Case Name:	P. v. Machesky		03/12/2010
Summary:	The court placed Machesky on five years' probation, conditioned on, among other things, she perform 400 hours of volunteer work. On May 18 the store's workers' compensation insurance carrier, Springfield Insurance Company (Springfield), began paying temporary total disability benefits to Machesky. While at Dodge's office, Machesky stated on a patient questionnaire that she had never suffered any prior work-related injuries. After the car accident, Machesky told emergency room doctors at Scripps Memorial Hospital that she had mild neck pain. In November 2001 Machesky experienced pain in the middle of her back while pushing carts and missed 12 days of work.
Note:	A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no other reasonably arguable appellate issue.
Citation:	D055509
WCC Citation:	WCC 36092010 CA

Case Name:	Pac. Employers Ins. Co. v. IAC		06/26/1959
Summary:	PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and TOM L. STROER, Respondents. On July 29, 1957, Stroer, employed as a carpenter, sustained an admitted industrial injury to his back. The employer's insurance carrier, the petitioner, voluntarily furnished medical care, and paid compensation, until February 17, 1958. The commission awarded Stroer maximum temporary partial disability payments for the period February 17, 1958, through July 6, 1958. The insurance carrier does not complain of the finding that during the period in question the employee was temporarily partially disabled.
Note:	Where partial TD accounts for total wage loss then wages lost is only req. finding.
Citation:	52 Cal.2d 417
WCC Citation:	WCC 24981959 CA

Case Name:	Pac. Indem. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n		06/08/1945
Summary:	19289, 19290 June 8, 1945 PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY (A CORPORATION), PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, SALOME VALLEZ ET AL. , RESPONDENTS. PROCEEDINGS to review orders of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for death. There was other evidence indicating that the fatal accident occurred somewhat later. I, § 196, p. 188; 27 Cal. Jur. § 90, p. 392; Larson v. Industrial Acc. The industrial nature of the Vallez boys' trip is significant only in that it brings this phase of the case within the rule of Western Pacific R. R. Co. v. Industrial Acc.
Note:	Evidence supports determination that was injury sustained in course and scope of employment.
Citation:	26 Cal. 2d 509
WCC Citation:	WCC 30491945 CA

Case Name:	Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. IAC		07/17/1961
Summary:	PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, SALLY MARY DREW et al. , Respondents. OPINION DOOLING, J. Petitioner seeks review and the annulment of an award and decision made by the Industrial Accident Commission. The award was based on a finding that the employee's death was the result of the industrial injury 'combined with a non-industrial cancer. 'X-rays taken on February 23, 1958, revealed a fracture of the seventh dorsal vertebra of his thoracic spine. The succeeding article 4 deals exclusively with payments to be made to the dependents of employees following the employee's death.
Note:	4663 has no reference to benefits owed worker's dependents.
Citation:	56 Cal.2d 219
WCC Citation:	WCC 25531961 CA

Case Name:	Pacific Gas & Electric vs. WCAB (Bryan)		01/09/2004
Summary:	A101872 WCAB No. BAK 135832 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) contends the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) erred when it awarded benefits to respondent Clifford Bryan for work-related psychiatric injury. As a "collector" he went to the homes of delinquent customers to either collect money or turn off the gas and electric service. Having concluded the WCAB improperly relied on certain factors when making its decision, we turn to the issue of prejudice. The case is remanded to the WCAB so it can reconsider the matter in light of this opinion. While we remand the case to the WCAB to so it can reconsider its decision, we state no opinion on what decision the WCAB should reach.
Note:	Financial status of business not an 'actual event' of employment.
Citation:	114 Cal.App.4th 1174
WCC Citation:	WCC 29652004 CA

Case Name:	Painter v. WCAB		03/27/1985
Summary:	OPINION SONENSHINE, J. Donna B. Painter has petitioned for a writ of review after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied her petition for reconsideration. Painter filed a petition for reconsideration before the WCAB, contending the judge erred by relying exclusively on the conclusions of Dr. Schwartz. Due to illness, the trial judge did not prepare a report on reconsideration for use by the WCAB. [1] Section 5908. 5 requires the WCAB decision to 'state the evidence relied upon and specify in detail the reasons for the decision. 'The WCAB also argues lack of compliance with section 5908. 5 resulted in no prejudice because Painter is aware of the evidentiary basis for the board's decision.
Note:	Board fails to 'state evidence relied upon/reasons for decision' by simply incorporating original decision; review not appropriate.
Citation:	166 Cal.App.3d 264
WCC Citation:	WCC 26971985 CA

