Case Name:	Currie v. WCAB		02/26/2001
Summary:	In making an award of backpay under Labor Code section 132a 1 to an employee wrongfully denied reinstatement because of an industrial injury, may the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) include prejudgment interest on the lost wages so awarded?Harmonizing the Civil Codes mandate of entitlement to prejudgment interest on damages due on a particular day (Civ. Code,  3287, subd. (a)) with the provisions of the Labor Code governing WCAB awards, we conclude such an award is permitted, and indeed required, when the criteria of Civil Code section 3287 are met. Click here for full opinion in PDF format.
Note:	Prejudgment interest per Civil Code section 3287 must be included in 132a Award.
Citation:	2001 (Sup. Ct. S085652)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3582001 CA

Case Name:	Custard v. WCAB		08/10/1992
Summary:	Ardie Faye Custard, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, A. C. OPINION: In this case, we hold that petitioner Ardie Faye Custard (applicant) effectively instituted supplemental proceedings for an increased permanent disability award within the five-year period of limitations set forth in Labor Code sections 5410 and 5804. In the WCJ's opinion, however, counsel's letter of February 13, 1986, requesting advisory ratings for the medical reports of Drs. 'II Section 5410 [n8] governs an injured employee's supplemental request for new and further disability, including an increase in permanent disability. Together with section 5405. 5, [n10] these sections cover the entire spectrum of the Board's continuing jurisdiction over workers' compensation matters.
Note:	Letter requesting advisory PD rating is valid petition to reopen; procedural rules construed informally.
Citation:	57 CCC 545
WCC Citation:	WCC 27701992 CA

Case Name:	Cutter v. Greenwich Ins.		01/16/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT STEVE CUTTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. * * * * * * Steve Cutter appeals from a judgment entered in favor of respondent Greenwich Insurance Company (Greenwich). *fn1 In September 2003, Greenwich sent other correspondence to the insured reiterating the basis for the denial. Rather, appellant alleged Greenwich failed to investigate and was obliged to defend its insured in the underlying action. [Appellant] would require Greenwich to investigate facts that the insured never saw fit to provide to Greenwich.
Note:	[Unpublished] When there is no potential for coverage, and no duty to defend under the policy terms, there can be no action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because the covenant is based on the contractual relationship between the insurer and its insured.
Citation:	B194892
WCC Citation:	WCC 33002008 CA

Case Name:	Czarnecki v. Golden Eagle Ins. Company		06/08/1998
Summary:	======================== Kathleen Czarnecki, Applicant v. Golden Eagle Insurance Company, Permissibly Self Insured, Defendants. W. C. A. B. Nos. Defendant, Golden Eagle Insurance Company, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award, issued March 6, 1998, in which a workers' compensation referee (WCR), following an expedited hearing, ordered defendant to provide applicant, Kathleen Czarnecki, the medical treatment recommended by her treating physician, Dr. James McClurg. In a January 13, 1997 report, applicant's treating physician, Dr. McClurg, requested authorization from defendant to perform arthroscopic surgery on applicant's right shoulder. On March 25, 1997, applicant filed a request for an expedited hearing, citing defendant's failure to respond to Dr. McClurg's recommendation. On October 15, 1997, Dr. McClurg sought authorization to perform a second surgery, an open Mumford's procedure, on applicant's shoulder.
Note:	Utilization Review medical reports are not sufficient evidence for benefits determinations.
Citation:	63 CCC 742 (Panel Dec. After Recon)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3761998 CA

Case Name:	D'Angona v. County of LA		07/10/1980
Summary:	LINDA D'ANGONA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Mosk, J. , with Bird, C. J. , Tobriner, Clark, Richardson and Newman, JJ. , concurring. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the present action against Los Angeles County, seeking damages for the aggravation of her disease. After an award of benefits was made in her favor for disability arising from these injuries, she filed the present action in the superior court for damages against the county, fn. However, she served the complaint only upon the county, which is the sole respondent on this appeal. The county in its answer admitted it is engaged in operating the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center.
Note:	Hospital treating injured employee is not an employer; dual capacity exception to exclusive remedy applies.
Citation:	27 Cal.3d 661, 45 CCC 722
WCC Citation:	WCC 24191980 CA

