Case Name:	Sierra Pacific Industries v. WCAB		06/30/2006
Summary:	Sierra Pacific Industries v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No. C050589 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 06/30/2006) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C050589 June 30, 2006 SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD ET AL. RESPONDENTS. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) petitions for a writ of review to determine the lawfulness of an award and an order denying reconsideration in a proceeding before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB found the treatment reasonable and necessary through February 26, 2004, and denied SPI's petition for reconsideration. Following the recommendation of the WCJ, the WCAB denied reconsideration. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	The reasonableness standard of medical care in SB 899 applies regardless of date of injury.
Citation:	140 Cal. App. 4th 1498
WCC Citation:	WCC 31702006 CA

Case Name:	Signature Fruit Co. v. WCAB		08/31/2006
Summary:	Signature Fruit Company petitions this court to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarding one of its seasonal employees, Eva Ochoa, temporary disability benefits. The record supports the stipulation by revealing that Ochoa could only recall working as a seasonal employee with Signature Fruit Company in recent years. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORIES Eva Ochoa worked as a seasonal sanitation worker for Signature Fruit Company (Signature) since 1998. Lacking any dispute over the underlying facts, Signature presents a pure question of law reviewable by this court de novo. *fn2 An en banc decision of the WCAB binds future WCAB panels and WCJs as legal precedent in the same manner as a published appellate opinion.
Note:	When a seasonal employee does not have any off-season earnings and does not compete in the open labor market during a portion of the year, the employee is not entitled to temporary disability payments during that season.
Citation:	142 Cal.App.4th 790
WCC Citation:	WCC 31772006 CA

Case Name:	Silas v. Arden		12/31/2012
Summary:	SILAS v. ARDEN MARTINA A. SILAS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ELLIS ARDEN, Defendant and Appellant. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. JOHNSON, J. James Ellis Arden (Arden) appeals judgment in favor of Martina Silas (Silas) in Silas's action against Arden for malicious prosecution of a malpractice action against her. Arden understood that for Gunnell to prevail on malpractice that Arden had to prove that Silas would have been successful on the fraudulent misrepresentation theory. Silas argues Vafi, the case upon which Arden relies, should not be applied retroactively, and that Arden waived the defense by failing to raise it earlier. A portion of our factual statement is taken from the opinion in the personal injury action, Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4th 710, the opinion in Gunnell's action against Silas, Gunnell v. Silas (Jan. 27, 2006, B180744), and the opinion in this action regarding Arden's special motion to strike, Silas v. Arden (Dec. 31, 2009, B210297).
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal has decided to publish its decision affirming a $300,756 malicious prosecution award for an attorney who prevailed against an injured worker's malpractice suit.
Citation:	B235835
WCC Citation:	WCC 39672012 CA

Case Name:	Simi Corp. vs. John Garamendi, as Ins. Comm.		06/26/2003
Summary:	Neither Simi Corporation, the employer, nor its insurer rejected liability for the claims at issue within 90 days of the claims' filing. The experience rating plan in effect when Simi Corporation's employees made the three claims at issue here sets out the rules governing experience rating. Simi Corporation sued Superior Pacific Casualty Company at some point before 1998, alleging that the insurer's erroneous report of data regarding the three claims referenced above had damaged Simi Corporation. Simi Corporation then appealed that decision to the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Insurance Code section 11753. 1, subdivision (a). In summary, the trial court erred in adopting Simi Corporation's interpretation of the pertinent regulation rather than the Insurance Commissioner's interpretation.
Note:	Deference given to Ins. Commisioner's interpretation of regulations governing the reporting status of claims.
Citation:	109 Cal.App.4th 1496
WCC Citation:	WCC 29412003 CA

Case Name:	Simi vs. Sav-Max Foods, Inc.		02/01/2005
Summary:	Defendant initially denied the claim but eventually accepted liability after obtaining an "AOE/COE report" from Dr. Michael A. Uro, a podiatrist. On February 23, 2004, Dr. Weiner observed that applicant was having problems with a "Baker's cyst" in the left knee. Defendant's notification letter stated that the QME exam was being set "[i]n accordance with Section 4060 et. On July 27, 2004, the WCJ issued the "Order Compelling Attendance at Defense QME and to Suspend Benefits" disputed here. The Appeals Board reasoned that it was still "possible" to return to the original psychiatrist to address the WCJ's concerns.
Note:	LC 4062 as it existed prior to SB 899 applies to represented employees injured before 1/1/05.
Citation:	70 CCC 217
WCC Citation:	WCC 30782005 CA

