Case Name:	Mejia-Gutierrez v. Comcast of California III		01/28/2013
Summary:	MEJIA-GUTIERREZ v. COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA III, INC. BERNARDINO MEJIA-GUTIERREZ et al. , Plaintiffs, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervener and Appellant, v. COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA III, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. He did not rely on any Comcast employee to determine the safety of the jobsite because he had already made that determination. AC Square, not Comcast, instructed AC Square employees on how to use a ladder when replacing a drop line. Comcast has a system of cable wire inspection, the purpose of which is "safety for everyone," including employees and subcontractors. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent, Comcast of California III, Inc. Lambden, J. and Richman, J. , concurs.
Note:	A contractor was not liable as a matter of law, for injuries sustained by an employee of one of its subcontractors in a fall from a ladder.
Citation:	A132933
WCC Citation:	WCC 39782013 CA

Case Name:	Melman v. PDF Solutions, Inc.		03/22/2013
Summary:	MELMAN v. PDF SOLUTIONS, INC. PHILIP STEVEN MELMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PDF SOLUTIONS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. In March 2009, Kibarian offered Melman employment through December 31, 2009, at his current salary plus 30,000 shares of PDF. In December 2008, Melman voluntarily began negotiations with PDF to end his employment in exchange for an increase in his PDF stock options. According to Melman, the investigator's notes include the following statements: "(1) PDF Board Chairman Lucio Lanza, Audit Chair Steve Heinrichs, and Board Member Albert Yu discussed their desire to fire Steve Melman at one or more PDF Board meetings. Melman argues that "because these statements demonstrated the discriminatory animus of PDF decision-makers, [he] should have prevailed on summary judgment. "
Note:	A former corporate officer with multiple sclerosis could not prove that his company terminated him on the basis of his disability as a matter of law.
Citation:	H037703
WCC Citation:	WCC 39962013 CA

Case Name:	Mendez v. LAUSD		04/09/2013
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. WILLHITE, J. Elvira Tapia Mendez appeals from a summary judgment in favor of respondents Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and Marcia Koff, the principal of the school where Mendez worked. In the first week of October 2010, Mendez refused to proceed with the workers compensation claim the LAUSD had filed on her behalf. In March 2011, Mendez sued Koff for assault and battery and the LAUSD for wrongful termination under Labor Code section 1102. 5, subdivision (b). Mendez argues a jury could find she was terminated by principal Koff or someone at a higher level at the LAUSD who knew of her complaints. But the LAUSD carried its burden when it showed Mendez was laid off as a result of the RIF process.
Note:	A Los Angeles Unified School District clerk who decided to file a civil action against her employer and an elementary school teacher who she says attacked her instead of filing a workers' compensation claim is not entitled to a tort claim.
Citation:	B240919
WCC Citation:	WCC 40002013 CA

Case Name:	Mendiola v. Crestwood Behavioral Health		12/31/1969
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT  (Sacramento)  ---- .             CHRISTINE MENDIOLA, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. .             C082345 .             (Super. Ct. No. 34-2013- 00147943-CU-WT-GDS) .             Plaintiff Christine Mendiola worked with mentally ill residents in a locked facility at defendant Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. (Crestwood). .             On July 11, 2011, Mendiola was working the night shift and monitoring three clients on the patio during a smoke break. Crestwood failed to report the attack to the Department of Mental Health, its successor the Department of Social Services, or the county’s mental health director.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a health care worker was limited to a remedy through workers’ compensation for her injuries from an assault by a mentally ill patient.
Citation:	C082345
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 34-2013- 00147943-CU-WT-GDS

Case Name:	Mendoza v. Brodeur		08/18/2006
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE ERNESTO MENDOZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GLENN BRODEUR, Defendant and Respondent. Defendant Glenn Brodeur hired plaintiff Ernesto Mendoza, an unlicensed roofer, to replace his roof. Plaintiff claims that defendant and his handyman, Robert Harris, approached plaintiff and asked him to work on defendant's roof. Section 3352 excludes certain persons from the section 3351 definitions of "employee," and thus excludes them from workers' compensation coverage. In his negligence cause of action, plaintiff alleged: "Plaintiff was hired as an employee by Defendant Brodeur to do roofing work on Defendant's home.
Note:	It was was premature to require the employee to come forward with evidence to show a triable issue of fact when the employer had not shifted the evidentiary burden.
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 72
WCC Citation:	WCC 31742006 CA