Case Name:	Palestini v. General Dynamics Corp.		06/07/2002
Summary:	LOUIE PALESTINI et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, Charles A. Bird and Timothy R. Pestotnik for Defendant and Respondent General Dynamics Corporation. 3 From March 1982 to June 1992, Louie Palestini worked as a plastics fabricator, group leadman, and supervisor at General Dynamics's manufacturing plants in San Diego. Hughes, joined by General Dynamics, filed a general demurrer to the section 3602(b)(2) cause of action on the ground it was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 3200 et seq. ). The amended complaint alleges that Louie Palestini was employed by General Dynamics through June 1992, and was employed by Hughes through January 1994.
Note:	Facts sufficiently pled in complaint to allege fraudulent concealment exception to exclusive remedy.
Citation:	99 Cal.App.4th 80
WCC Citation:	WCC 28592002 CA

Case Name:	Palm Medical Group, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund		03/25/2008
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE PALM MEDICAL GROUP, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Appellant. Ct. No. 421984) Palm Medical Group, Inc. (Palm), an occupational medical clinic located in Fresno, was denied admission into the preferred provider network (PPN) operated by State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), a California public enterprise fund operating throughout the state as a nonprofit workers' compensation insurer. SCIF is the largest workers' compensation insurance carrier in the State of California. [¶] (b) State Compensation Insurance Fund's reasons for rejection of Palm Medical Group's application for admission to the Preferred Provider Network were arbitrary and unreasonable?"The jury answered "no" to subparagraph (a) and "yes" to subparagraph (b), and was directed to question number three which read, "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that if fair procedures had been provided by State Compensation Insurance Fund in connection with Palm Medical Group's 2001-2002 application for admission to State Compensation Insurance Fund's Preferred Provider Network, that Palm Medical Group should have been admitted into the Preferred Provider Network?"
Note:	Defendant 'possessed power so substantial over the market for the treatment of occupational injuries in the Fresno area in 2001-2002 that the failure to admit an ordinary, competent medical provider to its PPN would significantly impair that provider's ability to practice occupational medicine in the Fresno area and, so, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of fair procedure in acting on its application to the PPN.
Citation:	A114651
WCC Citation:	WCC 33302008 CA

Case Name:	Palmer v. BNSF Railway Co.		09/30/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) No. C057964 September 30, 2010 SHAWN M. PALMER, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Plaintiff Shawn M. Palmer, a railroad switchman, was injured as he climbed down from a tanker car while wearing a device used to remotely control locomotives. He sued his employer, defendant BNSF Railway Company, for personal injury under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq. However, the court also found that a "cause of action for negligence under the FELA is preempted by the [FRSA]. This appeal presents questions of law involving the interplay between federal statutes, and we review the granting of summary judgment de novo.
Note:	The Federal Railroad Safety Act did not bar a railroad switchman's Federal Employer's Liability Act suit.
Citation:	C057964
WCC Citation:	WCC 36742010 CA

Case Name:	Palmer v. WCAB		06/23/1987
Summary:	WALLACE EARL PALMER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondents (Opinion by Woods, P. J. , with Kingsley and McClosky, JJ. , concurring. )In the application, '9/24/48 - 11/11/78' was typed in a blank space below which were the words '(Date of Injury). 'In his November 29, 1978, report, Dr. Urabec stated that 'Robert Palmer' complained of slight irritation due to industrial smoke exposure and occasional wheezing due to industrial steam exposure. On August 15, 1984, applicant filed a petition to reopen pursuant to sections 5410, 5803, and 5804. The WCJ concluded, however, that in the interest of justice each party should be allowed the opportunity to establish the legal date of injury.
Note:	Case remanded to determine when applicant knew or should have known disability was work-related.
Citation:	192 Cal.App.3d 1241
WCC Citation:	WCC 25331987 CA