Case Name:	Simmons v. Dep't of Mental Health		06/17/2005
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. LBO 0340807 LISA SIMMONS, Applicant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH (METROPOLITAN STATE HOSPITAL), Legally Uninsured; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). Lisa Simmons (applicant) sustained an industrial injury to her right shoulder and bilateral wrists on August 20, 2002. At the time of her injury, she was employed as a janitor by the State of California, Department of Mental Health (Metropolitan State Hospital), legally uninsured and adjusted by State Compensation Insurance Fund (collectively, SCIF). The WCJ, however, prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the May 6, 2004 decision be affirmed. However, AOE/COE [injury arising out of and in the course of the employment] issue re: R shoulder has not been resolved.
Note:	Utilization review report is not admissible for determining whether the injury caused the need for a particular treatment.
Citation:	70 CCC 866
WCC Citation:	WCC 31062005 CA

Case Name:	Singh v. Southland Stone		07/01/2010
Summary:	SINGH v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U. S. A. , INC. GURPREET SINGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U. S. A. , Inc. , et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Factual Background Johar is the president and owner of Southland Stone, an importer and distributor of natural stone based in North Hollywood. During a visit to India in November 2003, Johar informed Singh that Southland Stone was seeking a general manager for Internet sales. Singh returned to the Los Angeles area for three weeks in November and December 2004 to work as a consultant for Southland Stone. According to Choti, she gave the envelope containing the three checks to another Southland Stone employee to mail to Singh.
Note:	The exclusive remedy of workers' compensation barred an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against an employer, according to a decision from the California 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	B208620
WCC Citation:	None

Case Name:	Singh v. WCAB (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)		08/25/2017
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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             RAVINDERJIT SINGH, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Respondents. .             F075483 .             (WCAB No. ADJ8763257) .             OPINION THE COURT*  .             * Before Gomes, Acting P. J. , Franson, J. , and Smith, J. .             Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone and Ryan T. Trotta for Petitioner. .           Carla Anene, Mary Huckabaa, and Ryan J. Artola for Respondent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. .           -ooOoo- .           Ravinderjit Singh (Singh) petitions for a writ of review from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
Note:	The 5th District Court of Appeal has sent a worker’s claim for temporary disability benefits back to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board for reconsideration after the board admitted that it failed to consider all the legal theories that could have entitled the worker to benefits.
Citation:	F075483
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ8763257