Case Name:	Mendoza v. Huntington Hospital		06/03/2010
Summary:	ADJ6820138 ADJ6820197 AMELIA MENDOZA, Applicant, vs. HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, Permissibly Self-Insured; and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). (EN BANC) We granted the petition for removal filed by applicant, Amelia Mendoza, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem and Trustee, Rafael Mendoza. *fn5 Applicant worked as a patient case associate for Huntington Hospital (Huntington). Applicant argued that the matter should be set for trial on the threshold issues of industrial injury and employment. *fn6 Applicant filed a timely petition requesting that the Appeals Board remove this matter to itself under section 5310 and WCAB Rule 10843.
Note:	[En Banc] AD Rule 30(d)(3) is invalid because it conflicts with sections 4060(c) and 4062.2 and exceeds the scope of section 5402(b).
Citation:	ADJ6820138
WCC Citation:	WCC 36342010 CA

Case Name:	Mendoza v. United Air Lines		08/05/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR LOUISA MENDOZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. CGC-05-439627) Appellant Louisa Mendoza (Mendoza) brought suit against respondents United Air Lines, Inc. (United) and Tish DeVere (DeVere) after her employment was terminated. The trial court granted United and DeVere's motion for judgment pursuant to a settlement by proposed order. She continued to work in her position until January 2003, when United expressed concern that because of her injury, she might be unable to perform her work tasks. The trial court had evidence to support its implied finding that Mendoza knew of the content of the proposed order.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because Mendoza failed to give any notice of intent to contest the tentative ruling, she waived her right to challenge that ruling.
Citation:	A122632
WCC Citation:	WCC 35502009 CA

Case Name:	Mercer-Fraser Co. v. IAC		01/06/1953
Summary:	The prefabricated wooden structure here involved was one of three units, A, B, and C, being constructed by petitioner for the Hammond Lumber Company. Hammond supplied the materials and hardware and prefabricated the lumber, and petitioner supplied the construction 'know-how' and the men for the job. Each unit, when completed, was to be approximately 500 feet long in a north- south direction and 192 feet wide. Units A and B, standing side by side, were up and all of the bracing, except for the roof panels, was in. Brushing aside the sophistry with which the majority opinion is replete, what are the realities of the situation here presented?
Note:	Employer's duty for safe workplace not absolute as to liability under 4553.
Citation:	40 Cal.2d 102, 18 CCC 3
WCC Citation:	WCC 24101953 CA

Case Name:	Mercier vs. WCAB, City of Los Angeles		04/20/1976
Summary:	PATRICK F. MERCIER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents In Bank. [16 Cal. 3d 713] Frank H. Batlin, Philip M. Miyamoto, Thomas J. McBirnie, Charles L. Swezey, Burt Pines, City Attorney, John T. Neville and H. John Wittorff, Assistant City Attorneys, and William G. Lorenzetti, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondents. OPINION CLARK, J. Petitioner seeks annulment of a workers' compensation award apportioning part of his permanent disability to a prior industrial injury. In 1970 petitioner, a Los Angeles police officer, suffered an industrial injury to his back. In 1971 petitioner was found to have suffered an industrially related heart disability occurring over the entire period of employment with the city, 1949 to 1971.
Note:	Where factors of disability from different injuries overlap apportionment is applicable.
Citation:	16 Cal.3d 711
WCC Citation:	WCC 29761976 CA

Case Name:	Merritt v. Equinox Fitness Woodland Hills, Inc.		12/27/2018
Summary:	_________________________ INTRODUCTION David Merritt sued his former employer, Equinox Fitness Woodland Hills and Equinox Fitness, Inc. (collectively, Equinox), for disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900, et seq. 1 The trial court granted Equinox’s motion for summary adjudication on the FEHA-based claims, concluding the undisputed facts established that Merritt did not suffer from a “disability” as defined by FEHA, and that Equinox terminated his employment for a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. Merritt’s Employment as a Personal Trainer for Equinox On September 25, 2012, Equinox hired Merritt as a personal trainer at its Woodland Hills gym. Merritt reported to the personal trainer manager, Cameron McGarr; fitness managers, Don Powers and Jana King; and the gym’s general manager, Chris Wellbaum. In mid-January 2013, Equinox approved and paid for Merritt to participate in a new training program, “Animal Flow. ” After completing the training, Merritt conducted weekly presentations on Animal Flow for gym clients. On July 5, 2013, King notified Merritt that Equinox had decided to terminate his employment.
Note:	A California appellate court revived an injured personal trainer’s discrimination action against his former employer, finding that he was disabled for purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	B266534
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC532180

