Case Name:	Hartsuiker v. WCAB		01/11/1993
Summary:	RUSSELL HARTSUIKER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HARTSUIKER & CO. et al. , Respondents. We now conclude that the WCAB does not have authority to reserve jurisdiction to make such an award more than five years after the date of injury. On December 15, 1991, the WCAB issued its opinion and order denying a petition for reconsideration. The WCAB continued: 'Ruffin also contends that jurisdiction should be reserved in his case to award further temporary disability indemnity. Also, as observed by the Court of Appeal, the WCAB did not reserve jurisdiction to award Nickelsberg further temporary total disability.
Note:	No WCAB continuing jurisdiction to award disability for hospitalization more than 5 years after injury.
Citation:	12 Cal.App.4th 209, 58 CCC 19
WCC Citation:	WCC 26671993 CA

Case Name:	Hastings vs. Dept of Corrections		07/22/2003
Summary:	WALTER W. HASTINGS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant and Respondent. 8 and alleged that he requested an accommodation for an alternate position with CDC to which he never received a formal response. (Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1001; Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 935, 951 (Prilliman). )B. Prima Facie Case under the FEHA The FEHA makes it "an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification . By its terms it is conditional: "Dear Correctional Officer Candidate: The California Department of Corrections is extending you a conditional offer of employment to Correctional Officer.
Note:	A government employee alleging discrimination on the basis of physical disability must comply with the civil service requirements for the position sought for accommodation.
Citation:	110 Cal.App. 4th 963
WCC Citation:	WCC 29522003 CA

Case Name:	Hawkins v. Amberwood Products		06/13/2007
Summary:	CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD En banc decision Case No. SAL 0107814 Valeri Hawkins, Applicant, vs. Amberwood Products and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendants Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration (En Banc) INTRODUCTION We granted defendant's petition for reconsideration of the September 5, 2006 Findings and Award to study the legal issue presented. It is admitted that applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury to her spine while employed by Amberwood Products during a period ending July 16, 2004. FACTS As shown by the minutes, the following facts were stipulated at the hearing on August 14, 2006: "(1) Applicant, born 2/21/57, sustained injury on a cumulative trauma basis ending 7/16/04 to her cervical spine while working for Amberwood Products, then insured for workers' compensation by State Compensation Insurance Fund. (People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 999, 1007 ("Leal") (internal quotations omitted); see also Nickelsberg v. Workers' Comp. The system is intended to automatically provide an injured worker with medical treatment and temporary disability indemnity without delay.
Note:	The limit of 104 compensable weeks within two years described in section 4656(c)(1) begins on the date temporary disability indemnity is first paid.
Citation:	72 CCC 807
WCC Citation:	WCC 32302007 CA

Case Name:	Hawkins v. Travelers Insurance, et al.		03/23/2011
Summary:	JOE PAT HAWKINS et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RIVERA, J. Joe Pat Hawkins (Hawkins) and Paula Hawkins, in propria persona, appeal from judgments of dismissal after orders sustaining demurrers to their first amended complaint. Along with Levitz, Hawkins named as defendants Travelers Insurance and Travelers Property Casualty Insurance (Travelers); Hanna, Brophy, McAlleer & Jensen, LLP (Hanna, Brophy); Francie Lehmer; Richard Foley; Richard Jacobsmeyer; James Vandersloot (Vandersloot); Vincent Scotto; and Scotto's legal assistant, Timothy Egan (Egan); the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)1; and DWC Judge Sauban-Chapla (Judge Chapla). For example, the claims against Vandersloot relate to his legal representation of Hawkins, which ended on June 7, 1995, when Hawkins fired him. The court properly designated Hawkins as a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(1).
Note:	The San Francisco City and County Superior Court was correct to name an applicant who sued numerous practitioners a vexatious litigant.
Citation:	A125526
WCC Citation:	WCC 37342011 CA

Case Name:	Healthsmart Pacific v. Kabateck		12/19/2016
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 ONE .             HEALTHSMART PACIFIC, INC. et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             BRIAN S. KABATECK et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B264300 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiffs Michael D. Drobot and Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. sued certain lawyers and their law firms for defamation and other causes of action arising from statements two of the lawyers made on television and radio programs about a pending lawsuit. Background; Drobot’s Plea Agreement .           Drobot owns and operates Healthsmart Pacific Inc. (Healthsmart), which owned and operated Pacific Hospital of Long Beach (Pacific Hospital) from approximately 1995 until October 2013. That appeal, Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. , et al. v. Golia, etc. , et al. , case No. B266311, is pending.
Note:
Citation:	B264300
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC566549