Case Name:	Six Flags Inc. v. WCAB		11/27/2006
Summary:	[1] IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE [2] No. B184245 [4] November 27, 2006 [5] SIX FLAGS, INC. [24] PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND [25] Bantita Rackchamroon, an operator hostess for Six Flags, Inc. , sustained industrial injury and death on April 9, 2004. Pursuant to section 4706. 5, the workers' compensation judge also awarded $125,000 to the Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit. The workers' compensation judge issued a report recommending that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) deny the petition for reconsideration. [37] Thus, at present, article XIV, section 4, does not include estates as a class of beneficiaries entitled to workers' compensation death benefits.
Note:	Section 4702(a)(6)(B) is unconstitutional because the constitutional enabling provision, article XIV, section 4, does not identify estates as a class of beneficiaries entitled to workers' compensation death benefits.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 91
WCC Citation:	WCC 31952006 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. City of Oakland		06/22/2012
Summary:	SMITH v. CITY OF OAKLAND QUINCY SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF OAKLAND et al. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS MARCHIANO, P. J. Quincy Smith, employed by the City of Oakland (City), sued the City and individually named defendants, including Brook Levin and David Ferguson, alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). About two weeks after the plaintiffs submitted a complaint about the appointment to the City Auditor, Robles-Wong began a campaign of harassment against them. The City filed a general demurrer to the first amended complaint at the end of December 2010. Smith alleged he was "an African-American male, age 39," while McConnell, alleged he was "a disabled Caucasian male, age 62. "
Note:	A city employee who thrice failed to state a cognizable claim for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act despite receiving multiple opportunities to amend his complaint was not entitled to yet another chance.
Citation:	A133070
WCC Citation:	WCC 39092012 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. Dynalectric Company		12/16/2011
Summary:	SMITH v. DYNALECTRIC COMPANY JEROME SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DYNALECTRIC COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. *fn2 Despite having worked at JPL for, as Caltech put it, "several" years, Caltech never described Smith as its employee. The relationship between Smith and Caltech was governed by the Contract, which was entered into between Caltech and SBAR. As against Caltech, Smith alleged causes of action for negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous condition of public property. Indeed, in the Party Identification Sheet attached to Smith's Case Information Statement, Smith is identified as the sole appellant.
Note:	Caltech was not entitled to summary judgment on its exclusive remedy defense against a personal injury lawsuit because of evidence suggesting that the plaintiff was not its employee, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B228770
WCC Citation:	WCC 38332011 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		12/27/1993
Summary:	[n1] Smith contends that the decision of the WCAB is erroneous in that he was entitled to a presumption that his heart trouble arose out of and in the course of his employment (Lab. However, the WCAB found that Smith's myocardial infarction and bypass surgery were the first manifestation of Smith's heart trouble and since those events occurred more than six years after the last day Smith actually worked as a firefighter, they were well beyond the presumptive period and Smith was not entitled to application of the presumption. Smith contends that even without the benefit of the presumption the WCAB should have found in his favor. ------- n1 After the workers' compensation judge filed an opinion denying his claim, Smith sought reconsideration by the WCAB. Smith filed his petition for a writ of review on the 50th day following the decision of the WCAB.
Note:	Presumption does not apply where manifestation occurs beyond presumptive period and substantial evidence reflects non-employment risks.
Citation:	59 CCC 40
WCC Citation:	WCC 4121993 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		05/11/2009
Summary:	*fn2 In 1997, by stipulation, Smith was awarded partial permanent disability indemnity and future medical treatment. Smith contacted the attorney who filed his original workers' compensation claim and the attorney sought utilization review (§ 4610). Pursuant to court order, Smith was examined by an agreed medical examiner, who concluded he needed the injections to relieve his back pain, which was precipitated by his industrial injuries. Citing section 4607, Smith subsequently sought attorney fees. As with Smith, the insurer was disputing Amar's specific requests, not challenging the validity of his award.
Note:	The plain language of LC 4607 does not support attorney fee awards in situations where an applicant successfully challenges an informal denial of medical care.
Citation:	S150528
WCC Citation:	WCC 35202009 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		07/02/1969
Summary:	OPINION MOSK, J. Otis S. Smith died at the age of 45 on November 24, 1967, as the result of congestive heart failure. Smith returned to work after his discharge from the hospital and, in early July of 1964, injured a toe while at work. Smith did not return to work between his discharge from the hospital on August 10, 1964, and his death three years later. The referee found that Smith had sustained a compensable injury but the board reversed this determination. [71 Cal. 2d 591] The report of May 20, 1967, concludes, '. . . Mr. Smith is suffering from heart disease presumably due to alcoholic disease or ventricular hypertrophy.
Note:	The relevant, considered opinion of one physician, even if inconsistent with other med. opinions, may be substantial evidence.
Citation:	71 Cal.2d 588
WCC Citation:	WCC 27411969 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		12/10/1968
Summary:	December 10, 1968 JO ANNE SMITH, PETITIONER, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COUNTY OF VENTURA ET AL. , RESPONDENTS. Fowler's testimony does not constitute substantial evidence that Smith was not required to provide his own car. Respondents offered no evidence, however, that the department applied the same requirement to Mrs. Sheldon in June 1967 as it exacted of Smith in December 1965. In the present case the employer instructed Smith to have his car available on the job every morning. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App. 1931) 40 S. W. 2d 913; State etc. Fund v. Industrial Com.
Note:	Special mission established where employee's vehicle required for work.
Citation:	69 Cal. 2d 814
WCC Citation:	WCC 30401968 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB		09/21/1981
Summary:	CHERYL J. SMITH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ED SMITH WELDING et al. , Respondents. Bobby Burton Morris (Morris) testified that he was employed by Ed Smith Welding and that, on the day of the accident, he began work at the shop at 6:30 a. m. Eddie Smith (Smith) was already there and outlined the work he wanted done. As Morris and Smith talked on the radio, they joked; Smith said he was low on gas and not to pass him. When the witness met Smith at the park, Smith was waiting for trucks to bring clay from the mountains to be put on the diamond. It was not unusual for Smith to drink quite a bit, but, in Chambers' opinion, Smith did not drink to excess.
Note:	Employer's burden met b/c intoxication was substantial factor in accident.
Citation:	123 Cal.App.3d 763
WCC Citation:	WCC 25841981 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB and California Youth Authority, and Amar v. WCAB and Mel Clayton Ford		01/16/2007
Summary:	GRO 16225, 16226, ) d Civil No. B190655 (W. C. A. B. No. GOL 89438) DWIGHT SMITH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, et al. , Respondents. and DAVID AMAR, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MEL CLAYTON FORD, et al. , Respondents. In Amar, the parties previously stipulated to an award of future medical care for a foot injury. Facts and Procedural History Smith Smith sustained industrial injuries from cumulative trauma to his right shoulder, neck and psyche while working for the California Youth Authority (CYA). The award provided that "medical-legal expenses" would be paid by defendant, Mel Clayton Ford.
Note:	Insurance carriers who fail to provide previously awarded medical care may not avoid attorney fees to successful applicants' attorneys through the expedient of an informal denial, even when they do so in good faith.
Citation:	146 Cal. App. 4th 1032
WCC Citation:	WCC 32032007 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB, Alma Piston Co. (Lee)		02/13/2002
Summary:	STEPHEN J. SMITH, as Director, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ALMA PISTON COMPANY, Respondents. Grancell, Lebovitz, Stander, Marx and Barnes, Norin T. Grancell and Lawrence Kirk for Respondent Alma Piston Company, dba Tomadur Engine Company. RELEVANT FACTUAL ANDPROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 1994, Yoon applied to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) for a painting contractor's license. On this matter, Labor Code section 2750. 5 provides that 'any person performing any function or activity for which a [contractor's] license is required . Respondents Alma Piston Company, dba Tomadur Engine Company are awarded their costs.
Note:	Contractor's license status determinative of property owner's liability.
Citation:	96 Cal.App.4th 117
WCC Citation:	WCC 28362002 CA