Case Name:	Messele v. Pitco Foods, Inc.		09/26/2011
Summary:	[Editor's Note: On Nov. 4, the Appeals Board issued an en banc decision saying its holding in Messele v. Pitco Foods Inc. should only apply to requests made after Sept. 26, the day it issued the first en banc Messele decision. ]Relying on Poster v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 266 (Poster), and distinguishing Camper v. Workers' Comp. In his Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ recommended that we grant removal and find both panel requests premature. DISCUSSION We note initially that applicants petition seeks reconsideration of a Finding of Fact determining which QME panel was properly assigned. Applicants petition should have requested removal instead of reconsideration, and we erred in granting reconsideration instead of removal.
Note:	A Sept. 27 decision by the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has opened a can of worms for the Division of Workers' Compensation, which is now giving attorneys an opportunity to request new qualified medical evaluator panels if the previous panels weren't selected according to the timing endorsed by the WCAB.
Citation:	ADJ7232076
WCC Citation:	WCC 38172011 CA

Case Name:	Messenger Courier Association of the Americas, et al. v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board		07/15/2009
Summary:	Filed 7/15/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MESSENGER COURIER ASSOCIATION OF THE AMERICAS, et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. We review a trial court judgment denying declaratory relief to plaintiffs and appellants Messenger Courier Association of the Americas and California Delivery Association (plaintiff). Plaintiff sought declaratory relief that would have invalidated a precedential decision by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board). The Unemployment Insurance Code also provides disability benefits to compensate eligible persons for unemployment caused by injury or sickness. =========FOOTNOTES========= All further statutory references or references to the code are to the Unemployment Insurance Code unless otherwise indicated.
Note:	An appellate court issued a published decision upholding the application of S.G. Borello & Sons to cases outside the workers' comp arena.
Citation:	D053391
WCC Citation:	WCC 35422009 CA

Case Name:	Messinese vs. Automatic Heating; SCIF		05/21/2004
Summary:	[FN 2] Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury on April 14, 2003, while employed by Automatic Heating, which was then insured by SCIF. On August 18, 2003, County Child Support Services sent SCIF the earnings assignment order at issue here. Applicant sought penalties against SCIF under Labor Code sections 4650(d) and 5814, plus sanctions and attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5813. Code, ?Code, ?
Note:	Child support orders against past and future indemnity enforceable without WCJ signature.
Citation:	68 CCC 480; Panel
WCC Citation:	WCC 29872004 CA

Case Name:	Meza v. Aerol		10/06/2011
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Defendant, Aerol Corporation, Inc. , appeals from a judgment which was entered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Rodolfo Meza, on an age and disability discrimination complaint. Mr. Meza lives with plaintiff. Mr. Meza described plaintiff as sad and withdrawn from activities. According to Mr. Meza, plaintiff became "teary eyed" when discussing losing the opportunity to work. Plaintiff, Rodolfo Meza, is awarded his costs and reasonable attorney fees from defendant, Aerol Corporation, Inc. ARMSTRONG, J. and KRIEGLER, J. , concurs.
Note:	The defendant forfeited its challenges to the damages award by failing to object or file a motion for a new trial at the trial court. Regardless, substantial evidence supported the jury's $467,000 award.
Citation:	B228865
WCC Citation:	WCC 38102011 CA

Case Name:	Miceli vs. Jacuzzi, Inc.; Remedy Temp, Inc.		03/28/2003
Summary:	OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) INTRODUCTION Jacuzzi, Inc. (Jacuzzi) contracted with Remedy Temp, Inc. (Remedy Temp), a temporary staffing agency, to supply temporary employees to Jacuzzi. Temporary employee Mark Miceli was on Remedy Temp's payroll and working at a Jacuzzi jobsite when he sustained an industrial injury. Pursuant to Remedy Temp's contract with Jacuzzi to provide employees to help meet Jacuzzi's temporary staffing needs, Miceli was on Remedy Temp's payroll, not on Jacuzzi's payroll. Jacuzzi was included as an "alternate employer" in the "alternate employer endorsement" contained within the policy between Remedy Temp and Reliance. Jacuzzi, Inc. and Remedy Temp have joint and several liability for the compensation benefits to the injured employee.
Note:	Policy of special employer is 'other insurance' absolving CIGA of liability.
Citation:	68 CCC 434 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29252003 CA

