Case Name:	Vasquez v. Juan Jose Interiano		07/06/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE ARNULFO VASQUEZ, Plaintiffs and Appellant, v. JUAN JOSE INTERIANO, et al. , Defendant and Respondent. Law Offices of Sef Krell and Sef Krell for Defendant and Appellant Juan Jose Interiano. INTRODUCTION Mya Borgman requested Juan Jose Interiano, her landscaper, to trim some palm trees in her yard. The trial court granted Borgman's motion for summary judgment as to Vasquez's complaint and Interiano's cross-complaint and Vasquez and Interiano appeal. Vasquez further alleges that Interiano and the doe defendants "negligently and in violation of statute, carelessly failed to provide plaintiff VASQUEZ with a safe workplace. "
Note:	[Unpublished] There is a rebuttable presumption that an unlicensed worker performing work for which a license is required is an employee rather than an independent contractor.
Citation:	B202120
WCC Citation:	WCC 35392009 CA

Case Name:	Vaught v. State		12/18/2007
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA No. D050358 December 18, 2007 MARCK O. VAUGHT ET AL, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION We hold the workers' compensation exclusivity rule of Labor Code*fn1 section 3602 bars the civil action of plaintiffs Marck Vaught (Marck) and Maria Vaught (Maria) (together the Vaughts) against Marck's employer, the State of California (State), for injuries he sustained while residing on state premises. The Vaughts sued the State for negligence and failure to make the ranch house habitable for human occupation. The fact Marck was not a new employee with the State, but rather was merely changing positions in that employment, does not affect our conclusion Marck sustained injuries in the course of his employment with the State. The evidence showed the State offered Marck residence in the ranch house because of Marck's employment with the State as a park ranger, as a benefit and out of work necessity, and not because the State sought to enter into a landlord-tenant relationship with the Vaughts.
Note:	The workers' compensation exclusivity rule of Labor Code section 3602 bars the civil action of plaintiff for injuries plaintiff sustained while residing on state premises.
Citation:	157 Cal. App. 4th 1538; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605
WCC Citation:	WCC 32912007 CA

Case Name:	Vaynberg v. Chevron Products Company		03/14/2013
Summary:	VAYNBERG v. CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY MOYSEY VAYNBERG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Appellant Moysey Vaynberg worked for respondent Chevron Products Company (Chevron) through an employment agency for nine years, from August 1999 through April 2008. At Chevron's request, the trial court instructed the jury: "Chevron contends that Mr. Vaynberg was not entitled to overtime pay from Chevron because he was an employee of Value Added working at Chevron as an independent contractor, not an employee of Chevron. Chevron argued these points to the jury: "Not one witness testified in this case that Mr. Vaynberg was an employee of Chevron at any time. Mr. Vaynberg admitted to you that at all times while working on assignment at the Chevron facility he was a contractor of Chevron. "
Note:	Chevron Products Co. was not a dual employer of a computer analyst employed by a staffing agency.
Citation:	A131126
WCC Citation:	WCC 39912013 CA

Case Name:	Vega vs. Taco Bell; Cal Indemnity		06/09/2003
Summary:	On January 2, 2003, defendant, Taco Bell, by and through its insurer, California Indemnity Insurance Company, filed a petition for removal, or alternatively, for reconsideration, for review of the Appeals Board's December 13, 2002, order denying a prior petition for removal. Defendant now seeks the consolidated review of two additional cases to demonstrate the disparate treatment of this issue at different district offices. Under Section 5502(b), expedited hearings may be set to determine the rights of the parties on specified issues, including entitlement to medical treatment and temporary disability indemnity. (2) The employee's entitlement to, or the amount of, temporary disability indemnity payments. This also implicates an applicant's right to temporary disability indemnity, as such benefits are tied to a treating physician's medical reporting.
Note:	Board shall set expedited hearing when right to medical control under HCO in issue.
Citation:	68 CCC 921
WCC Citation:	WCC 29372003 CA

Case Name:	Veguez v. Long Beach Unified School District		03/07/2005
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B172414 March 7, 2005 BONITA VEGUEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. GOVERNING BOARD OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. OVERVIEW Bonita Veguez, a certificated employee of the Long Beach Unified School District (District), began a medical leave of absence on March 12, 2002. The District denied her request on the ground the five months statutory paid leave Veguez had received following her 1998 accident exhausted her rights under section 44977. Instead, pursuant to section 44978. 1, the District placed Veguez on a 39-month reemployment list effective March 19, 2002. Veguez acknowledges the District had the right to condition her return to work on an examination by a District- appointed physician.
Note:	'Per injury or accident' as used in Education Code section 44977 applies to second leave where subsequent injury was known and treateable in original leave.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 406
WCC Citation:	WCC 30892005 CA

Case Name:	Velez v. Kohl Building Maintenance Inc. unpublished		02/02/2021
Summary:	______________________ Defendant Kohl Building Maintenance, Inc. (Kohl) appeals from the trial court’s June 27, 2019, order awarding $141,165 in attorney fees in a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) matter to plaintiff and prevailing party Gilberto Velez. Velez filed a workers’ compensation claim, and on August 26, 2016, Kohl terminated Velez. On at least one occasion, Velez’s counsel represented to the trial court that Velez was not seeking any lost income for the time period for which Velez received workers’ compensation. Notwithstanding his conclusory claim that Velez “knew” he would not recover more than $25,000, Kohl does not actually demonstrate this was so. Thus, Kohl has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $141,165 in attorney fees to Velez.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld an award of attorney fees to an injured worker on his successful Fair Employment and Housing Act claim against his former employer.
Citation:	No. B300253
WCC Citation:	No. B300253