Case Name:	Smith v. WCAB, JRW Contemporary		02/28/2002
Summary:	STEPHEN J. SMITH, as Director of Industrial Relations, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and J. R. W. CONTEMPORARY, INC. , Respondents. At the time, he was working for J. R. W. Contemporary (JRW), a furniture manufacturer. JRW objected to dismissal of the Walker's application and filed its own claim on the Walkers' behalf. The Board allowed the claim to proceed and JRW to make dependency arguments for the Walkers. Instead, JRW repeats the WCJ's position that the Walkers relied upon Joshua's payment in purchasing their house.
Note:	Rent may be evidence of dependency only if such payments contributed to maintaining alleged dependents standard of living.
Citation:	96 Cal. App. 4th 560
WCC Citation:	WCC 28372002 CA

Case Name:	Smith vs. Churn Creek Const.; SCIF		06/01/2004
Summary:	We note that on January 16, 2004, Dr. Krohn was within his authority to perform his utilization review. Mr. Smith has stated if surgery is necessary in order to get better, he is ready to proceed. Next, on February 10, 2004, Dr. Crawford stated in a letter to SCIF, as follows: "'Please review the attached consultation letter from Dr. Leppla. As indicated in his letter, Dr. Leppla recommends that Leon Smith proceed with epidural steroid injections. AWARD "AWARD IS MADE in favor [sic] Leon Smith against Churn Creek Construction Company and State Compensation Insurance Fund, as follows:" "Further medical treatment. "
Note:	Though the ACOEM Guides were in effect but not presumed correct, burden still on treating physician to justify treatment request with evidence-based medicine.
Citation:	69 CCC 1012
WCC Citation:	WCC 30622004 CA