Case Name:	Miceli vs. Jacuzzi; RemedyTemp, Inc.		05/12/2006
Summary:	The petition filed by Assurance for reimbursement of costs it claims to have incurred in the Court of Appeal proceeding is dismissed. Reliance, for RemedyTemp, admitted the industrial injury to applicant and began to provide workers' compensation benefits. On October 31, 2002, the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued the Findings and Order in this case. In December 2002, defendants Jacuzzi, RemedyTemp and Assurance all petitioned for reconsideration of the October 31, 2002 Findings and Order. However, Assurance, RemedyTemp and Jacuzzi timely petitioned for rehearing and those petitions were granted by the Court of Appeal.
Note:	Consolidation of cases on issue of CIGA liability for exclusions from the workers' compensation policy of the special employer must be tried on individual basis.
Citation:	71 CCC 599 (2006)
WCC Citation:	WCC 31562006 CA

Case Name:	Michael v. Denbeste Transp., Inc.		03/23/2006
Summary:	At the time of the Subhaul Agreement, Michael had no employees, and he was required to notify Denbeste if he needed to hire any employees. Michael could work for other haulers if Denbeste had no work for him, but the Subhaul Agreement prohibited him from using Denbeste's trailer on other jobs. Sometime before January 18, 2002, Michael discussed with Denbeste the possibility of using a newer trailer on which Michael could install an automatic tarping system. The court determined that Denbeste could not be held liable to Michael for its own negligence because Michael contractually assumed the risk of any such negligence. The provisions of the Subhaul Agreement required that Michael wear protective clothing, and a Denbeste employee made certain that Michael complied.
Note:	Privette doctrine applies where an injured plaintiff is an independent contractor of an independent contractor.
Citation:	137 Cal. App. 4th 1082
WCC Citation:	WCC 31502006 CA

Case Name:	Midas Recovery Services, Inc. v. WCAB		06/20/1997
Summary:	MIDAS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BANK et al. , Respondents. 1 Petitioner also seeks review of the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denying its petition for reconsideration. We find that the order of the workers' compensation judge and the board's order denying reconsideration were in error. It was later stipulated by the parties that he was temporarily totally disabled from March 24, 1991, to August 10, 1992. The matter is remanded to allow entry of an award in favor of petitioner consistent with the views expressed herein.
Note:	Reimbursement is paid at rate in effect when payments are made, not during actual disability period.
Citation:	55 Cal.App.4th 1321, 62 CCC 763
WCC Citation:	WCC 25231997 CA

Case Name:	Mihesuah v. WCAB		02/25/1976
Summary:	HENRY E. MIHESUAH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and UNION OIL COMPANY, Respondents (Opinion by Rattigan, Acting P. J. , with Christian, J. , and Emerson, J. , concurring. )OPINION RATTIGAN, Acting P. J. Petitioner Henry E. Mihesuah received multiple injuries in an industrial accident. (Mihesuah v. Workmen's Comp. (See Mihesuah v. Workmen's Comp. Both requests were made and returned on a form designated "DIA WCAB Form 75 (rev.
Note:	The MDT is only a guide and the disability evaluator may rely on his expertise only.
Citation:	55 Cal.App.3d 720; 41 CCC 181
WCC Citation:	WCC 28631976 CA

Case Name:	Miklosy v. The Regents		07/31/2008
Summary:	Filed 7/31/08 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA LES G. MIKLOSY et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Alameda County Defendants and Respondents. We have observed that 'Article IX, section 9, grants the [R]egents broad powers to organize and govern the university and limits the Legislature's power to regulate either the university or the [R]egents. (Ishimatsu v. Regents of University of California (1968) 266 Cal. App. 2d 854, 864; see also Apte v. Regents of University of California (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 1084, 1091. )(Regents of University of California v. City of Santa Monica (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 130, 135, citing Hamilton v. Regents (1934) 293 U. S. Name of Opinion Miklosy v. Regents of University of California Unpublished Opinion NP opn.
Note:	The alleged wrongful conduct occurred at the worksite, in the normal course of the employer-employee relationship, and therefore workers' compensation is plaintiffs' exclusive remedy for any injury that may have resulted.
Citation:	RG04140484
WCC Citation:	WCC 34062008 CA