Case Name:	Ventura Coastal LLC v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Department of Industrial Relations)		12/01/2020
Summary:	It was upheld by the hearing officer and, on reconsideration, by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Board). Ventura appealed the citation to the Board, arguing that it did not violate the safety order or, if there was a violation, it was misclassified as serious. Ventura further argued the evidence showed the violation was unforeseeable under the Newbery defense. 2 On September 22, 2017, the Board issued its decision after reconsideration. The Board concluded the Division established a violation of the regulation by a The Newbery defense, which originated in Newbery Electric Corp. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. Instead, on October 20, 2017, 28 days after the Board filed its decision after reconsideration, Ventura filed a second petition for reconsideration with the Board.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an employer cited for a safety violation did not timely seek review of an administrative decision, but it is entitled to assert a claim of equitable tolling.
Citation:	No. F077267
WCC Citation:	No. F077267

Case Name:	Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc.		12/20/2012
Summary:	VENTURA v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED SYLVIA VENTURA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED et al. , Defendants and Appellants. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION ARMSTRONG, J. ABM Industries Incorporated, ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. , and American Building Maintenance Company appeal from the judgment entered against them and in favor of respondent Sylvia Ventura, on Ventura's complaint. When Ventura spoke of Manzano's relationship with Esther Mendoza, the human resources director suggested that Ventura was jealous. There was also evidence that after he knew the details of Manzano's attack on Ventura, Martinez told Ventura that Manzano had had similar problems before. American Building Maintenance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. , which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABM Industries Incorporated.
Note:	An employer must plead and prove that the Workers' Compensation Act applies to a lawsuit that indicates an employment relationship exists in order to invoke exclusive remedy.
Citation:	B231817
WCC Citation:	WCC 39652012 CA

Case Name:	Vera v. WCAB		08/30/2007
Summary:	Daniel Vera petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying his petition for reconsideration of a decision awarding him permanent disability benefits in the amount of $18,823. 75. It also noted that in a June 2004 report, the treating physician stated that Vera " 'remains TTD [i. e. , temporarily totally disabled],' " and that Vera underwent surgery for his shoulder in August 2004. Vera argued that his employer "[was] required subsequently to provide" the notice required by section 4061, and thus the old schedule applies. Vera filed a petition for writ of review in this court, arguing that the old schedule governs his claim for permanent disability benefits, and that the WCAB therefore erred in denying his petition for reconsideration. Our decision is consistent with the en banc decision of the WCAB in Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cas.
Note:	The WCAB properly denied the petition for reconsideration because the schedule for rating permanent disabilities that went into effect on January 1, 2005, applies to the instant case.
Citation:	72 CCC 1115
WCC Citation:	WCC 32482007 CA

Case Name:	Verga v. WCAB		01/23/2008
Summary:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the WCAB) concluded that Rosemary Verga was not entitled to compensation for psychiatric injury while employed by United Airlines. However, the WCAB found "the true fact remains that [Verga] was not actually subject to harassment or persecution, she instead brought upon herself the disdain of her co-workers" because Verga was "a difficult person to get along with"; she was impolite, unpleasant, and co-workers "never knew when [she] might get upset. "Various employees testified that they had never seen Verga mistreated by Allen, who did as much as he could to support her, even though Verga had mistreated them. Hence, Verga failed to establish an "actual event of employment" was the predominant cause of her injury within the meaning of section 3208. 3. After Verga filed a petition for reconsideration, the WCJ submitted to the WCAB a report and recommendation clarifying the basis for the WCJ's decision. Verga contends that it does matter whether the events of her employment occurred as she recalls or as found by the WCAB.
Note:	In light of the legislative intent in enacting section 3208.3, subdivision (b)(1), the disdainful reactions of co-workers to the claimant's abusive conduct were neither actual events of employment nor the predominant cause of her psychological injuries within the meaning of the statute.
Citation:	C055711
WCC Citation:	WCC 33042008 CA

Case Name:	Victor Valley Transit Authority v. WCAB		09/26/2000
Summary:	VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JAMES SOPHY, Respondents. [83 Cal. App. 4th 1070] COUNSEL Hallett & McCormick and Bruce S. Emerick for Petitioner Victor Valley Transit Authority. FACTS OF THE CASE Victor Valley Transit Authority ('VVTA') is a joint powers agency created pursuant to Government Code section 6500 et seq. The members of VVTA are the County of San Bernardino and the Cities of Victorville, Adelanto, Hesperia, and Apple Valley. The joint powers agreement names the authority the 'Victor Valley Transit Services Authority. '
Note:	No WCAB jurisdiction over 'contribution' issues in joint venture; not appropriate for arbitration.
Citation:	83 Cal.App.4th 1068
WCC Citation:	WCC 25402000 CA

Case Name:	Vierra v. WCAB		08/31/2007
Summary:	Petitioner Fred Vierra seeks relief from an order denying reconsideration of a decision by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), upholding an administrative law judge's finding that a written attorney fee agreement Vierra entered into with his attorney was not binding. On October 24, 2005, Vierra entered into a written "Agreement for Attorneys Fees" (the agreement) retaining Attorney Tom Johnson of Anderson & Johnson, LLP, to represent him in the WCAB proceedings. On July 20, 2006, the WCJ issued an order stating that the attorney fee agreement between Johnson and Vierra was not binding on Vierra. On August 3, 2006, Vierra petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration of the WCJ's order, contending the fee arrangement was appropriate and should have been allowed. The WCAB denied reconsideration reasoning that, since there was an available source of funds from which to petition for fees, Vierra was not yet aggrieved by the WCJ's order.
Note:	Because the WCAB unquestionably has the ultimate authority over attorney compensation (see Reich, supra, 99 Cal.App.3d at p. 234), the WCJ's order that a fee agreement is not binding is free from error.
Citation:	154 Cal. App. 4th 1142; 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423
WCC Citation:	WCC 32502007 CA

