Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library



 
Case Name: County of San Joaquin vs. WCAB (Sepulveda) 04/21/2004
Summary: COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. , Respondents. Paragraph 6 recites "PERMANENT DISABILITY INDEMNITY" of $2,442. 87 will be deducted, "LEAVING A BALANCE of $ $21,55713, less approved attorney fee . Vons Companies, Inc. v. WCAB (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 276 (Vons) is a Court of Appeal opinion not published in the California Official Reports. DISPOSITION The WCAB decision is annulled and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. County of San Joaquin shall recover costs on this appeal.
Note: Carrier may take credit for PDAs not specifically set forth in C&R.
Citation: 117 Cal.App.4th 1180
WCC Citation: WCC 29842004 CA
 
 
Case Name: County of San Luis Obispo v. WCAB (Martinez) 09/29/2005
Summary: The County of San Luis Obispo (County) petitions for a writ of review to determine the lawfulness of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding the County discriminated against its employee, Art Martinez, for sustaining a work-related injury. )*fn1 The County contends it permissibly took Martinez off work because his medical restrictions were inconsistent with the requirements of his job. Based on Dr. Kissel's revised opinion, the County permitted Martinez to return to work on February 23, 2003. The WCAB also erred by focusing on what the County knew at the time it returned Martinez to work. The WCAB also found discrimination because the County did not obtain an additional medical opinion before it terminated Martinez.
Note: To establish discrimination, an employee must show that he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment because of his injury.
Citation: 133 Cal. App. 4th 641
WCC Citation: WCC 31272005 CA
 
 
Case Name: County of San Mateo v. WCAB 07/13/1982
Summary: COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WENDY R. WARREN, Respondents. This petition by the County of San Mateo challenges an award of enhanced disability benefits granted under the authority of Labor Code section 4850. fn. The county paid temporary disability benefits, but at the normal rate of $154 per week, not at a rate equal to Ms. Warren's salary. Petitioner relies heavily upon the decision in Collins v. County of Los Angeles (1976) 55 Cal. App. 3d 594 [126 Cal. Rptr. 541]. He sought writ of mandate to compel the county to pay him his full salary in lieu of temporary disability payments.
Note: Not entitled to full salary leave of absence when injury occurred after nonmedical resignation.
Citation: 133 Cal.App.3d 737, 47 CCC 739
WCC Citation: WCC 26791982 CA
 
 
Case Name: County of Ventura v. WCAB 10/04/1993
Summary: County of Ventura, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Evangelina Anaya, et al. , Respondents. County asserts that the WCAB should have ordered Dr. Sanchez to reimburse County for at least 75 percent and possibly 100 percent of the temporary disability indemnity and past medical treatment costs for which County paid. n2 The WCAB case number for the application against County is VEN 78908. n4 As previously noted, WCAB case No. VEN 78908 is the case against County. n5 As previously noted, WCAB case No. VEN 78908 is the case against County.
Note: Right to arbitration on 'contribution' issues is waived if not timely raised.
Citation: 58 CCC 649
WCC Citation: WCC 26251993 CA
 
 
Case Name: Courtney v. City of Redondo Beach 02/27/2008
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT TERI COURTNEY et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, Defendant and Respondent. Teri Courtney and Lillian Ballinger were long-term employees who worked for the City of Redondo Beach in its police department as jailers. In accordance with Dr. Berman's conclusions, the City asked Courtney to return to work on March 4, 2003. In December 2004, Courtney, Ballinger, Jo Ellen Latham (an identification technician for the police department), and Elizabeth Blatt filed this lawsuit against the City of Redondo Beach, alleging numerous violations of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The City of Redondo Beach is to recover its costs on appeal.
Note: [Unpublished] The City did not violate its legal duty to reassign Plaintiffs to another equivalent job for which they were qualified because the evidence showed no such positions were available when they were terminated.
Citation: B192927
WCC Citation: WCC 33222008 CA
 
 
Case Name: Cox v. San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Dept. 03/28/2012
Summary: EDWARD COX, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Edward Cox appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department (Department). But in his prior deposition, Cox was asked, "Do you believe that your cerebral palsy restricts you from doing things?"That memorandum reflects that Thompson told Cox that he was not performing well and he asked Cox "if there was anything [he] could do to help [Cox] improve. "Cox responded, "No. " Cox claimed Moore unfairly criticized him for making an incorrect time entry on a log.
Note: A sheriff's deputy terminated during his new-hire probationary period failed to prove his claim of disability discrimination based upon his alleged cerebral palsy.
Citation: B231260
WCC Citation: WCC 38792012 CA
 