Case Name:	Smyers v. WCAB		06/12/1984
Summary:	SUSAN SMYERS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, I. T. T. JENNINGS et al. , Respondents. Petitioners, Susan Smyers and Ethel J. Hoffman, sought and were granted writs of review. In 1977, employer stipulated, in both cases, to findings and awards of 100 percent disability and continuing medical treatment for life. In 1977 the physicians treating both women recommended that housekeeping services be provided as part of medical treatment. These episodes of coughing are clearly related to the amount of physical activity engaged in by both Mrs. Hoffman and Mrs. Smyers.
Note:	Housekeeping (or other) services reasonable and necessary med. treatment.
Citation:	157 C.A. 3rd 36
WCC Citation:	WCC 28341984 CA

Case Name:	Snedecor v. WCAB		08/17/2009
Summary:	Frank Snedecor, a plumber for the Los Angeles Community College District (District), injured his cervical spine at work on February 20, 2003. Snedecor argues that the WCAB is mistaken that section 4660(d) requires Dr. Schiffman to expressly state that permanent disability exists, and the entire record should have been considered under Genlyte. Snedecor argues that the WCAB similarly applied the 1997 schedule based on permanent disability indicated by whole person impairment due to surgical hip replacement in Rosas School District v. Workers' Comp. Since the WCAB did not reach this issue and has extensive expertise and experience in such highly technical matters of workers' compensation, we conclude that the WCAB should determine the issue on remand. In its opinion, the WCAB rejected the WCJ's reasoning because the District's notice was triggered by the requisite period of time Snedecor was out of work and not by a medical opinion that he was a qualified injured worker.
Note:	[Unpublished] Since the record supports the WCJ's finding that 2004 treating physician's reports incorporated diagnostic reports, the WCAB's determination that the WCJ relied solely on diagnostic reports to find indication of the existence of permanent disability under section 4660(d) is not supported by substantial evidence.
Citation:	B209686
WCC Citation:	WCC 35552009 CA

Case Name:	Snodgrass v. WCAB		09/11/1985
Summary:	Howard Snodgrass, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and City of Baldwin Park, Respondents. Section 132a expresses the broad policy that employees who have sustained compensable industrial injuries not be discriminated against. An employee may proceed under this section to obtain increased compensation or reinstatement and reimbursement of lost wages by filing an appropriate petition. Third, applicant's pursuing the civil action without simultaneously pursuing a claim before the Board was reasonable and in good faith. n3 At the time applicant filed his civil action the case of Meyer v. Byron Jackson, Inc. (1981) 46 Cal.
Note:	Filing a civil claim for injury tolls the statute of limitations on the filing of a 132a claim.
Citation:	50 CCC 501
WCC Citation:	WCC 27661985 CA

Case Name:	So. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. Inc. v. WCAB		01/18/1979
Summary:	Manuel [23 Cal3d Page 160] Petitioner Southern California Rapid Transit District, Inc. (RTD) seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration of an award of temporary disability benefits to respondent Elliot Weitzman (Weitzman). RTD's petition for reconsideration was denied by the WCAB on October 18, 1977. (g) Where the injury does not arise out of an altercation in which the injured employee is the initial physical aggressor. "The hearing judge and the WCAB found Laines v. Workmen's Comp. The determination by the WCAB that the injury did not arise out of his employment was annulled by the Court of Appeal.
Note:	Injury compensable where employee required to travel to work to deliver medical release.
Citation:	23 Cal. 3d 158
WCC Citation:	WCC 30501979 CA

Case Name:	Sobiniak v. WCAB		05/25/1984
Summary:	Sobiniak initiated a civil action against the manufacturer of the pump. That action was settled for 'a gross recovery of $135,000,' Sobiniak receiving final payment on January 28, 1982. On January 5, 1983, the WCJ found that Sobiniak sustained industrial injury while employer Rohde was illegally uninsured, and awarded benefits to Sobiniak. The WCJ further opined that Sobiniak, having received compensation for his injury from the third party, is precluded from double recovery by the credit provision. 1598) which had resulted in disputes as to its meaning in several respects in cases involving both civil actions and proceedings before the WCAB.
Note:	UEF entitled to credit for net amt. of employee third party recovery.
Citation:	156 Cal.App.3d 448
WCC Citation:	WCC 24451984 CA

