note:	Temporary light duty position as accommodation does not create obligation to make the temporary assignment available indefinitely once temporary disability becomes permanent.
Citation:	135 Cal. App. 4th 1215
WCC Citation:	WCC 31362006 CA

Case Name:	Ralph's Grocery Co. v. WCAB		09/25/1995
Summary:	RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DAWN R. LARA, Respondents. Ralphs denied the request and temporarily cut off Lara's temporary disability benefits based on its belief that section 4601, fn. On July 13, 1994, Lara returned to Kaiser and Ralphs immediately reinstated disability payments and paid for Lara's interim period of disability. Under the circumstances, the WCJ concluded that to find Ralphs had unreasonably delayed would be 'patently unfair. 'Under the circumstances, the Board concluded Lara was entitled to penalties for unreasonable delay in providing medical treatment and temporary disability benefits.
Note:	When employee controlling treatment, limitation of doctor 'one time change' is not applicable.
Citation:	38 Cal.App.4th 820
WCC Citation:	WCC 24311995 CA

Case Name:	Ralph's Grocery vs. Superior Court (Swanson)		10/23/2003
Summary:	RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; DAVID SWANSON, Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC384875, Mary Ann Murphy, Judge. )The reviewing court accepts as true all facts properly pleaded in the complaint in order to determine whether the demurrer should be overruled. Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Note:	Bonus plan, to extent based on deduction of any cost of work comp, is unlawful.
Citation:	112 Cal.App.4th 1090
WCC Citation:	WCC 29662003 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Columbia Machine, Inc.		05/01/2012
Summary:	RAMIREZ v. COLUMBIA MACHINE, INC. ANDRES RAMIREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COLUMBIA MACHINE, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ramirez suffered serious injury, including burns on his face, neck and hands. That code section is one of the maxims of jurisprudence found in the Civil Code at sections 3509 et seq. That issue was not raised in the complaint, and thus the `easy' explanation for why the theory was not addressed. No such contractual agreement or promise was alleged by Ramirez, however, and he makes no contention that there was any such agreement with or promise by Desert Block.
Note:	A California worker could not assert a claim against his employer for the negligent spoilage of evidence necessary to prove liability for his injuries from an industrial explosion.
Citation:	F061169
WCC Citation:	WCC 38902012 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services		09/09/2008
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA (AHM 0089109) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Case No. ADJ4579659 DEE ANNE RAMIREZ, Applicant, vs. DRIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES; and ONE BEACON INSURANCE CO. , Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant was employed by Drive Financial Services as a collections specialist from August 9, 2000 through February 15, 2001. Therefore, there was no basis to consider what factors might be balanced in determining the amount of the penalty. The current version of section 5814 was enacted on April 19, 2004, and became operative on June 1, 2004. Moreover, section 5814. 5 fees should be allowed only for legal services rendered in "enforcing" the unreasonably delayed prior award, and not for any other purpose.
Note:	[En Banc] Although, under new section 5814(a), a successive penalty may still be awarded for an unreasonable delay in making a prior penalty payment, it should not be awarded where the defendant had genuine doubt as to its liability or where there is no legally significant intervening event.
Citation:	ADJ4579659
WCC Citation:	WCC 34202008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Nelson		04/08/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. CIV217462 MARIA DOLORES RAMIREZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THOMAS NELSON et al. , Ventura County Defendants and Respondents. Statement of Facts and Procedural Background Maria Dolores Ramirez and Martin Flores (plaintiffs) are the parents of the decedent, Luis Flores. Thomas and Vivian Nelson are homeowners. Vivian Nelson could see Flores working about halfway up in the eucalyptus tree from her kitchen window. After the accident, Vivian Nelson noticed that the polesaw Flores had been using was made of aluminum and wood.
Note:	As tragic as this accident was, we find the homeowners breached no special duty of care owed to unlicensed contractor Rodriguez or his workers under section 385(b).
Citation:	S143819
WCC Citation:	WCC 34072008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. WCAB		08/29/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PATRICIA RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, VLOT BROTHERS CUSTOM HEIFER RAISING et al. , Respondents. Petitioner's husband, Arturo Bucio Ramirez, worked as an employee for Mr. Medina for about a day in 2002. Unfortunately, the work led to a fatal accident for Mr. Ramirez, who died several days later. The WCAB denied reconsideration on April 15, 2008, adopting and incorporating the reasoning from the WCJ's report and recommendation. In her report and recommendation to the WCAB, the WCJ also expressed her uncertainty in discerning petitioner's position on reconsideration.
Note:	[Unpublished] The uncontroverted evidence here reveals decedent entered into a notarized partnership agreement with alleged employer to act as equal partners in the business of JM & AG Silage Covering. The WCAB's finding of such was supported by significant evidence.
Citation:	F055279
WCC Citation:	WCC 34162008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. WCAB (State Department of Health Care Services)		03/29/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/29/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             DANIEL RAMIREZ, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES et al. , Respondents. .             C078440 .             (WCAB No. ADJ6821103) .             ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of review. .           Lisa A. Liebson, Deputy Chief Counsel, Mary R. Huckabaa, Assistant Chief Counsel, and William L. Anderson, Appellate Counsel, for Respondents State Department of Health Care Services and State Compensation Insurance Fund. II  Denial of Ramirez’s Treatment  .           In this case, petitioner Daniel Ramirez sustained an injury to his lower leg and ankle in the course of his job as an office assistant for the State Department of Health Care Services (Department). .           Stevens relied on this court’s decision in California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. Department of Managed Health Care (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 684 (California Consumer).
Note:
Citation:	C078440
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ6821103