Case Name:	Vilkitis v. WCAB		06/18/2009
Summary:	Filed 6/18/09 Vilkitis v. WCAB CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). Dr. Vilkitis would receive $68,057. 50 if the awards are rated separately, but $100,165 plus a life pension if they are rated together. After we denied his petition, Dr. Vilkitis petitioned our Supreme Court for review. Dr. Vilkitis filed separate applications for workers' compensation benefits for each of these injuries. As in Benson, Dr. Vilkitis sustained both a specific industrial injury and an industrial CT. (See Benson, supra, at p.
Note:	[Unpublished] Current sections 4663 and 4664 require physicians to consider each industrial injury sustained, and apportion the injured worker's disability for cause.
Citation:	B209235
WCC Citation:	WCC 35342009 CA

Case Name:	Villa v. WCAB		05/24/1984
Summary:	ERNESTO VILLA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MISSION LINEN SUPPLY, Respondents. Zonni, Ginocchio & Taylor, Clair S. Huffman, Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe and Alvin R. Barrett for Respondents. OPINION STONE, P. J. Petitioner Ernesto Villa seeks review of the July 1, 1983, order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration of the workers' compensation judge's finding that applicant sustained no industrial injury to his eyes. [1] Villa's petition for writ of review was filed in this court on August 16, 1983, 46 days after the Board's order denying reconsideration. 1 provides that a petition for writ of review 'must be made within 45 days after a petition for reconsideration is denied. '
Note:	45 day time limit for filing petition for writ of review is extended when order served by mail.
Citation:	156 Cal.App.3d 1076
WCC Citation:	WCC 27791984 CA

Case Name:	Vine vs. Bear Valley Ski Co.		05/11/2004
Summary:	CHARLENE VINE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BEAR VALLEY SKI COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. BACKGROUND Charlene Vine suffered a broken back, resulting in paraplegia, when she fell while attempting a snowboard jump at an employee party hosted by her employer, Bear Valley Ski Company (Bear Valley) after the end of the public ski season. Bear Valley contends that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court failed to give an instruction that Bear Valley never proposed. Bear Valley also challenges the court's failure to give a proposed instruction on what Bear Valley terms the "obvious hazard doctrine. "The dissent accuses Bear Valley of faulting the court for not giving an instruction Bear Valley never proposed.
Note:	Employee cannot escape assumption of risk doctrine for injury not covered by work comp.
Citation:	118 Cal.App.4th 577
WCC Citation:	WCC 29852004 CA

Case Name:	Virginia Surety Co. v. WCAB (Echelard)		08/22/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JASON ECHELARD, Respondents. -ooOoo- Before Ardaiz, P. J. , Cornell, J. , and Kane, J. Virginia Surety Company (Virginia Surety) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) contending the WCAB applied the incorrect Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities (PDRS -- *fn1). California Quality Interiors's insurer for workers' compensation purposes, Virginia Surety, admitted the accident arose out of and in the course of Echelard's employment causing injury to his thoracic spine, right wrist, and right elbow. Virginia Surety petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration contending Echelard's disability should have been rated under the 2005 PDRS because there was no medical determination before 2005 finding Echelard permanent and stationary. Virginia Surety, however, offers no legal support for its proposition that a pre-2005 medical report may only be considered within its four corners.
Note:	Under the WCAB's reasoning and Dr. Thomas's medical reporting, we agree the record supports an indication of permanent disability permitting the use of the 1997 PDRS. Accordingly, we will not disturb the WCAB's decision.
Citation:	F055253
WCC Citation:	WCC 34142008 CA

Case Name:	Virginia Surety, Inc. v. WCAB		01/31/2008
Summary:	Virginia Surety, Inc. petitions for a writ of review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) affirming an award to respondent Larry Wragg. Virginia Surety contends the award was improperly calculated using the 1997 schedule for rating permanent disabilities, instead of the schedule that went into effect on January 1, 2005. Virginia Surety petitioned for reconsideration on the ground the WCJ should have adopted a permanent disability rating under the 2005 schedule. Virginia Surety petitioned this court for writ of review. Virginia Surety petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of review.
Note:	[Unpublished] The 1997 schedule applies in the present case, based on the statutory reading of section 4660, subdivision (d)(2) as established under Genlyte Group, LLC, etc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., B198100, Jan. 3, 2008.
Citation:	B197490
WCC Citation:	WCC 33112008 CA

Case Name:	Visalia School District v. WCAB (Hernandez)		12/07/1995
Summary:	Visalia School District, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Lupe Hernandez, Respondents. Respondent/applicant Lupe Hernandez telephoned the claims administrator of petitioner/employer Visalia School District and requested vocational rehabilitation benefits. Rehabilitation. 'Dr. Wells also stated:Mr. Hernandez does not meet the criteria of being a Qualified Injured Worker under DIA guidelines. If employment in the maintenance and janitorial field in an appropriate setting could be found, this would be ideal.
Note:	Written request for rehab. benefits not required; phone call to employer's claims administrator suffices.
Citation:	60 CCC 1158
WCC Citation:	WCC 28021995 CA