Case Name:	Miklosy v. The Regents of the University of California Part 1/2		07/31/2018
Summary:	Filed 7/31/08 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA .             LES G. MIKLOSY et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             S139133 .             Ct. App. 1/4 A107711 .             Alameda County Super. .             Plaintiffs Leo Miklosy and Luciana Messina are computer scientists who, in February 2003, were employed by the Regents of the University of California (hereafter the University of California or the University), filling positions at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (the Laboratory). As we explained in Campbell: “The California Constitution establishes the Regents [i. e. , the University of California] as a ‘public trust . (Ishimatsu v. Regents of University of California (1968) 266 Cal. App. 2d 854, 864; see also Apte v. Regents of University of California (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 1084, 1091. )
Note:
Citation:	S139133
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG04140484

Case Name:	Miklosy v. The Regents of the University of California Part 2/2		07/31/2018
Summary:	“It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered. ” (People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 1250, 1268, fn. the university has failed to reach a decision regarding that complaint within the time limits established for that purpose by the regents. ” (§ 8547. 10, subd. The Legislature recognized and met the need for independent review by expressly authorizing civil claims for retaliation by state agencies, the University of California, and the California State University. opn. , ante, at p. 14), whereas the new statute, former section 10550, did not require the University to hold hearings on whistleblower retaliation complaints. The difference is important, because adverse State Personnel Board findings after an evidentiary hearing were presumably reviewable for substantial evidence, while University findings were not.
Note:
Citation:	S139133
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG04140484

Case Name:	Milan v. City of Holtville		06/23/2010
Summary:	FACTUAL BACKGROUND In April 1998 Tanya Milan began work as a water treatment operator for the City of Holtville (the city). Nonetheless, Milan believed she was still employed by the city because she was in fact receiving a regular pay check from the city, even though she had not returned to work. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 30, 2005, Milan filed a complaint against the city alleging it had violated FEHA Milan argued the city violated FEHA by failing to determine whether it could provide effective accommodations for Milan's disability. Milan opposed the motion, arguing that in light of Dr. Korsh's opinion, the city had an obligation under FEHA to contact Milan and determine whether it could accommodate her disability. The city contends that notwithstanding the fact Milan was given notice the city did not believe she could return to her job, there is no evidence in the record Milan ever requested any accommodation or even expressed to the city any desire to return to her former job.
Note:	[Unpublished] The record will not support the trial court's finding of liability under FEHA. Rather, the trial court should have granted the city's motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8
Citation:	D054139
WCC Citation:	WCC 36422010 CA

Case Name:	Milbauer vs. Boostan; UEF		12/18/2003
Summary:	It appears that UEF has done little to alleviate that confusion, although UEF has been an active participant in these proceedings since at least 1996. On October 17, 1996, UEF appeared by counsel at a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC), at which UEF was formally joined as a party defendant. UEF offered no evidence that "American Runner Attorney Service, Inc. ," (or any other entity) was the correct legal identity of the employer. At that time, UEF again appeared and the issues were framed, including the correct legal identity of the employer. For convenience, we will refer to both UEF and the Office of the Director, Legal Unit, as "UEF. "
Note:	Active participation of UEF required in identifying correct employer; Sanctions available vs. UEF
Citation:	68 CCC 1834
WCC Citation:	WCC 29632003 CA

Case Name:	Millard v. Biosources, Inc.		11/15/2007
Summary:	No Biosources personnel were working or present at the project when Millard fell from the attic space. As first aid was being rendered to Millard immediately following the incident, Millard informed his coworker, Tyler Sterling, that the lights in the attic had "flickered" before he fell. Some time later, Millard told another Apex coworker, Paul Perry, the lights in the attic had flickered. At his deposition, Millard denied telling anyone that the lights flickered and testified that the lights had gone out. Finally, the court found that Millard failed to "submit admissible evidence to raise a material issue of fact that Privette does not apply or that [Biosources] owed [Millard] a duty due to retained control. "
Note:	Because the appellant failed to allege that he was entitled to rely on a presumption of negligence under a theory of negligence per se and did not ask permission to amend his complaint to do so in response to the appellee's motion for summary judgment, the court properly granted the motion.
Citation:	156 Cal. App. 4th 1338
WCC Citation:	WCC 32762007 CA