Case Name:	Ramirez vs. WCAB, Safeway		08/04/1970
Summary:	MARIO S. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAFEWAY STORES, INC. , et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Selber, J. , with Stephens, Acting P. J. , and Reppy, J. , concurring. )Rupert A. Pedrin, Nathan Mudge, Sheldon M. Ziff, Waite, Drapeau & Peters and David R. Drapeau for Respondents. Awarding additional compensation under the rule of the Berry Case would constitute a denial of due process as condemned in the National Auto Case. "They argue that in no event is the employee [10 Cal. App. 3d 232] entitled to benefits from both sources (Garcia v. Industrial Acc. The penalty issue was stated by the referee as follows: "Ten per cent penalty for unreasonable failure to pay benefits. "
Note:	Advancement of EDD disability does not excuse penalty against employer/carrier for late payments of, or failure to pay, benefits.
Citation:	10 CA 3d 227; 35 CCC 383
WCC Citation:	WCC 29091970 CA

Case Name:	Ramsey v. WCAB		06/16/1971
Summary:	PHIL RAMSEY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HUMKO PRODUCTS et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Tamura, J. , with Gardner, P. J. , and Kerrigan, J. , concurring. )On the prior occasion (Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Following the remittitur in Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. That award was undisturbed by Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. In any event the time commenced no later than March 25, 1970, when the Board reissued its award and decision after remittitur in Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	If a party prevails then other party wins on rehearing, first party may petition for rehearing of order as first time aggrieved party.
Citation:	18 Cal.App.3d 155
WCC Citation:	WCC 26501971 CA

Case Name:	Raphael vs. Bloomfield		11/21/2003
Summary:	GILMORE E. RAPHAEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUNE S. BLOOMFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Peter I. Bersin, Peter I. Bersin; Drucker & Steinschriber and Stephen Marc Drucker for Plaintiff and Respondent. At trial, the only contested issue was whether the workers' compensation awards each spouse received were community property. The court ordered wife to pay husband $155,929. 52, i. e. , one-half of wife's lump sum award. Ordinarily, "[t]he theory upon which a case was tried in the court below must be followed on appeal. "
Note:	Only that portion of an Award attributable to disability or medical expenses during the marriage is community property.
Citation:	113 Cal.App.4th 617
WCC Citation:	WCC 29672003 CA

Case Name:	Rausch v. WCAB		06/26/1969
Summary:	MELANIE RAUSCH, a Minor, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, TERESITA PINES, INC. , et al. , Respondents. In the summer of 1967 the petitioner, Melanie Rausch, who was at that time 19 years of age, was employed as a camp counselor by Teresita Pines, Inc. , whose compensation insurance carrier was respondent, Phoenix Insurance Company. The camp had accommodations for 160 girls and was operated from the last week of June to the last week of August. A brochure relating to the 1967 camp program contained a picture of about 15 younger girls and two older girls on horseback. The caddy was permitted to play, without charge on his day off, on the golf course where he was employed.
Note:	When no dispute of facts, whether injured on job is question of law and finding on issue is not conclusive.
Citation:	274 Cal.App.2d 357
WCC Citation:	WCC 27401969 CA

Case Name:	Raymond Garcia, Sr., v. Department of Water and Power et al.		01/06/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B222442 January 6, 2011 RAYMOND GARCIA, SR. , PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Lisa S. Berger, Deputy City Attorney; Richard M. Brown, General Counsel for Defendants and Respondents. Raymond Garcia appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Department of Water and Power (hereinafter, "DWP"), and City employee Gregory Troschak, after defendants' demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Vargas answered that he was not the culprit, and that he knew who had done it but could not tell. Pleadings in the workers' compensation proceeding are in accord, as is plaintiff's filing with the Department of Fair Housing and Employment.
Note:	Workers' compensation exclusivity prevents an employee who was injured after a coworker shortened his cane from bringing tort actions against the coworker and employer, the California's Second District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B222442
WCC Citation:	WCC 36982011 CA