Case Name:	Paris v. USI Southern California Ins. Services		09/12/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LANCE PARIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. USI OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Lance Paris (Paris) sued his ex-employer, defendant and respondent USI of Southern California Insurance Services, Inc. , a California corporation (USI). Prior to April 1, 2003, USI provided loss control services to its clients by hiring Paris as an independent contractor. The billing procedures Neither Rastigue nor any other USI employee asked Paris to provide USI with invoices for loss control services, nor did any USI employee tell Paris that he must "bill, invoice, and collect for loss control services" in order to earn a commission. [P]roducers at USI began to give free loss control services to their clients, i. e. , [Paris] would provide the same services to the clients, but the producers refused to charge the clients, thus .
Note:	[Unpublished] There are triable issues of fact as to whether USI breached the April 1, 2003, employment agreement by failing to pay Paris all wages, bonuses, and commissions.
Citation:	B200225
WCC Citation:	WCC 34232008 CA

Case Name:	Parish v. WCAB		05/04/1989
Summary:	HERBERT PARISH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and COUNTY OF VENTURA, Respondents (Opinion by Abbe, J. , with Stone (S. The WCAB, based on the conflict in the medical evidence between Dr. Markovitz and Dr. Winsor, granted reconsideration and referred the matter to an independent medical examiner, Dr. Brotman. In its decision after reconsideration, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's finding, and found applicant did not sustain industrial heart injury. Here, the WCAB, relying heavily on Dr. Brotman's opinion, conceded that the presumption of Labor Code section 3212. 5 was applicable, yet erroneously inferred applicant's symptoms must have resulted from surmised contemporaneous nonindustrial factors. The WCAB did not specify, and the record does not disclose, what '. . . contemporaneous nonwork-related event. . . ,' if any, was the sole cause of applicant's heart trouble.
Note:	a congenital disease is entitled to the presumption if there is an employment nexus.
Citation:	210 Cal.App.3d 92
WCC Citation:	WCC 4151989 CA

Case Name:	Park v. Arkema, Inc.		08/30/2012
Summary:	PARK v. ARKEMA, INC. WHASAM PARK et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ARKEMA, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiffs and appellants Whasam Park (Park) and Anne Park (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Arkema, Inc. (Arkema) and Turkish Products, Inc. (collectively, the Arkema defendants) in this personal injury action premised on alleged occupational exposures to various toxic chemicals. Park alleged that his exposure to benzene-containing chemical products was a substantial factor in causing his leukemia. Plaintiffs filed this action on April 13, 2006 against the manufacturers and suppliers of various chemical products to which Park was allegedly exposed. In his August 25, 2008 declaration, Brautbar opined that exposure to benzene can cause the type of leukemia from which Park suffers.
Note:	A former machine tool operator suffering from leukemia should have been allowed to present the opinion of a doctor linking his condition to his workplace exposure to benzene in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, even though that doctor was no longer designated as an expert witness.
Citation:	B229513
WCC Citation:	WCC 39282012 CA

Case Name:	Parker v. WCAB		10/01/1992
Summary:	DENNIS PARKER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and FREMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondents. (1977) 75 Cal. App. 3d 113, 118 [142 Cal. Rptr. 42]; Bauer v. County of Los Angeles (1969) 34 Cal. Comp. Cases 594 [Board en banc opn. ]. )II On May 9, 1991, the instant case proceeded to hearing before WCJ Robert Laws at the Oakland Board. Thus, an injured employee may be fully capable of working and his or her medical condition not yet permanent and stationary. It is immaterial to our decision that the parties stipulated to an apportionment of PD between the two injuries.
Note:	Injuries cannot be combined for rating if no common body part though P&S at same time.
Citation:	9 Cal.App.4th 1636, 57 CCC 608
WCC Citation:	WCC 28671992 CA

