Case Name:	Davis v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners		04/12/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) PAUL JEFFREY DAVIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. 07CS00697) The Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) spent over $72,000 in its disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Paul Davis, a 20-year veteran chiropractor in both neurology and orthopedics, for his treatment and billing of a single patient who suffered two industrial accidents at two places of employment with different insurers. Dr. Davis and his wife both testified that he had very little to do with the billing practices in his chiropractic offices. Unlike Dr. Davis and his expert, Michael Martello, D. C. , Dr. Stahl is not a chiropractic orthopedist or a qualified medical examiner (QME). Dr. Martello testified the Board had not codified any standard of care for the treatment of chiropractic patients in California.
Note:	Board Regulation section 318 is not a safe harbor provision exonerating plaintiff for his negligent acts, and the prohibition for 'excessive treatment' is not unconstitutionally vague.
Citation:	C059588
WCC Citation:	WCC 36142010 CA

Case Name:	Davis v. Fireman's Fund Insur. Co.		10/15/1970
Summary:	COUNSEL: For applicant - James H. Davis, in propria persona. Defendant insurance carrier contends that the permanent disability rating is based upon an arbitrary, artificial rule rather than upon the evidence. In the absence of this established procedure, he probably would have rated the disability in this case as 1 per cent flat. 'A rating specialist 'must consider no more and no less than the information provided to him by the fact finder. 'AWARD SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD IS MADE in favor of James H. Davis against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company of: (a) All repair and replacement of heel lifts reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury herein.
Note:	Award of 1% permanent partial disability was not 'nominal' per Sec. 5802.
Citation:	35 CCC 465
WCC Citation:	WCC 26351970 CA

Case Name:	Davis v. First Health Group Corp.		11/25/2009
Summary:	H032183 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. M84885) Defendant First Health Group Corporation is a preferred provider organization (PPO) and provides health benefits services to employers throughout the country. Davis brought suit against First Health nearly six months later, claiming, among other things, that First Health was required to give him a fair hearing and fair procedure before it delisted him. In the application, Davis sought a TRO "restraining [First Health] from failing to allow [Davis] to continue as a preferred provider on its Provider Group Network unless and until such time as it has conducted a fair hearing or other fair adjudicatory proceeding . Adamson also stated that First Health had received Davis's summaries "and various QME providers' reports," which had been reviewed by an unnamed Medical Director of First Health, who recommended delisting Davis. According to supplemental materials supplied by Davis in support of his application,*fn3 First Health is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coventry Health Care.
Note:	[Unpublished] The court did not abuse its discretion by denying a requested mandatory preliminary injunction because this did not represent an extreme case in which claimant's right to the relief was clearly established.
Citation:	H032183
WCC Citation:	WCC 35822009 CA

Case Name:	Davis v. WCAB (City of Modesto)		03/10/2017
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 .             THEODORE DAVIS, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF MODESTO, Respondents. .             F074957 .             (WCAB Nos. ADJ9468922 & ADJ9467074) .             OPINION .             THE COURT* .             * Before Levy, A. P. J. , Franson, J. , and Peña, J. .           Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton & Helphrey, Eric G. Helphrey and Joseph F. Schneider for Respondent City of Modesto. .           -ooOoo- .           Theodore Davis (Davis) petitions for a writ of review from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
Note:
Citation:	F074957
WCC Citation:	WCAB Nos. ADJ9468922 & ADJ9467074

Case Name:	Davis v. WCAB and Allied Security, et al., and Torres v. WCAB and Williams Tank Lines et al.		11/30/2006
Summary:	H029544 (W. C. A. B. No. SJ0236711) MOISES TORRES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WILLIAMS TANK LINES et al. , Respondents. Davis had suffered a prior work-related injury for which she received an award for permanent partial disability of 35 percent. The question before us, therefore, is whether these changes demonstrate that the Legislature clearly intended to alter the Fuentes rule. DISPOSITION In case No. H029544 (Davis v. WCAB et al. ), the order of the WCAB denying reconsideration is affirmed. In case No. H029834 (Torres v. WCAB et al. ), the order of the WCAB denying reconsideration is affirmed.
Note:	When an employee's overall permanent disability is subject to apportionment for a preexisting disability the calculation of compensation is to be made by subtracting the preexisting percentage of permanent disability from the overall percentage of permanent disability.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 324
WCC Citation:	WCC 31972006 CA