Case Name:	Dalen v. WCAB		06/27/1972
Summary:	STEPHEN JOE DALEN, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ALLSTATE EXCAVATORS AND DEMOLITION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Sims, J. , with Molinari, P. J. , and Elkington, J. , concurring. )He testified as to the duties generally of Group 1 occupations as follows: 'Laborer -- heavy -- unskilled in any particular. . . . ' In an opinion attached to his findings and award, the referee stated, 'Applicant's testimony supports the finding of occupation. Permanent disability indemnity is awarded in accordance with the recommended permanent disability rating filed and served herein. 'In a report dated January 2, 1969, Dr. Hurley observed, 'At the present time, I feel that it would be well to have Mr. Dalen register in a school for rehabilitation.
Note:	4651.2 applies only to rehab programs initiated by employer or ins. carrier
Citation:	26 Cal.App.3d 497, 37 CCC 393
WCC Citation:	WCC 24821972 CA

Case Name:	Daniel Ordorica v. WCAB		03/14/2001
Summary:	DANIEL ORDORICA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LANCE CAMPERS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondents. OPINION ORTEGA, J. - During the initial 30-day period of medical control by the employer following an industrial injury, Daniel Ordorica refused care by the employer's doctor and instead began treatment with a physician he chose. Ordorica further contends the relief afforded by the WCAB is not provided by statute. The same day Lance Campers referred Ordorica to Daniel Mongiano, M. D. , who diagnosed a wound to the forehead which required sutures. However, Dr. Ha'Eri concluded the compression fracture was not work-related because Ordorica had instead hyperextended his spine in the industrial injury.
Note:	Obligation to accept employer treatment w/in 30 days of injury.
Citation:	87 CA 4th 1037, 66 CCC 333
WCC Citation:	WCC 28112001 CA

Case Name:	Daniel v. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co.		03/28/2011
Summary:	MICHELE DANIEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS BOREN, P. J. Michele Daniel (Employee) appeals from the summary judgment entered following the grant of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication by Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Employer). Thus, I would affirm the trial court's order awarding summary judgment to defendant and respondent Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro). On or about March 27, 2009, Tesoro filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of issues. She claims that she was qualified for numerous other positions at Tesoro, but Tesoro refused to even allow her to interview for them.
Note:	A worker's Fair Employment and Housing Act suit should go to trial because triable issues of fact existed about whether the employer ever actually sought to accommodate the plaintiff's work-related disability.
Citation:	B218935
WCC Citation:	WCC 37382011 CA

Case Name:	David Lopez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Yellow Roadway)		11/20/2008
Summary:	Lopez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No. F056266 (Cal. App. Dist. 5 11/20/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. F056266 November 20, 2008 DAVID LOPEZ, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, YELLOW ROADWAY CORPORATION ET AL. , RESPONDENTS. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. No appearance by Respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION THE COURT*fn1 David Lopez petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). BACKGROUND Lopez worked as a truck driver for Yellow Roadway between May 1989 and August 2004, during which time he filed three different workers' compensation claims.
Note:	A truck driver who filed three workers' compensation claims alleging specific and cumulative injuries to various body parts failed to disprove a workers' compensation judge's decision that he had hurt himself not at work, but after a night of beer drinking.
Citation:	F056266
WCC Citation:	WCC 34632008 CA

Case Name:	David Maxwell v. Home Depot USA		12/22/2010
Summary:	David Maxwell (Maxwell) tested positive for methamphetamine and was terminated from his job at Home Depot USA, Inc. (Home Depot). In 2000, Home Depot hired Maxwell to work with the night crew in its store in Monrovia. Home Depot terminated Maxwell because of his physical disability and his requests for medical leave and accommodation. Regardless, Home Depot argued that Maxwell could not prevail because he could not prove that Lipich unlawfully harassed him. Maxwell alleged that Home Depot and Lipich "engaged in outrageous conduct and an abuse of authority by subjecting [Maxwell] to illegal discrimination, harassment and retaliation. "
Note:	Home Depot defeated a former employee's suit alleging disability discrimination and other causes of action by showing that it terminated him for violating its longstanding drug policy, according to a decision from the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	B222844
WCC Citation:	WCC 36952010 CA