Case Name:	Parks v. WCAB		03/21/1983
Summary:	On this day, Parks drove to the exit of the lot and turned left onto Compton Boulevard. At that moment, three youths pulled open the driver's door on Parks' car, wrestled her purse away from her and fled. Parks was unable to return to work for three weeks as a result of the physical and emotional trauma from this assault. However, our decisions in Greydanus and Henslick indicate that the WCAB read Chairez too narrowly in denying compensation to Parks. The WCAB, however, ignored the fact that the risk to which Parks was subjected also met the second prong of the Chairez test.
Note:	Going and coming rule not a bar to compensation where teacher was exposed to special risk in parking lot.
Citation:	33 Cal. 3d 585
WCC Citation:	WCC 30561983 CA

Case Name:	Parkwoods Comm. Assn. v. CIGA		08/07/2006
Summary:	James A. Richman This action was brought by plaintiff Parkwoods Community Association (Parkwoods) following the settlement of its earlier construction defect action arising out of the construction of the Parkwoods condominium development in Oakland. Parkwoods and CIGA agreed upon the amount that CIGA would pay Parkwoods if CIGA is required to pay the obligations of Reliance and the Reliance Insureds, and agreed that this declaratory relief action would be brought to resolve their dispute as to whether Parkwoods' claim is a "covered claim" within the meaning of Insurance Code section 1063. 1, subdivision (c)*fn1 that CIGA is obligated to pay. . . . 'CIGA issues no policies, collects no premiums, makes no profits, and assumes no contractual obligations to the insureds. 'Permitting Parkwoods to recover from CIGA in the present case would, in effect, sanction an indirect recovery that could not be obtained directly. The matter is remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment entered in favor of Parkwoods and to enter judgment in favor of CIGA.
Note:	Because other insurance was available to Parkwoods, CIGA is not obligated to satisfy a 'covered claim'.
Citation:	141 Cal. App. 4th 1362
WCC Citation:	WCC 31722006 CA

Case Name:	Parrent v. SBC-Pacific Bell Telephone Company		08/30/2016
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA  .             GREGORY PARRENT, Applicant, .             v. .             SBC-PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured; .             administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendants. .             Case No. ADJ339088 (SDO 0304788) .             OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION .             We granted reconsideration in this matter to provide an opportunity to further study the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration. I.   .           Applicant sustained an industrial injury to his bilateral upper extremities while employed by  SBC-Pacific Bell Telephone Company as a service representative during the period May 10, 1999 through November 17, 2002. .           For the foregoing reasons, .           IT IS ORDERED that, as our Decision After Reconsideration, the Findings of Fact, issued September 8, 2015, is AFFIRMED. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           KATHERINE ZALEWSKI .           !CONCUR, .           DEIDRA E. LOW2 .           I CONCUR (See Separate Concurring Opinion), .           MARGUERITE SWEENEY .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           AUG 3 0 2016 CONCURRING OPINION  .           I concur with the detennination to affinn the WCJ's finding that he did not have jurisdiction to address the issue of the medical necessity of the treatment recommended by applicant's MPN treating physician, where the defendant submitted the request for authorization to utilization review (UR) pursuant to Labor Code section 4610 et seq.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ339088 (SDO 0304788)
WCC Citation:	ADJ339088 (SDO 0304788)

Case Name:	Parrent v. WCAB		01/05/2017
Summary:	  .   D071162   .    WCAB No. ADJ339088   .   THE COURT:   .   From 1999 to 2002, Gregory Parrent suffered industrial injury while working for Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pac Bell). On December 12, 2014, Parrent (through his counsel, Robert A. McLaughlin) requested an independent medical review (IMR) of the UR determination. Parrent sought reconsideration by the WCAB, arguing (1) the "WCAB has immediate jurisdiction over a treatment recommendation of a [MPN] treating physician prior to [UR]," (2) the WCAB has "immediate jurisdiction over a treatment recommendation of an MPN treating physician after UR and/or URIndependent Medical Review ('IMR')," and (3) the "statutory framework does not permit UR-IMR under §§ 4610, 4610. 5 and 4610. 6 of a treatment recommendation made by a MPN treating physician within Article 2. 3. "   .   The WCJ issued a report and recommendation to the WCAB recommending denial of Parrent's request for reconsideration. The WCAB concluded no statutory or regulatory authority supported the conclusion advanced by Parrent and the applicable statutes and regulations bind employers to the UR process set forth in sections 4610, 4610. 5 and 4610. 6.   .   "In considering a petition for writ of review of a decision of the WCAB, this court's authority is limited. [We] must determine whether the evidence, when viewed in light of the entire record, supports the award of the WCAB.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal on Thursday denied review of a dispute over whether an employer can refer a treatment recommendation from a doctor within its own medical provider network through utilization review and independent medical review.
Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ339088)
WCC Citation:

Case Name:	Pasquinelli v. State of CA		02/20/1975
Summary:	ROBERT J. PASQUINELLI et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Defendants and Appellants (Opinion by Friedman, J. , with Puglia, P. J. , and Janes, J. , concurring. )Petitioner Pasquinelli suffered several injuries, the last on May 30, 1970, and received 226-7/8 days of benefits under section 4800, separating for permanent disability on October 15, 1970. In the trial court the state asserted the bar of a one-year period of limitations; petitioners sought shelter under the five-year statute governing some workmen's compensation proceedings. (Monroe v. Trustees of the California State Colleges, 6 Cal. 3d 399, 405 [99 Cal. Rptr. 129, 491 P. 2d 1105]. )Petitioner Pasquinelli did not voluntarily relinquish the salaried leave of absence granted by Labor Code section 4800.
Note:	Claim for 1 yr. salary needs to be filed within 3 yrs. of employer's wrongful termination of benefits.
Citation:	45 Cal.App.3d 457
WCC Citation:	WCC 26751975 CA

Case Name:	Pasquotto v. Hayward Lumber		02/27/2006
Summary:	The Current Injuries On October 8, 1999, applicant was seen by Steven Dosch, M. D. , for a pre-employment physical examination for the truck driving job with Hayward Lumber. On or about October 19, 1999, applicant was hired as a driver by Hayward Lumber. As such, I believe Mr. Pasquotto would have had fifty percent of his current level of lumbar spine disability even in the absence of his employment at Hayward Lumber. The remaining fifty percent of lumbar spine disability is directly related to the Applicant's employment and injuries at Hayward Lumber. "On October 6, 2004, the WCJ issued rating instructions for applicant's December 2001 and August 2, 2002 back injuries with Hayward Lumber.
Note:	Order approving a compromise and release settlement is not a prior award of permanent disability for apportionment purposes.
Citation:	71 CCC 223
WCC Citation:	WCC 31452006 CA

Case Name:	Patterson v. Nestle Waters		05/20/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ADRAINE PATTERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Adraine Patterson (plaintiff) was terminated from her employment at Nestle Waters North America (Nestle) after sustaining a job-related injury and then not being able to perform her job or any other available position at Nestle. Plaintiff sued Nestle and Nestle plant manager, Humberto Gomez, (defendants) for violating the California Fair Employment Practice Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. At the time of plaintiff's employment at Nestle, Nestle also produced juice products in aluminum cans at the plant. After filing FEHA discrimination claims against Gomez, Hartfield, Navin, Flynn and Nestle, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in July 2006, against Nestle and Gomez.
Note:	[Unpublished] A worker failed to raise any issues of material fact in a suit alleging that a bottling plant violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	E045764
WCC Citation:	WCC 35262009 CA

Case Name:	Patterson v. Sharp		08/31/1970
Summary:	1 shows the following facts: [10 Cal. App. 3d 993] Albert Patterson, while on the job on April 15, 1965, received an injury which caused his death on July 18 of the same year. At the time of intervention, the total amount expended by intervener pursuant to the 1967 workmen's compensation award was $12,934. 04. (According to the stipulated facts in the agreed statement on appeal, the verdict was 'supported in all respects by substantial evidence. ')5 Granting defendant's motion, the trial court made formal findings of fact that (1) intervener had paid 'to plaintiff' fn. In such case, the latter may assert that the injury or death was a proximate result of the concurrent negligence of the employer.
Note:	Reduction of 3rd party death benefits due to finding of employer negligence.
Citation:	10 Cal.App.3d 990
WCC Citation:	WCC 24741970 CA