Case Name:	Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California LLC		06/07/2011
Summary:	SODERSTEDT v. CBIZ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC ROGER WILLIAM SODERSTEDT, JR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CBIZ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiffs and appellants Roger William Soderstedt, Jr. , and Ruslan Daych appeal from an order denying class certification in the action they filed against their former employer, defendant and respondent CBIZ Southern California, LLC (CBIZ). Appellant Soderstedt began work as an Associate at CBIZ's Oxnard office in September 2005, immediately following his graduation from college. In connection with this policy, CBIZ issued guidelines for tax return review, which outlined three phases of review. CBIZ sought judicial notice of an order in another matter, California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001, a February 1989 opinion letter from the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and various federal and state regulations.
Note:	A trial court was correct to deny two plaintiff accountants' motions for class certification in a misclassification suit against their former employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B224349
WCC Citation:	WCC 37702011 CA

Case Name:	Soil Engin. Constr., Inc. v. Super. Ct.		10/06/1982
Summary:	SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; EDWARD MORRILL et al. , Real Parties in Interest. Petitioner contends that respondent court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. Real parties are plaintiffs in an action brought in their capacity as nondependent heirs and personal representatives of the deceased employee, their son Edward Francis Morrill. [¶] (c) Where the injury is proximately caused by the employment, either with or without negligence. '[¶] (b) A death benefit, to be allowed to the dependents when the employee leaves any person dependent upon him for support. '
Note:	Superior Court lacked jurisdiction (exclusive remedy rule) even though no recovery by parents as nondependent heirs.
Citation:	136 Cal.App.3d 329
WCC Citation:	WCC 25621982 CA

Case Name:	Solano County Probation Department v. WCAB (Auilar)		01/07/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A129342 January 7, 2011 SOLANO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND PAULA AGUILAR, RESPONDENTS. STATEMENT OF FACTS Respondent Paula Aguilar suffered injuries to her left shoulder, left elbow, low back, and left hip. The injuries arose in the course of her employment with petitioner Solano County Probation Department (Solano). Peter Mandell, M. D. , acting as an agreed medical examiner, examined Aguilar on at least four occasions and prepared several reports on her condition. In his first report, dated in October 2002, Dr. Mandell noted that Aguilar had pre-existing arthritis in her left hip.
Note:	A workers' compensation judge mistakenly assumed that a doctor withdrew his opinion that 33% of a left hip injury should be apportioned to obesity and arthritis when the doctor amended his opinion on apportionment of a spine injury, California's 1st Appellate District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	A129342
WCC Citation:	WCC 36992011 CA

Case Name:	Solis v. Sunset Development Company		12/27/2007
Summary:	Filed 12/27/07 Solis v. Sunset Development CA1/4 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). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR JOANNE SOLIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND During the time period relevant to this dispute, respondent Sunset Development Company (Sunset) was responsible for the development, management, and maintenance of office buildings in Bishop Ranch Business Park, including 4000 Executive Parkway, in San Ramon. Sunset was responsible for the landscaping, maintenance, inspection, and repair done in the area around the building. We construe the trial court's August 11, 2006, "Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendants Sunset Development Company and Defendant Alexander Properties Company," which was submitted by respondents' counsel and orders that "judgment is entered in favor of defendants," as an appealable judgment because it evidences a clear intent to finally dispose of appellant's complaint against respondents.
Note:	[Unpublished] Defendant did not owe appellant a duty because she fell in an area not intended for pedestrian traffic.
Citation:	A115772
WCC Citation:	WCC 32942007 CA

Case Name:	Solorzano v. Imperial Toy Corp.		06/30/2008
Summary:	In October 2003, plaintiff Cecilia Solorzano commenced employment with defendant Imperial Toy Corporation. As to Imperial Toy, the Family Rights Act was inapplicable because Solorzano had not been employed there for more than 12 months. The FEHA claims and the wrongful termination claim against Imperial Toy failed because Solorzano did not have a physical disability. The question of whether Solorzano was disabled does not necessarily turn on whether Imperial Toy had full knowledge of her condition. But Imperial Toy did not establish that Barth knew about its contents before he chose Solorzano for termination.
Note:	[Unpublished] The ADA's definition of 'disability' applies under the FEHA if it would result in 'broader protection.' Generally, the FEHA, as distinguished from the ADA, does not exclude all temporary, nonchronic impairments.
Citation:	B195855
WCC Citation:	WCC 33892008 CA