Case Name:	Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental		04/22/2008
Summary:	Filed 4/22/08 Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). Plaintiff Douglas Von Arx (Plaintiff) was injured in a workplace accident involving a trenching attachment (trencher) for a ride-upon trenching machine, manufactured by defendant Charles Machine Works, Inc. (Charles), and rented to his employer by Max Equipment Rental, LLC (Max). The rental contract stated that the customer acknowledged examining the equipment upon delivery, and usage of it would constitute acknowledgment that the equipment was in good mechanical condition at the time. Max is in the business of renting construction equipment, and rented this trencher to Western on August 18, 2003. Plaintiff had conducted safety meetings about using the equipment and had checked the equipment for loose bolts or nuts and would normally tighten them.
Note:	[Unpublished] Insufficient evidence to justify the necessary, reasonable or logical inferences of causation from employer's actions or inactions,' so nonsuit ruling was proper.
Citation:	D048759
WCC Citation:	WCC 33472008 CA

Case Name:	Voortman v. Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Assn.		04/05/2012
Summary:	Arthur Voortman v. Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Association No. F062610 (Cal. App. Dist. 5 04/05/2012) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT F062610 April 5, 2012 ARTHUR VOORTMAN, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. STANISLAUS COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. The judgment set aside a decision of appellant Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Association (hereafter, the association) that denied respondent's application for disability retirement. In light of these considerations, on October 23, 2007, respondent applied for service retirement (i. e. , "regular" retirement based on age and length of service) and attempted to apply simultaneously for service-connected disability retirement. The trial court found that there was no prohibition on simultaneous filing of applications for service retirement and disability retirement. *fn3 A county employee covered by a CERL retirement plan is a member of the association and, upon reaching retirement age, may apply for service retirement based on the employee's age and length of service.
Note:	A former police chief was not entitled to have the administrative denial of his disability retirement application set aside based on the two-year delay in its processing because he had elected to take service retirement while his disability retirement application remained pending.
Citation:	F062610
WCC Citation:	WCC 38832012 CA

Case Name:	Vradenburgh v. Southern California Edison Co.		12/06/2010
Summary:	HAROLD K. VRADENBURGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. A truck driver, who had worked at Southern California Edison's San Onofre nuclear power facility for some four years, was injured while unloading Edison materials from an Edison truck. The undisputed evidence, including the truck driver's deposition testimony, established that Edison had direct supervision and control over him. Because Edison did not have an agreement with a local council of building trades unions, Edison could not directly hire union personnel to work at San Onofre. He drove Edison trucks within the facility to load and unload warehouse materials "everything from toilet paper to plywood, pipe, prefabricated pipe.
Note:	A special employer's citation of its employment agreements helped it prove that it had the right to control a trucker's work and establish an exclusive remedy defense.
Citation:	G041931
WCC Citation:	WCC 36882010 CA

Case Name:	Wagner vs. Allied Signal		04/20/2001
Summary:	Ed Note: This case was expressly overruled by the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Honeywell v. WCAB (Wagner). A review of the record reveals that applicant was employed by defendant Allied Signal Aerospace from 1982 through 1999. The July 20,1998 notation states, in pertinent part, as follows: ". . . Has tried many times to deal with this industrial stress reduction in various forms. The October 16, 1998 message was placed in applicant's personnel file, and reads as follows: "Received an audix message from William Wagner's wife, Linda. "Wife is concerned that she does everything necessary to protect Bill's employment with Allied Signal.
Note:	Duty to provide claim form when reasonable certainty of claim of industrial injury.
Citation:	66 CCC 483 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29012001 CA

Case Name:	Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (Garcia)		10/30/2003
Summary:	1 Velta Elaine Garcia ("Applicant") suffered an admitted orthopedic injury to her back while employed by Wal-Mart ("Employer") in February of 1995. (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 227, 233), the issue before us is one of law, which we review de novo. This subdivision shall not apply if the psychiatric injury is caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition. "The statute, which contains other provisions governing and to some extent limiting benefits for psychiatric claims, fn. Again, we stress that whether the statute could reasonably, or even wisely, be amended is not before us.
Note:	Psychiatric injury arising out of physical injury is governed by LC 3208.3 limitations.
Citation:	112 Cal.App.4th 1435
WCC Citation:	WCC 29602003 CA

Case Name:	Wall Units, Inc. v. SCIF		06/09/2008
Summary:	Plaintiff Wall Units, Inc. (Wall Units) pursued a class action lawsuit against defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for allegedly misreporting the loss experience in workers' compensation insurance claims. Following further proceedings in the trial court, in February of 2007, Wall Units moved for certification of a class of employer plaintiffs who had "declared noncompensable" claims that SCIF had misreported. )*fn2 The new class definition framed by Wall Units after our prior opinion in 2006 encompassed all three prongs of the "declared non-compensable" definition. SCIF first learned of the Wiley claim on July 16, 1991, and denied the claim on October 15, 1992. Wall Units complains that the trial court's order denying class certification struck eight paragraphs in a supporting declaration provided by Wall Units.
Note:	[Unpublished] The trial court used proper legal criteria and assumptions in denying class certification when it focused on the absence of 'common questions of law or fact.'
Citation:	B200331
WCC Citation:	WCC 33822008 CA

Case Name:	Waqia v. City of Oakland		11/28/2007
Summary:	INTRODUCTION In this wrongful termination action, Delmont Waqia (Waqia) appeals following a jury verdict in favor of his former employer, the City of Oakland (the City). Waqia filed an action against the OFD and the City (collectively the City), alleging religious and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation. The parties agreed that Waqia or his attorney would meet with someone from the city attorney's office to discuss the matter further. In June 2003, Waqia filed a complaint against the City, alleging that the City acted in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. At trial, the City presented evidence regarding the 1993 sexual harassment claim against Waqia, as well as the surrounding circumstances of his 2002 arrest.
Note:	[Unpublished] Although the statutory burden to accommodate rests with the employer, an employee cannot shirk his duties to try to accommodate himself or to cooperate with his employer in reaching an accommodation by a mere recalcitrant citation of religious precepts.
Citation:	A114704
WCC Citation:	WCC 32822007 CA