 
Case Name: Cranford v. City of Huntington Beach 03/02/2012
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION O'LEARY, P. J. Catherine Denise Cranford appeals from the judgment in her action against her former employer, the City of Huntington Beach (the City). Herrera retaliated against Cranford by repeatedly complaining to Miller about Cranford's job performance and constantly confronting Cranford about job-related matters. When Cranford tried to "chastise the officer for violating the prisoner's right of privacy[,]" the officer looked at Cranford "dismissively . Cranford claimed Herrera made a "`preemptive strike'" by telling Miller she was considering filing a complaint against Cranford, which coerced Cranford into not filing a formal complaint against Herrera. There is no evidence the City Attorney had any knowledge of the animosity between Cranford and Herrera, or of any complaints Cranford made to Miller.
Note: A municipal employer's release of medical information from an employee's workers' compensation claim file did not constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of the state Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation: G043791
WCC Citation: WCC 38672012 CA
 
 
Case Name: Crawford v. WCAB 06/13/1989
Summary: Dr. Crawford then petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition restraining further proceedings by the WCAB. 1 An additional 13 counts charge Dr. Crawford with deceit in failing to identify the persons who prepared medical reports and in willfully misrepresenting to the WCAB that Dr. Crawford alone took medical histories and prepared the reports. Another count (35) charges that Dr. Crawford filed false medical reports and liens in two other workers' compensation [213 Cal. App. 3d 163] cases (Robert J. Kelley v. Panama Moving and Storage, WCAB No. 85 LA 525604, and Robert J. Kelley v. Goldrich & Kest Management, WCAB Nos. Based on the accusation and accompanying exhibits, the WCAB ordered that Dr. Crawford appear before a WCAB commissioner at a certain time and place and show cause, if any, why he should not be held in contempt pursuant to Labor Code section 134. The WCAB states: 'It is a policy of the [WCAB] to conduct an investigation of all charges of impropriety against persons involved in [WCAB] proceedings before considering whether an order to show cause regarding contempt should issue.
Note: WCAB has wide latitude in enforcement of contempt findings.
Citation: 213 Cal.App.3d 156, 54 CCC 198
WCC Citation: WCC 25651989 CA
 
 
Case Name: Creative Environments of Hollywood v. USF Ins. Co. 08/20/2012
Summary: CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTS OF HOLLYWOOD v. USF INS. CO. CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTS OF HOLLYWOOD et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. USF INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiffs and appellants Creative Environments of Hollywood and 201 Westmoreland Associates, Ltd. (collectively Contractor), appeals from summary judgments in favor of defendants and respondents USF Insurance Company (Insurer) and its agent Burns & Wilcox, Ltd. (Agent). I dissent as to the summary judgment in favor of USF Insurance Company (USF). Thus, as interpreted by USF, the policy, having a total cost of over $5,000, is almost illusory.
Note: An insurance carrier had no duty to defend its client from a claim by an injured plumbing subcontractor for maintaining an unsafe work environment since the plain language of its policy specifically excluded coverage for bodily injury to such workers arising out of their employment.
Citation: B232436
WCC Citation: WCC 39222012 CA
 
 
Case Name: Criswell v. WCAB 02/20/2009
Summary: At a July 16, 2008, hearing in which Criswell testified, the WCJ immediately ruled Criswell was entitled to left ankle surgery along with the left knee surgery as described by Dr. Pistel at the County's expense. The WCAB granted the County's petition for reconsideration and in a split decision, the majority disagreed with the WCJ and concluded Criswell failed to meet her burden of proving industrial causation with reasonably probability. Accordingly, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's order and concluded Criswell was not entitled to the left ankle surgery described by Dr. Pistel at defendant's expense. Criswell contends the WCAB majority failed to consider Dr. Pistel's medical opinion that the left ankle surgery would aid her recovery from the industrially related knee surgery in denying the concurrent ankle surgery. While we agree with Criswell that the WCAB provided little reasoning related to this argument, the majority's decision is supported by the medical evidence.
Note: WCAB's decision not to order surgery supported by substantial evidence and applicant's effective waiver of the issue in adopting a stipulated award.
Citation: F056510
WCC Citation: WCC 34942009 CA
 
1706 Results Page 40 of 171