Case Name:	Millbauer vs. Boostan; UEF		03/10/2004
Summary:	UEF expressly states that it "does not contest" the affirmance of the WCJ's finding regarding the correct legal identity of applicant's employer. Indeed, UEF specifically acknowledges that these procedures were announced with the intent "to change how UEF cases are handled in the future. "Thus, as to this case, UEF is not "aggrieved" by any part of our decision. Here, although the Appeals Board's affirmance of the correct legal identity of applicant's employer constitutes a "final" order, UEF again expressly "does not contest" this determination. No substantive right or liability of UEF was determined by these procedures in this case.
Note:	Pronouncement of procedures to be used in future cases are not final orders from which reconsideration may be taken.
Citation:	69 CCC 246; En Banc
WCC Citation:	WCC 29752004 CA

Case Name:	Miller v. Filter		05/08/2007
Summary:	Ct. No. 6293) MICHAEL M. MILLER et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. GALE FILTER et al. , Defendants and Appellants. On November 6, 2000, Mark Fussell died in a workplace accident, while Miller was director of the Mine. Filter, Hedum, Mejlszenkier, and Patchett then prosecuted Miller and the Mine, alleging that Fussell's death was caused by the willful violation of occupational safety standards. Filter and Mejlszenkier presented the case to the Sierra County Grand Jury, and Patchett served as the grand jury advisor. Miller and the Mine (plaintiffs) then sued Filter, Hedum, Mejlszenkier, Patchett, and CDAA (defendants) for malicious prosecution, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent employment and supervision.
Note:	CDAA and its deputized employees were absolutely immune from liability in the lawsuit against them and, thus, the trial court should have granted their anti-SLAPP motion.
Citation:	150 Cal. App. 4th 652
WCC Citation:	WCC 32222007 CA

Case Name:	Miller v. WCAB		07/27/2011
Summary:	Miller reported to the Hospital on March 18, 2008, at 10:00 p. m. and was scheduled work until 8:00 a. m. the next morning. Walker arrived an hour after Miller and asked her to distribute medications in the male sexual offender unit. Miller petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration. *fn2 A two-member majority of the reviewing WCAB panel adopted and incorporated the WCJs Report and Recommendation, affirming that the WCJs conclusion that Walkers directions to Miller barred her psychological claim as a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. Nothing in this opinion should be construed as expressing any opinion of this court as to whether, or to what extent, Miller sustained a psychological injury, as that decision has not been reached by the WCAB.
Note:	A split California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel decision did not sufficiently explain its reasoning about why Labor Code 3208.3 barred a registered nurse's psyche claim, a California appellate court ruled.
Citation:	F060092
WCC Citation:	WCC 37862011 CA

Case Name:	Mills v. WCAB		06/20/2008
Summary:	-ooOoo- *Before Ardaiz, P. J. , Wiseman, J. , and Gomes, J. Roger Mills petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Rules of Court, rule 8. 494. ) Mills contends the WCAB misconstrued the law of apportionment as amended by Senate Bill No. 899 (Stats 2004, ch. Mills filed an application for adjudication of claim with the WCAB in April 2004, and the parties obtained a significant amount of discovery. The WCJ filed a report and recommendation to the WCAB recommending the WCAB deny reconsideration. Accordingly, the WCAB agreed with the WCJ's finding that Mills was entitled to only a 40 percent disability award.
Note:	The new apportionment provisions in Senate Bill No. 899 became effective immediately and must be applied to all pending cases 'not yet final at the time of the legislative enactment on April 19, 2004, regardless of the earlier dates of injury and any interim decision.'
Citation:	F054144
WCC Citation:	WCC 33862008 CA

Case Name:	Millsaps v. Doehrman Company, Inc.		04/11/2011
Summary:	Plaintiff Derrick Millsaps appeals from a 2010 postjudgment order granting nearly $40,000 in costs, including expert witness fees, to defendant Doehrman Company, Inc. (Doehrman). Millsaps sued Doehrman for negligent installation of the equipment. Doehrman made a pretrial offer to compromise to Millsaps pursuant to section 998. It offered to pay Millsaps $50,000, in exchange for (among other things) Millsaps' dismissal of the action against Doehrman, and his "agree[ment] to indemnify and hold harmless DOEHRMAN COMPANY, INC. from any and all claims or liens asserted by intervener PEP BOYS, INC. " The action proceeded to jury trial in 2006; Doehrman prevailed after a jury found it did not install the equipment that caused Millsaps' injury. Even had Millsaps settled the underlying personal injury claim against Doehrman, Pep Boys' complaint in intervention could have proceeded to trial.
Note:	An injured worker's products liability suit will cost him $40,000 in costs because he rejected a settlement offer and subsequently failed to prove his case.
Citation:	C064390
WCC Citation:	WCC 37432011 CA