Case Name:	Ward v. City of Desert Hot Springs		09/25/2006
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIGNIFICANT PANEL DECISION Case No. RIV 0069499 KATHY WARD, Applicant, vs. CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS; permissibly self-insured and administered by HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendant. Therefore, the Order of May 5, 2006, properly denied defendant's request to compel applicant's examination pursuant to section 4064(d). On or about November 4, 2005, defendant arranged for applicant to be examined by Stuart Meisner, Ph. D. Applicant, through her counsel, refused to be examined by Dr. Meisner, asserting that the examination was impermissible pursuant to sections 4060 and 4062. 2. On May 5, 2006, the WCJ issued the Findings and Order of which defendant sought reconsideration or, in the alternative, from which it seeks removal.
Note:	For claimed injuries occurring on or after 1/1/05, where claimant represented by an attorney, correct med-legal procedure for compensability is 4062.2 only; reports under 4064(d) are inadmissable.
Citation:	71 CCC 1313
WCC Citation:	WCC 31842006 CA

Case Name:	Warner v. WCAB		12/27/2011
Summary:	WARNER v. WCAB RICHARD WARNER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS TURNER, P. J. Petitioner, Richard Warner, is a firefighter employed by the County of Los Angeles (the county). Island residents will go to petitioner's house for assistance if they live nearby or if an injury occurs near his home. As petitioner was going down the front stairs of his house, his wife asked him to help her trim the wisteria. Petitioner, Richard Warner, shall recover his costs incurred in connection with these writ proceedings.
Note:	A firefighter's decision to help his wife trim the wisteria in front of their Catalina Island home was incidentally related to his job because island residents would occasionally go to his home for emergency help.
Citation:	B232190
WCC Citation:	WCC 38382011 CA

Case Name:	Waste Management vs. Superior Court		06/01/2004
Summary:	WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. , et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; ROSA M. GUZMAN de PERALTA et al. , Real Parties in Interest. OPINION MCCONNELL, P. J. - Rafael Peralta Rios (Rafael) was killed by a trash truck while working as a mechanic for Waste Management of California, Inc. (WMCI). 1988) Torts, § 6, p. 61; Romero v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1078. )Code, § 3852; Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689, 697; Orosco v. Sun-Diamond Corp. (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1659, 1664. )Likewise in this case, the Peraltas adequately pleaded independent negligent or wrongful acts by Waste Management, Inc. and USA Waste of California (together, WMI).
Note:	Parent not liable to employee of subsidiary for injury/death where parent lacked control.
Citation:	119 Cal. App. 4th 105; 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 910
WCC Citation:	WCC 29862004 CA

Case Name:	Watters Associates v. Superior Court		02/25/1991
Summary:	WATTERS ASSOCIATES et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; GARDCO MANUFACTURING, INC. , et al. , Real Parties in Interest. (Superior Court of Alameda County, No. H127070-9, Joanne C. Parrilli, Judge. )In Watters Associates v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1322 [267 Cal. Rptr. 696] (Watters I) we held that an injured temporary employee could not pursue a civil action against his employment agency for an injury caused by his temporary employer's removal of the point of operation guard on a power press. Lamont G. Conley, registered as a temporary manufacturing employee, was sent by petitioners Watters Associates, Watters Personnel Service, and/or Shirley Watters (identified collectively as agency hereafter) to the business premises of real party in interest Gardco Manufacturing, Inc. (temporary employer hereafter). (Santa Cruz Poultry, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d [227 Cal. App. 3d 1346] 575, 578-579 [239 Cal. Rptr.
Note:	Temp agency exempted from liability for damages recovered by employee.
Citation:	227 Cal.App.3d 1341
WCC Citation:	WCC 23951991 CA

Case Name:	Wayne Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		11/21/2008
Summary:	Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 168 Cal. App. 4th 696, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 661 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 11/21/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C057392 November 21, 2008 WAYNE LEWIS, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, BEUTLER HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, ET AL. ; RESPONDENTS. No appearance for Respondents Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or Beutler Heating & Air Conditioning. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION As part of its 2004 comprehensive reform of the workers' compensation laws, the Legislature adopted a new schedule for rating permanent disability. B ACKGROUND Wayne Lewis suffered an admitted injury to his low back on August 18, 2004, while working for Beutler Heating and Air Conditioning. It is undisputed that Lewis also had a prior back injury treated by lumbar fusion surgery.
Note:	A physician's report stating that an applicant cannot return to his regular job duties and may need vocational rehabilitation indicates the existence of permanent disability and triggers use of the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule instead of the version adopted in 2005.
Citation:	C057392
WCC Citation:	WCC 34642008 CA

Case Name:	Wayne Oberreuter et al v. Traylor Brothers		05/05/2011
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D056637 May 5, 2011 WAYNE OBERREUTER ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS, CROSS-DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS, v. TRAYLOR BROTHERS, DEFENDANT, CROSS-COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT. Mountain was the subcontractor hired by a general contractor, defendant Traylor Brothers, Inc. (Traylor), to provide hauling services for a construction project. Oberreuter and his wife filed this action against Traylor seeking damages, and Traylor moved for summary judgment under the "Privette/Hooker"*fn1 doctrine. The trial court concluded there was no triable issue of material fact, and Privette/Hooker barred Oberreuter's claims against Traylor, and entered judgment in favor of Traylor. Procedural History Oberreuter and his wife filed the present action against Traylor, among others, asserting Traylor was negligent.
Note:	California's common law Hooker/Privette doctrine barred an subcontractor's employee from suing a general contractor.
Citation:	D056637
WCC Citation:	WCC 37602011 CA