Case Name:	Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. The Superior Court of Orange County Part 1/2		02/08/2018
Summary:	Filed 2/8/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA .             SOLUS INDUSTRIAL INNOVATIONS, LLC, et al. , Petitioners, .             v. .             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; .             THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. .             S222314 .             Ct. App. 4/3 G047661 .             Orange County Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00581868 .             The Orange County District Attorney brought an action for civil penalties under this state’s unfair competition law (UCL; Bus. .           Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (Solus) manufactures plastics at its Orange County facility. .           The district attorney also filed the present civil action against Solus.
Note:
Citation:	S222314
WCC Citation:	Ct.App. 4/3 G047661

Case Name:	Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. The Superior Court of Orange County Part 2/2		02/08/2018
Summary:	)  .           Finally, there is no reason to “discount” Congress’s awareness and acceptance of the “background tapestry” of state law in this area. .           WE CONCUR:  .           CHIN, J. .           CORRIGAN, J.   .           LIU, J. (People v. Superior Court (Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC) (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 33. at p. 99) was at issue in Gade because there was no approved state plan that displaced the federal law.
Note:
Citation:	S222314
WCC Citation:	Ct.App. 4/3 G047661

Case Name:	Sonic-Calabasas A v. Moreno		07/12/2011
Summary:	(Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 546, rev. Frank Moreno is a former employee of Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. (Sonic), which owns and operates an automobile dealership. As a condition of his employment with Sonic, Moreno signed a document entitled `Applicant's Statement & Agreement. 'Proc. , § 1281. 2. ) Sonic argued Moreno waived his right to a Berman hearing in the arbitration agreement. By its terms, the agreement precluded Moreno from pursuing any judicial `or other government dispute resolution forum,' subject to certain enumerated exceptions.
Note:	An employer cannot condition a worker's employment upon an arbitration agreement that would require the worker to waive the statutory right to a Berman hearing.
Citation:	B204902
WCC Citation:	WCC 37802011 CA

Case Name:	Sonoma State University & Octagon Risk Services v. WCAB & Lesley Hunton		08/29/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY and OCTAGON RISK SERVICES, Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LESLEY HUNTON, Respondents. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Respondent Lesley Hunton began working as a police dispatcher for Sonoma State University in 1986. Hunton filed a workers' compensation claim in 2000 alleging an injury to her psyche arising out of and in the course of her employment with petitioner Sonoma State. The AME also stated that Hunton would have likely suffered the psychological disability even if she had never worked for Sonoma State. C. Interpretation of "[P]sychiatric [I]njury" as Used in Section 3208. 3 Petitioners Sonoma State and Octagon Risk Services (collectively Sonoma State) argue that Hunton did not meet the predominant causation threshold for compensation eligibility because work-related events had caused only 35 percent of Hunton's overall psychiatric disability.
Note:	Pyschicatric disablities are complensable if the employee can prove that work was predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric disability taken as a whole.
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 500
WCC Citation:	WCC 31752006 CA

Case Name:	Sorbara Construction Corp. v. AIU Insurance Co.		10/21/2008
Summary:	Sorbara Construction Corporation, Appellant, v. AIU Insurance Company, Respondent, HRH Construction Corporation et al. , Defendants. MEMORANDUM: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Ins. Co, 294 AD2d 546, 548 [2d Dept 2002]; 57th Street Management Corp v Zurich Ins. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Note:	The insured did not give notice to the insurer until it was sued in a third party action--some five and one-half years after the accident. Under the circumstances of this case, such notice was unreasonable as a matter of law and relieved the insurer of its obligation to defend or indemnify the insured.
Citation:	00001
WCC Citation:	WCC 34452008 CA