Case Name:	Healy Tibbitts Builders, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs		04/14/2006
Summary:	Healy Tibbitts subcontracted with John Mannering to build the main duct bank. The District Director of the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs ("OWCP") referred this case to an Administrative Law Judge, who conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 23, 2002. Healy Tibbitts and Mannering petitioned for review. ANALYSIS To qualify for benefits, an individual must be an "employee" as that term is defined in the Act. Instead, the controversy in this case centers on the terms "maritime employment" and "harbor worker," both of which the Act leaves undefined.
Note:	'Harbor worker' includes workers directly involved in the construction of a maritime facility.
Citation:	444 F.3d 1095
WCC Citation:	WCC 31522006 CA

Case Name:	Hegglin vs. WCAB		02/23/1971
Summary:	SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA L. A. No. 29804 February 23, 1971 JOSEPH C. HEGGLIN, PETITIONER, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, AIRPORT GARDENA HOTEL CORPORATION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS Kessler & Drasin, Lawrence Drasin and Roger J. Gleckman for Petitioner. Sullivan [4 Cal3d Page 165] Petitioner Joseph C. Hegglin seeks review and annulment of the opinion and decision after reconsideration of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (Board) which limited the rating for his permanent disability to 43 1/4 percent. Because of knee disability applicant should not walk on uneven terrain nor should he climb or descend stairs rapidly. On June 12, 1969, a supplemental hearing was held at which the rating specialist was cross-examined and petitioner testified in rebuttal. Petitioner also sought to call Dr. Field, an internist who had examined petitioner with regard to his hepatitis condition.
Note:	In cases involving multiple factors of disability caused by a single industrial accident the Board must, in any instructions it may direct to the rating bureau, fully describe each separate factor of disability.
Citation:	4 Cal. 3d 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 35941971 CA

Case Name:	Heiman v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		04/11/2007
Summary:	PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Neil P. Sullivan and Vincent Bausano for Respondent, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concluded that petitioner was the employer liable for workers' compensation. *fn 1* We conclude that petitioner and the unlicensed contractor were dual employers that are jointly and severally liable for workers' compensation. The workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) determined that Hruby was the employer of Aguilera and was liable for workers' compensation including 90 percent permanent disability.
Note:	Petitioner and an unlicensed contractor were dual employers that are jointly and severally liable for workers' compensation.
Citation:	149 Cal. App. 4th 724
WCC Citation:	WCC 32152007 CA

Case Name:	HELMAN v. ALCOA GLOBAL FASTENERS, INC.		03/14/2011
Summary:	James Paul Collins, John P. Kristensen, Terry O'Reilly, Nina Shapirshteyn, Gary Lynn Simms, O'Reilly Collins, San Mateo, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants. I. Appellants are the personal representatives and successors in interest to three United States Navy crewmen killed in a helicopter crash. The case was then removed to federal court by Appellees Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (collectively "Sikorsky"). The district court issued a ruling granting these motions, holding that DOHSA preempts Appellants' state law and general maritime causes of action for wrongful death. The action shall be for the exclusive benefit of the decedent's spouse, parent, child, or dependent relative. U. S. C. 30302 (2006).
Note:	The families of three United States Navy crewmen killed in a helicopter crash cannot file state law claims for wrongful death, because the Death on the High Seas Act preempted their state law claims, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Citation:	09-56501
WCC Citation:	WCC 37262011 CA

Case Name:	Henderson v. Adia Servs. Inc.		06/27/1986
Summary:	Danielson [182 CalApp3d Page 1070] Plaintiff and appellant Patricia M. Comstock Henderson appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, cross-complainant and respondent Adia Services, Inc. in an action [182 CalApp3d Page 1071] for damages for personal injuries. *fn1 Plaintiff was injured on November 19, 1981, when her vehicle was struck from the rear by a vehicle driven by Wrede. Following discovery, she amended the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474, substituting defendant in place of a Doe. Here, the trial court properly determined that the material facts were not in dispute, and properly entertained the motion for summary judgment. "If so, state whether a motor vehicle was necessary to be employed by Adia Services, Inc. " Wrede answered the interrogatory: "3.
Note:	"Coming and going" rule applicable to temp employees traveling from home to businesses that pay the temp agency.
Citation:	182 Cal. App. 3d 1069
WCC Citation:	WCC 30371986 CA