Case Name:	Davis vs. Interim Healthcare		09/15/2000
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARY DAVIS Applicant, vs. INTERIM HEALTHCARE, ITT SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC. ; WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendants. Both injuries were sustained while applicant was employed as a nurse by Interim Healthcare, insured by ITT Specialty Risk Services from October 8, 1996 to September 26, 1997, and by Wausau Insurance Company from September , 1997 to October 8, 1997. Dr. Hunt also concluded that applicant was in need of further medical treatment, and that she was a candidate for vocational rehabilitation. There was no indication that Dr. Hunt changed any of the conclusions reached in his March 23, 1999 report. Dr. Wertheimer submitted a final report dated October 8, 1999, after viewing a sub rosa videotape of the applicant.
Note:	4062.9 presumption may be raised at trial for first time, but not on reconsideration.
Citation:	65 CCC 1039
WCC Citation:	WCC 29042000 CA

Case Name:	De La Cerda v. Intermountain Slurry Seal		11/14/2011
Summary:	Plaintiff Juan De La Cerda worked for defendant Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc. (ISS) as a driver and laborer on a seasonal basis. ISS did not rehire De La Cerda in 2007; it claimed it could no longer accommodate his disability and could not afford to have extra labor present to assist De La Cerda with lifting. Olsen declared that after De La Cerda's accident, De La Cerda performed "light duty" work for ISS. ISS provided an assistant to help De La Cerda with lifting and De La Cerda performed other light work such as posting notifications on homes, driving, and training. The court noted De La Cerda had failed to provide evidence of how ISS could furnish sufficient accommodations such that it would enable De La Cerda to perform his former job.
Note:	An employer won summary judgment against a worker's disability discrimination and failure to accommodate suit because he was unable to show a reasonable accommodation existed.
Citation:	C066086
WCC Citation:	WCC 38252011 CA

Case Name:	de la Huerta v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.		10/18/2017
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 FOUR .             PAZ DE LA HUERTA, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B271844 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Fox Rothschild, David Aronoff and Rom Bar-Nissim for Defendants and Respondents. .             Actress Paz de la Huerta appeals from the order partially granting an anti-SLAPP motion as to claims based on the use of a voice double. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS .           EPSTEIN, P. J.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that her breach-of-contract action against Lions Gate Entertainment had been properly dismissed as a strategic lawsuit against public participation and because her workers’ compensation remedy was her exclusive recourse for her physical injuries.
Citation:	B271844
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC124294

Case Name:	De Los Reyes v. Hanley		05/25/2012
Summary:	DE LOS REYES v. HANLEY ALEXANDER A. DE LOS REYES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KEVIN F. HANLEY, Defendant and Respondent. De Los Reyes sued defendant Kevin F. Hanley, M. D. , alleging that defendant filed a false medical report in connection with plaintiff's application for workers' compensation benefits. On appeal, plaintiff has failed to show that he has stated a viable cause of action. The complaint purported to state causes of action against defendant for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
Note:	An injured California worker could not assert a civil action against the qualified medical examiner who allegedly prepared a false report in connection with the worker's claim for benefits.
Citation:	C066453
WCC Citation:	WCC 38992012 CA

Case Name:	De Santiago v. D and G Plumbing, Inc.		09/19/2007
Summary:	Lee, Bazzo, & Nishi, Ted M. Lee and Allison M. Hunt for Defendant and Respondent D and G Plumbing. Facts Plaintiff Joaquin De Santiago suffered a work-related injury when a coemployee, defendant Daniel Flores, discharged a nail gun and struck De Santiago in his left eye. On February 2, 2001, De Santiago filed a personal injury complaint against Flores and his employer, D and G Plumbing (D&G). The register of actions states that on August 8, 2005, the trial court vacated the August 8, 2005, trial date. The trial court replied: "You're not going to see a date until July of next year at the best. "
Note:	Where there is a possibility that the case could have been brought to trial before the expiration of the five-year mark, despite continuances, the continuances themselves do not result in impracticability. The court must look at whether the moving party exercised due diligence in getting its case in front of a judge.
Citation:	155 Cal. App. 4th 365; 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 882
WCC Citation:	WCC 32562007 CA