Case Name:	Sotelo v. MediaNews Group, Inc.		07/02/2012
Summary:	SOTELO v. MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC. CYNTHIA SOTELO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Appellant Sotelo began as a carrier and then became a distributor, contracting exclusively with one newspaper. "Class members are `ascertainable' where they may be readily identified without unreasonable expense or time by reference to official records. The theoretical ability to self-identify as a member of the class is useless if one never receives notice of the action. They propose contacting those class members for whom respondents do have records, and posting notices in respondents' facilities.
Note:	Class-action status was denied to a group of newspaper carriers who allege a Southern California media group illegally classified them as independent contractors instead of employees.
Citation:	A130585
WCC Citation:	WCC 39112012 CA

Case Name:	Soto v. Vujicic		08/25/2011
Summary:	SOTO v. VUJICIC HECTOR LARES SOTO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DARIO VUJICIC, Defendant and Respondent; LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Intervenor and Appellant. Soto was injured in a head-on collision when his work vehicle was hit by a diesel Dodge Ram pickup truck that was owned by defendant Vojislav Vujicic and his wife (not parties to this appeal; referred to together as V. Vujicic). In June 2008, Soto sued Dario, V. Vujicic and other family members, and Eric, on two causes of action, negligence and negligent entrustment. C. Opposition; Reply Both Soto and Intervenor filed opposition to the defense motions, lodging other deposition excerpts from Soto, Eric, the Vujicic defendants, and the third passenger in the truck, Nicholas West. Soto vigorously responds that this is a new argument on appeal of "superseding joint entrustment," and that Soto should be able to proceed on his original negligent entrustment theory equally against Dario and V. Vujicic.
Note:	An applicant and his workers' compensation insurer failed to prove that another motorist had owed the applicant a duty not to let his 19-year-old friend drive a truck.
Citation:	D056946
WCC Citation:	WCC 37952011 CA

Case Name:	Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. WCAB		10/22/1997
Summary:	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GARY A. TATE, Respondents. Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter, WCAB) disagreed and held that the credit threshold cannot be offset by such payments. Facts On November 13, 1984, petitioner Southern California Edison Company's (hereinafter, SCE) employee and real party in interest, Gary Tate (hereinafter, Tate), sustained injuries while servicing a General Electric meter which exploded. SCE filed a petition for reconsideration with respondent WCAB on November 3, 1995, asking the WCAB to reconsider the WCJ's finding and to hold that SCE may offset its past payments to meet its requisite credit threshold. 1 Respondent WCAB held and Tate contends that the $85,000 threshold cannot be offset by previous workers' compensation payments.
Note:	An employer's credit threshold is reduced by settlement received from a 3rd party.
Citation:	58 Cal.App.4th 766
WCC Citation:	WCC 23931997 CA

Case Name:	Southern Insurance Company v. WCAB (EJ Distribution Corporation)		05/10/2017
Summary:	Filed 5/10/17 Certified for Publication 5/22/17 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS%u201F COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, EJ DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. .             B278412 .             (WCAB No. ADJ6865421) .             PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers%u201F Compensation Appeals Board. .             Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton & Muehl, Alexander G. Abdoulin and George Woolverton for Petitioner. .           Workers%u201F compensation insurance policy number WSI0006904-01 (hereafter “the policy”) was issued by Southern Insurance Company2 for an annual period beginning on January 1, 2009. .           __________________________, Acting P. J. CHAVEZ .           We concur: .           __________________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           __________________________, J.
Note:
Citation:	B278412
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ6865421

Case Name:	Southwest Airlines v. WCAB		10/07/1991
Summary:	SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and SUSAN BELAND, Respondents. Introduction Petitioner Southwest Airlines (Southwest) seeks review of an opinion and order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) denying reconsideration of a ruling that Labor Code section 3600. 5, subdivision (a),fn. [234 Cal. App. 3d 1423] [1a] Beland contends that the petition for writ of review must be denied as untimely under section 5950fn. Factual and Procedural Background Beland filed an application for adjudication of claim in 1988, alleging an injury to her back while 'in flight' as a flight attendant for Southwest. [1b] The petition herein is untimely under section 5950 unless the time for filing it was extended by the provisions of section 1013.
Note:	45 day limit for filing petition not extended by Reg. S. 10500, Civ. Code S. 1013; 'Villa' case not followed.
Citation:	234 Cal.App.3d 1421
WCC Citation:	WCC 27771991 CA