Case Name:	WCAB v. Small Claims Court		11/29/1973
Summary:	WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Petitioner, v. THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT FOR THE SAN LEANDRO-HAYWARD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY et al. , Respondents; EARLY-WINSTON-DRAKE et al. , Real Parties in Interest (Opinion by Taylor, P. J. , with Kane and Rouse, JJ. , concurring. )[1] Petitioner, Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, seeks prohibition to prevent respondent, Small Claims Court, San Leandro-Hayward Judicial District, from proceeding to trial on [35 Cal. App. 3d 645] two small claims actions on the ground that the subject matter of the actions is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board. Respondents Righetti and Sidlow may not circumvent the remedy provided by statute by filing actions in the small claims court. [2c] Because the subject matter of the actions filed in respondent small claims court is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, respondent small claims court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine the claims. Let a writ of prohibition issue commanding respondent small claims court to dismiss the actions in small claims cases Nos.
Note:	Small claims court had no jurisdiction to hear case regarding expert witness and attorney fees from WC claim.
Citation:	35 Cal.App.3d 643
WCC Citation:	WCC 27481973 CA

Case Name:	Webb v. San Luis Obispo Community College Dist.		12/10/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX d Civil No. B195886 December 10, 2007 PAMELA WEBB, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Ct. No. CV060418) (San Luis Obispo County) Martin J. Tangeman, Judge. Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi, Llp, Peter C. Flanderka for Defendant and Respondent San Luis Obispo Community College District. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Pamela Webb appeals from a judgment of dismissal after orders sustaining the demurrers of School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE) and San Luis Obispo Community College District (District), each public entities. Webb was an employee of Cuesta College in the San Luis Obispo Community College District.
Note:	[Unpublished] A plaintiff may not sue for damages based on violation of the privacy clause of article I, section 1 of the California Constitution.
Citation:	B195886
WCC Citation:	WCC 32872007 CA

Case Name:	Webb v. WCAB		12/22/1980
Summary:	ROBERT F. WEBB, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DI GIORGIO CORPORATION, Respondents (Opinion by Mosk, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )On January 31, 1975, employee Webb slipped from a forklift he was operating for employer Di Giorgio Corporation and contused his lower back, causing debilitating pain. The bureau approved the plan and declared that 'employer will pay all temporary disability at the rate of $119 per week from the date of injury to the date Mr. Webb begins work at Roberts Motel. The workers' compensation judge found in his favor and ordered employer to pay the missing six months of temporary rehabilitation benefits. Moreover, this court has repeatedly recognized that a rule of liberal construction applies to all aspects of workers' compensation law.
Note:	Employer has duty to give notice to the Rehab. Bureau of EE's right to rehab.
Citation:	28 Cal.3d 621
WCC Citation:	WCC 28041980 CA

Case Name:	Weber v. UPS		04/03/2003
Summary:	According to Weber's first amended complaint, UPS employed Weber as an aircraft mechanic. UPS did not administer the hearing tests itself, but contracted with defendant TK Group to administer the tests on its behalf, and to report the results to UPS. Further, to the extent UPS knew that Weber's tests showed significant abnormalities in his hearing, UPS failed to notify Weber of the findings or their medical significance. UPS demurred to Weber's first amended complaint on the sole ground that because Weber had alleged that his injuries arose out of his employment with UPS, the Act provided Weber his sole and exclusive remedy, and barred his civil action in tort against UPS. Critical to the analysis of Weber's claim is the undisputed fact that but for his employment with UPS, Weber would have no basis for any claim against UPS under any legal theory.
Note:	No civil liability of employer for injuries from failure to diagnose condition that should have been detected on required med exam.
Citation:	107 Cal.App.4th 801, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 412
WCC Citation:	WCC 29262003 CA

Case Name:	Webinger v. WCAB		11/21/1975
Summary:	JOSEPH B. WEBINGER, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, Respondents. Applicant began receiving disability payments from the Veterans' Administration on April 1, 1946, in the amount of $ 13. 80 per month. On October 31, 1962, Mr. Webinger began receiving checks in the amount of $ 20. 00 per month. On January 1, 1973, he began receiving $ 178. 84 per month, which includes compensation for regular aid and attendance. '(2) On December 22, 1967, he suffered a bruise-type industrial injury to his right foot that necessitated amputation of his leg.
Note:	S.I.F. was entitled to a credit for payments for a non-service connected disability which pre-existed injury.
Citation:	40 CCC 714
WCC Citation:	WCC 25181975 CA

Case Name:	Weerasinghe v. Gates, McDonald and Co.		05/14/2010
Summary:	Weerasinghe contends that Gates was not entitled to summary judgment on any of her six causes of action. FACTS[ 1 ] In 2002, respondent Gates hired appellant Manique Weerasinghe to be a worker's compensation claims examiner in its Concord office. From November 30 through December 6, 2004, Gates granted Weerasinghe a one-week medical leave of absence to have a breast mass removed. From January 14 through 27, 2005, Gates granted Weerasinghe a leave of absence to provide medical care for her spouse. During February 2005, Tovar placed Weerasinghe on an attendance improvement plan because she had failed to heed the earlier coaching about attendance issues.
Note:	A former claims examiner did not have enough evidence to substantiate a variety of retaliation, discrimination, and wrongful termination claims after her employer fired her for poor performance.
Citation:	A124847
WCC Citation:	WCC 36242010 CA