Case Name:	Henry v. Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin		12/09/2011
Summary:	HENRY v. RED HILL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF TUSTIN SARA HENRY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RED HILL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF TUSTIN, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Sara Henry sued Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin (sometimes the church) for wrongful termination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code,*fn1 § 12900 et seq. I FACTS The Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin was incorporated in California in 1957. Henry filed a complaint against the Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin (erroneously sued as the Red Hill Lutheran School) alleging in the first cause of action that the church terminated her employment based upon her marital status, in violation of the FEHA. As stated above, Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin operates its school as a part of its ministry.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a Lutheran school is not liable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for terminating a teacher for religious reasons, thanks to the ministerial exception.
Citation:	G044556
WCC Citation:	WCC 38322011 CA

Case Name:	Henry v. WCAB		12/18/1998
Summary:	JENNIFER HENRY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA et al. , Respondents. Jennifer Lee Henry (Henry) injured her back while employed as a seasonal ski instructor at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (Mammoth Mountain). Henry rejected the offer and petitioned for additional relief through the workers' compensation and judicial systems. Henry contended that the offer does not comply with section 4644, subdivision (a)(6)(B) which requires that the employer offer alternative work in a regular position lasting at least 12 months. Henry requested reconsideration by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) which also upheld the consultant's decision.
Note:	Seasonal employee is entitled to only 12 months of alternate seasonal work, not to 12 months of continuous work.
Citation:	68 Cal.App.4th 981, 63 CCC 1481
WCC Citation:	WCC 27901998 CA

Case Name:	Henstorf v. State Compensation Ins. Fund		09/04/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE JAN E. HENSTORF et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. In 2004, State Fund issued 51 percent of the workers' compensation insurance written in California. In early 2005, State Fund established a medical provider network of physicians to provide care to the worker's compensation patients of State Fund's insureds. State Fund now issues 36 percent of the worker's compensation insurance written in California. Respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund is awarded its costs on appeal.
Note:	[Unpublished] State Fund's conduct in combining with Blue Cross to form an efficient bargaining unit is expressly exempt from antitrust and unfair competition laws under Business and Professions Code section 16720, Health and Safety Code section 1342.6, and Insurance Code section 10133.6.
Citation:	B210943
WCC Citation:	WCC 35622009 CA

Case Name:	Herek v. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association		10/30/2017
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 TWO .             MICHAEL HEREK, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. .             B275805 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Petitioner Michael Herek (petitioner) applied for a disability retirement from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (Department), and his application was denied. Application for Disability Retirement .           In February 2008, petitioner filed an application with respondent Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association’s Board of Retirement (the Board) for a disability retirement due to “[c]ardiovascular, high blood pressure, gastrointestinal, [and] back” injuries. .           ______________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           We concur: .           _________________________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           _________________________, J. CHAVEZ
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the denial of a former law enforcement officer’s claim for disability retirement benefits, finding substantial evidence supported a determination that he was not permanently incapacitated from duty.
Citation:	B275805
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS155097