Case Name:	Raymond Plastering v. WCAB		07/24/1967
Summary:	RAYMOND PLASTERING et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CLEO KING, Respondents. The injury caused total temporary disability through November 30, 1965, for which he was paid temporary disability benefits at the maximum rate. Award issued for permanent disability benefits of $4,305 payable at the rate of $52. 50 per week for 82 weeks. The award is based on a finding that applicant's earnings were maximum for purposes of computing permanent disability benefits. They seek annulment of the award and an order directing the appeals board to take additional evidence on the issue.
Note:	Board must develop record if parties fail to provide sufficient evidence for rendering fair decision.
Citation:	252 Cal.App.2d 748
WCC Citation:	WCC 27241967 CA

Case Name:	Rea vs. WCAB; Boostan, et al.		03/15/2005
Summary:	JOHN REA, as Acting Director, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, EREZ BOOSTAN et al. , Respondents. Milbauer and the Fund again proceeded to trial, and the Fund raised various issues including the illegally uninsured employer's identity. Moreover, the Fund failed to provide benefits contrary to section 3716, subdivision (b), Yant, DuBois, and Aubry v. Workers' Comp. Without proper jurisdiction, the Fund argues it is inhibited or precluded from fulfilling its statutory obligations under section 3710 et seq. The proof of service should specify the time, place and manner of service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 417. 10 et seq.
Note:	WCAB can not implement regulatory procedures without notice and opportunity to be heard.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 625
WCC Citation:	WCC 30842005 CA

Case Name:	ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. Jones		11/06/2012
Summary:	Nurses register with ReadyLink, which verifies the nurses' credentials, notifies them when shifts are available and pays their wages. The SCIF conducted its final audit of ReadyLink in 2007 for the policy period of September 2005 through September 2006. She questioned ReadyLink about its per diem payments and requested documentation to substantiate these payments. ReadyLink appealed the SCIF's decision to the Administrative Hearing Bureau of the California Department of Insurance. Instead, the Commissioner provided a useful interpretation of an existing regulation and applied it to the set of facts presented by ReadyLink.
Note:	A staffing company must pay State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) an additional $555,327.53 in premium, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday, agreeing with the carrier that the firm had disguised wages it paid to traveling nurses by labeling the bulk of its payments as reimbursement for living expenses.
Citation:	B234509
WCC Citation:	WCC 39492012 CA

Case Name:	Redner v. WCAB		06/10/1971
Summary:	CLAUDE REDNER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA WHOLESALE ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. , Respondents. Upon applicant's attorney's strenuous objection to the admission of the medical reports, the referee refused to admit them into evidence. 4 [5 Cal. 3d 89] Thereafter the insurance carrier petitioned for reconsideration on every statutory basis except the discovery of new evidence. It is noted that in its petition, defendant refers to motion picture film which was never offered in evidence. (W. C. A. B. rule 10856(e); see Standard Rectifier Corp. v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	WCAB doesn't have arbitrary powers to grant reconsideration, must be based on 5903.
Citation:	5 Cal.3d 83
WCC Citation:	WCC 26691971 CA

Case Name:	Regents of Univ. of CA v. WCAB (Oberhoffer)		08/25/1994
Summary:	THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CATHLEEN OBERHOFFER, Respondents. The University of California Board of Regents petitions for review of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision awarding the applicant, a university police officer trainee, full salary in lieu of workers' compensation disability payments pursuant to Labor Code section 4806. fn. 1 We granted review because the WCAB misinterpreted the applicable statutes. In March 1992, she returned to the university police department and was given light work in the investigations unit and evidence room. [¶] This section shall apply only to those members of the University of California Police Department specified in [Labor Code] Section 3213. '
Note:	Applicant must complete training and graduate from academy to qualify for 3213 & 4806 consideration.
Citation:	27 Cal.App.4th 1101
WCC Citation:	WCC 4171994 CA

Case Name:	Regents of Univ. of CA v. WCAB (Ryan)		02/20/1998
Summary:	Regents of the University of California, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Gloria Ryan, Respondents. Applicant sustained admitted industrial injuries to her back on 1/19/95, and to her psyche during the period 9/19/93 through 4/18/95. Defendant sought reconsideration on the grounds that the WCAB is vested with equitable power to credit Defendant with attorney's fees and costs from the superior court action against Applicant's future workers' compensation benefits. Petitioner seeks to offset any workers' compensation benefits awarded by an attorney fee award in a related superior court action. Labor Code section 4901 provides that compensation awards may not be taken for the debts of the worker except as 'hereinafter provided. '
Note:	No offset of comp. award by civil award in action from same injury.
Citation:	63 CCC 335 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 25141998 CA