Case Name:	Weiner v. Ralphs Co., et al. (Order Denying Reconsideration)		08/17/2009
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Case No. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426) LAWRENCE WEINER, Applicant, vs. RALPHS COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured; and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). Applicant, Lawrence Weiner, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (En Banc) issued by the Appeals Board on June 11, 2009. (See Weiner v. Ralphs Company (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 736 (Appeals Board en banc) (Weiner I). )On April 8, 2008, a stipulated Findings and Award issued finding 60% permanent disability and a need for further medical treatment. Defendant appealed the Rehabilitation Unit's determination and a trial was held before the WCJ on November 24, 2008.
Note:	The WCAB determined that the applicant's right to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance never vested. The WCAB also explained that it lacks the authority to declarea statute unconstitutional.
Citation:	ADJ347040
WCC Citation:	WCC 35542009 CA

Case Name:	Weiner v. Ralphs Company		06/11/2009
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426) LAWRENCE WEINER, Applicant, vs. RALPHS COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured; and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) We granted the petition for reconsideration of defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company, to allow time to further study the record and applicable law. Background Applicant, Lawrence Weiner, sustained an industrial injury to his right hip, cervical spine, and lumbar spine from 1967 through September 30, 2002, while employed as a checker by defendant. Code, § 4644(a)(5)-(7)) and to provide that an employee was normally limited to only one vocational rehabilitation plan (former Lab. Applicant, Lawrence Weiner, while employed as a checker by Ralphs Grocery Company at Los Angeles, California, during the period of 1967 through September 30, 2002, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of the employment to his right hip, cervical spine and lumbar spine.
Note:	[En Banc] The repeal of section 139.5 terminated any rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits or services pursuant to orders or awards that were not final before January 1, 2009, including those pending on or after that date, and effective January 1, 2009, the WCAB lost jurisdiction over non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims, but the WCAB continues to have jurisdiction under sections 5502(b)(3) and 5803 to enforce or terminate vested rights.
Citation:	ADJ347040
WCC Citation:	WCC 35332009 CA

Case Name:	Weinstein v. St. Mary's Med. Cntr.		10/30/1997
Summary:	On January 10, 1995, while still on crutches, Weinstein went to the Hospital to receive medical treatment for her injury. As this was happening, Weinstein slipped and fell on a watery liquid substance in one of the Hospital's hallways. [58 Cal. App. 4th 1227] On December 12, 1995, Weinstein filed her complaint in this personal injury action against the Hospital. Thus the 'conditions of compensation' were not met, and Weinstein was not restricted to the remedy of workers' compensation. The Hospital countered that it owed Weinstein the same duty to maintain safe premises whether she was there as a patient or an employee.
Note:	Exclusive remedy only applies when duty arises from employment relationship.
Citation:	58 Cal.App.4th 1223
WCC Citation:	WCC 24181997 CA

Case Name:	Weisdorf-Mahserjian v. Serco, Inc.		03/06/2009
Summary:	The Allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint In her complaint, plaintiff alleges the following facts: Plaintiff worked for defendant beginning in June 1999. In February 2003, plaintiff injured her left shoulder in an accident which occurred while she was working. It specifically found that plaintiffs workers compensation injury leave was a "protected activity," and a "motivating reason" defendant terminated plaintiff. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees After the jury returned its verdict, plaintiff moved for an award of $180,545. 50 in attorneys fees. Indeed, the record indicates that plaintiff reached less than excellent results even with respect to her retaliation cause of action.
Note:	A trial court correctly awarded one-fourth of a plaintiff's request for attorney fees in a Fair Employment and Housing Act suit because she only prevailed on one of her five causes of action.
Citation:	B206243
WCC Citation:	WCC 35032009 CA

Case Name:	Welch v. CSTRB		01/31/2012
Summary:	WELCH v. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT BOARD MELANIE WELCH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. That opinion states that Welch filed a complaint about school safety on October 30, 1998, and three days later "the District notified Welch that it had placed her on administrative leave with pay effective November 2, 1998. "Meanwhile, in September 2006, Welch was examined by Dr. Rosemary Tyl to assist the Social Security Administration in determining whether Welch was disabled for purposes of receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. If Welch is correct, then she was entitled to relief, but Welch is not correct. According to the finding of the ALJ, which Welch has not challenged, Welch "has a total of 4. 327 years of CalSTRS service credit. "
Note:	The California State Teachers' Retirement Board needs to consider whether misinformation prevented an injured teacher from prevailing on her disability retirement claim.
Citation:	C062517
WCC Citation:	WCC 38512012 CA

Case Name:	Welcher, Strong, Lopez, & Williams v. WCAB		08/31/2006
Summary:	See Brodie v. WCAB, Welcher v. WCAB (S146979, S147030). Relying on its own en banc decision in Nabors, supra, 70 Cal. Comp. Cases at page 856,*fn2 the WCAB disagreed and denied Welcher's petition. Applying the WCAB's decision in Nabors, the WCJ awarded Lopez permanent disability benefits of $80,910. 73 for a 79 percent permanent disability. While employed by United Airlines, Williams sustained a cumulative industrial injury to his lumbar spine ending in August 2003. The WCAB then determines the monetary value of permanent disability benefits payable for this percentage of permanent disability.
Note:	The Legislature did not intend to alter the old apportionment method with the 2004 amendments.
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 818
WCC Citation:	WCC 31782006 CA