Case Name:	Heritage Residential Care v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement		01/26/2011
Summary:	HERITAGE RESIDENTIAL CARE, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT et al. Division of Labor Standards, Department of Industrial Relations, Legal Section, Anne Hipshman, Attorney for Respondent. BACKGROUND The parties to this appeal are Heritage Residential Care, Inc. (appellant) and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (respondent, sometimes referred to herein as DLSE or Labor Commissioner). Mandamus Petition In February 2009, appellant filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Civil Penalties for Violation "When proven, Labor Code violations give rise to civil penalties. "
Note:	A misclassification statute's use of the word 'inadvertent' did not excuse a nursing home's $72,000 fine for its inadvertent misclassification of 16 health care workers.
Citation:	H034994
WCC Citation:	WCC 37072011 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. DeGroot & Sons		11/28/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. C. DEGROOT & SONS, Defendant and Appellant. Ct. No. CV017461) ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. C. DEGROOT & SONS, Defendant and Respondent. He and his wife Maria sued his employer's landlord, C. DeGroot & Sons, a general partnership (the Landlord). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Landlord, a general partnership of Jerry DeGroot (DeGroot) and his three brothers, owned a cheese making facility on 20 acres or so in Manteca. "If you decide, one, that C. DeGroot & Sons [(the Landlord)] violated this law and, two, that the violation was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, then you must find .
Note:	[Unpublished] Where there is a tenable claim of concurrent negligence, the consideration that an injured worker has workers' compensation coverage is no bar to recovery from the concurrent tortfeasor.
Citation:	C051254
WCC Citation:	WCC 32812007 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Gray Lift, Inc.		05/31/2012
Summary:	HERNANDEZ v. GRAY LIFT, INC. JOSE HERNANDEZ, JR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GRAY LIFT, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. In the FAC, plaintiffs Jose Hernandez, Jr. , Yunalesca Hernandez, and Noemi Hernandez sought damages under the wrongful death statute against defendants Gray Lift and Wells based upon the alleged negligent driving of Wells while in the scope of Wells's employment with Gray Lift, Inc. , resulting in the fatal accident that caused decedent's death. Plaintiffs further admit that CRS is a dba of Gray Lift, Inc. , yet they attempt to sue Gray Lift, Inc. as a separate entity. That is, defendants sought to prove that CRS was one and the same entity as Gray Lift, Inc. and therefore Gray Lift Inc. was decedent's employer. Gray Lift, Inc. , provided all tools used by Plaintiffs' decedent in his work for Gray Lift, Inc. doing business as [CRS].
Note:	A California corporation could assert workers' compensation exclusivity as an affirmative defense to a wrongful death claim filed by the family of a laborer who was killed while working for it, pursuant to a contract under the corporation's fictitious business name.
Citation:	F061759
WCC Citation:	WCC 39042012 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Henkel Loctite Corporation		03/22/2018
Summary:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             PEDRO HERNANDEZ, Applicant, .             v. .             HENKEL LOCTITE CORPORATION; ZURICH AMERICAN INS. .             Based on our review of the relevant statutes and case law, we hold that: .           1. .           (C) Has provided treatment authorized by the employer or claims administrator under Section 4610. .           The WCJ issued her Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision on December 29, 2017, and found, in pertinent part: .           2. .           WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD (EN BANC) .           /s/Katherine A. Zalewski____________________ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, Chairwoman .           /s/ Deidra E. Lowe_________________________ DEIDRA E. LOWE, Commissioner .           /s/ Marguerite Sweeney_____________________ MARGUERITE SWEENEY, Commissioner .           /s/ José H. Razo ____________________ JOSÉ H. RAZO, Commissioner .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           03/22/2018 En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and WCJs.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ6726149
WCC Citation:	ADJ6726149

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.		01/24/2017
Summary:	.             Plaintiff and appellant Yvonne Hernandez worked for defendant and respondent Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (Pacific Bell). .           In the years Hernandez was ineligible for leave under the FMLA/CFRA, Pacific Bell granted CIL to her. B. Pacific Bell moves for summary judgment .           Pacific Bell moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication. .           Hernandez submitted “me too” evidence (declarations from other fired Pacific Bell employees and their civil complaints) showing that Pacific Bell fired other disabled employees. D. Pacific Bell’s reply  .           In reply, Pacific Bell submitted additional deposition testimony from Ross and from Williams showing, for example, that Pacific Bell considered leave given to accommodate a disability as protected.
Note:
Citation:	B260109
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC507337

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Target Corp.		02/19/2008
Summary:	INTRODUCTION While working for defendant and respondent Target Corporation (Target), plaintiff and appellant Martha Hernandez (plaintiff) injured her knee. *fn6 On or about March 12, 2004, plaintiff submitted to Target a doctor's note indicating that she could only work sitting. Plaintiff told several Target employees about her knee pain, including the "secretary," but was told to continue working in her Go-Backs position. Moreover, Garcia admitted that Target had a cashier who performed the essential job functions of that position in a wheelchair. As noted above, plaintiff's DFEH charge against Target alleged that Target illegally discriminated against her on May 11, 2004, when it fired her because of her disability.
Note:	[Unpublished] The trial court did not err in making the evidentiary rulings challenged by plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies in connection with certain of her claims under the FEHA.
Citation:	B195625
WCC Citation:	WCC 33192008 CA