Case Name:	Western Growers Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Austin)		06/01/1993
Summary:	WESTERN GROWERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, BOYD WAYNE AUSTIN et al. , Respondents. Petitioner Western Growers Insurance Company (Western) and respondent Industrial Indemnity (Industrial) were the workers' compensation carriers for Kirschenman Enterprises during the relevant periods. Western filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) a petition for reconsideration pursuant to section 5900. We reject a further claim by both Western and Industrial that the WCAB erroneously failed to apportion a percentage of Austin's disability to nonindustrial aggravating factors. Western and Industrial have cited no authority requiring the WCJ, the WCAB or this court to accept the AME's recommended apportionment of liability.
Note:	Liability for a CT runs from year preceding DOI or last exposure, whichever occurs first.
Citation:	16 Cal.App.4th 227
WCC Citation:	WCC 4101993 CA

Case Name:	Wheeler & Beaton v. WCAB		11/16/1995
Summary:	WHEELER & BEATON, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY , Respondents. COUNSEL Wheeler & Beaton and Craig A. Kingscott for Petitioner. We therefore annul the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration of the attorney fees awarded. The law offices of Wheeler & Beaton (petitioner) filed a workers' compensation claim on behalf of Tomlinson on December 27, 1990. The Board also noted that the petition 'is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with WCAB Rule 10778. '
Note:	Consider atty. services resulting in subst. higher benefits; may legitimate higher award of atty. fees.
Citation:	40 Cal.App.4th 389
WCC Citation:	WCC 27141995 CA

Case Name:	Whetstone v. City of Lodi		03/28/2012
Summary:	WHETSTONE v. CITY OF LODI VICKY WHETSTONE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LODI, Defendant and Respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED HOCH, J. Vicky Whetstone appeals from a judgment dismissing her petition for writ of mandate against the City of Lodi (the City) following an order sustaining the City's demurrer without leave to amend. The City informed Whetstone that if she did not file for disability retirement with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the City would file the application on her behalf. In October 2006, Whetstone sent the City a letter demanding that she be returned to her former job and compensated for back pay. While the amended petition alleged exemption from compliance with the Act, the City argued the asserted exemptions did not apply to Whetstone because she "was not an employee of the City of Lodi during the period of time for which she seeks monetary damages. "
Note:	A municipal employee's action to recover back-pay and benefits for the time during which the city constructively separated her from employment after her industrial injury was barred by the California Tort Claims Act.
Citation:	C067003
WCC Citation:	WCC 38782012 CA

Case Name:	White v. City of Los Angeles Part 1/2		08/11/2017
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             ANTHONY EARL WHITE, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B264675 .             Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC486269 .             APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Peter J. Mirich, Judge. INTRODUCTION .             Plaintiff and appellant Anthony White worked as a custodian for Los Angeles World Airports (airport), a department of the City of Los Angeles (City). In order to work at the Los Angeles International Airport, White needed to obtain a security badge.
Note:	California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that a former airport custodian failed to prove his disability discrimination claims, as a matter of law.
Citation:	B264675
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC486269

Case Name:	White v. City of Los Angeles Part 2/2		08/11/2017
Summary:	.           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS  .           LAVIN, J. .         WE CONCUR:  .         EDMON, P. J. *  .         * Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. White named both the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles World Airports, a department of the City of Los Angeles, as defendants in this suit. White took a similar approach with respect to the other three causes of action resolved by the jury.
Note:	California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that a former airport custodian failed to prove his disability discrimination claims, as a matter of law.
Citation:	B264675
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC486269

Case Name:	Whittier Union High School District v. Haven Construction, Inc.		02/17/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN No. B203237 February 17, 2009 WHITTIER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. HAVEN CONSTRUCTION, INC. , DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Larson & Gaston and Alisa E. Sandoval for Plaintiff and Appellant Whittier Union High School District. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Inez Oliva and her employer Whittier Union High School District (Whittier) appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Haven Construction, Inc. (Haven) after a jury returned a special verdict finding Haven was not negligent in constructing a staircase on which Oliva fell and sustained injuries. Whittier asked Haven to construct wooden stairs to make the trailer accessible for Oliva and others until the seismic retrofitting was complete. On October 25, 2005 Whittier sued Haven alleging negligence and seeking reimbursement for the $120,181. 16 in workers compensation benefits it had paid to Oliva.
Note:	A trial court erroneously refused to allow jury instructions on the doctrine of negligence per se in a case featuring an employer and an injured worker's suits alleging that a construction company built faulty wooden stairs.
Citation:	B203237
WCC Citation:	WCC 34932009 CA

Case Name:	Wiley v. WCAB		05/21/2008
Summary:	-ooOoo- Alvin Wiley petitions for a writ of review to inquire into and determine the lawfulness of the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Rules of Court, rule 8. 494. ) Wiley contends the WCAB erred in concluding a two-year limit on workers' compensation temporary disability (TD) benefits enacted as part of the 2004 workers' compensation reforms (Sen. Bill No. 899 (2003-2004 Reg. Following our recent decision in Brooks v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 1522 [75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 277] (Brooks), we conclude the WCAB appropriately limited Wiley to a combined total of two-years of enhanced IDL and TD benefits. The parties stipulated that Wiley nevertheless remained totally temporary disabled through the time of a May 3, 2007, workers' compensation hearing. Finding there was not any significant statutory distinction between regular and enhanced IDL, the WCAB disagreed with the WCJ and concluded Wiley was entitled to only 104 weeks of combined TD and enhanced IDL.
Note:	[Unpublished] Whether or not enhanced IDL results in payment of full salary, payment of enhanced IDL benefits equals payment of temporary disability indemnity, for purposes of the section 4656(c)(1) limitation on temporary disability indemnity.'
Citation:	F053859
WCC Citation:	WCC 33712008 CA