Case Name:	PATTERSON vs. THE OAKS FARM		07/24/2014
Summary:	THE OAKS FARM; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, Case No. ADJ3905924 (ANA 0339374) (Oxnard District Office) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (Significant Panel Decision) Defendants. PATTERSON, Jennifer [M. D. ]’s November 10, 2011 report despite numerous emails and phone contact
” 2 attorney filed an objection to applicant’s request for expedited hearing. A case manager has been utilized in the recent past, however, disputes frequently arise between applicant and various assistants, including nurse case manager(s). PATTERSON, Jennifer resultant labryrinthitis/vestibular dysfunction, post traumatic head syndrome, cervical and lumbar injuries and occipital neuralgia. As noted, I had determined that Ms. Patterson continued to be in need of psychological intervention at the time of my initial evaluation.
Note:	OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (Significant Panel Decision)
Citation:	ADJ3905924
WCC Citation:	ADJ3905924

Case Name:	Paul Brothers v. New York State Electric and Gas Corp.		10/21/2008
Summary:	Paul Brothers, Appellant, v. New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, Respondent, et al. , Defendants. READ, J. : In October 1999, defendant New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) applied to the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) for a form highway work permit authorizing it to undertake "electric and gas maintenance work in highway region #8 (Columbia, Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Westchester, Rockland, and Ulster Counties)" between January 1 and December 31, 2000. NYSEG and other utilities providing electric and gas service to customers in upstate New York ask DOT each year for these generic work permits, which allow them to construct, maintain and repair electric and gas network and support facilities in state highway rights-of-way. DOT granted NYSEG the permit, which set forth a detailed outline entitled "Method of Performing Work Within the State Highway Right of Way. "Tamarack employed about a dozen workers on this project, including plaintiff Paul Brothers.
Note:	Although plaintiff presses the point that NYSEG should be held liable because it voluntarily assumed a duty to comply with the safety regulations recited in the permit, NYSEG does not really have a choice in the matter; it cannot shirk maintenance work in state highway rights-of-way.
Citation:	00002
WCC Citation:	WCC 34462008 CA

Case Name:	Pavon, et al v. Glaeser Builders, Inc.		09/26/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE JOSE LUIS PAVON, SR. , ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. GLAESER BUILDERS, INC. , ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Hollins Law, Kathleen Mary Kushi Carter, Tamara M. Heathcote and Johnathan D. Cloud for Defendants and Respondents Glaeser Builders, Inc. , Peter Glaeser and Kristine Glaeser. Plaintiffs sued the Glaesers, Glaeser Builders, Inc. and Glaeser Management Company (Defendants). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 16, 2006, decedent was killed by electrocution while performing concrete work at the home of defendants Peter and Kristine Glaeser. Defendants Glaeser Management Co. and Glaeser Builders, Inc. are remodeling and construction businesses associated with the Glaesers.
Note:	A trial court erred by dismissing a general negligence cause of action after determining a worker who was fatally electrocuted was an independent contractor.
Citation:	B225280
WCC Citation:	WCC 38052011 CA

Case Name:	Payless Shoe Source v. WCAB		07/08/2008
Summary:	Filed 7/8/08 Payless Shoe Source v. WCAB CA5 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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RHONDA DALERIO, Respondents. -ooOoo- *Before Levy, Acting P. J. , Gomes, J. , and Hill, J. Payless Shoe Source (Payless) petitioned this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). BACKGROUND Rhonda Dalerio worked as a sales and stock clerk for a Payless shoe store in Oakhurst from October 25, 1999, through August 16, 2003. Based on the documentary evidence, the WCJ concluded only the injuries already accepted by Payless were industrially related and awarded her further related medical care.
Note:	[Unpublished] The WCAB must determine whether a report of a treating physician indicated the existence of permanent disability, thereby warranting the use of the 1997 PDRS. If the record is void of such evidence prepared before January 1, 2005, then Dalerio's permanent disability must be rated under the 2005 PDRS pursuant to section 4660, subdivision (d).
Citation:	F053612
WCC Citation:	WCC 33932008 CA

Case Name:	Paz v. Tech Flex		09/12/2019
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD  ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA .             GLADYS PAZ, Applicant, .             v. .             TECH FLEX; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, .             TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP, Lien claimant. .             Case No. ADJ8969504 (Van Nuys District Office) .             OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION .             We previously granted the petition of lien claimant Tri-County Medical Group for reconsideration of the March 8, 2016 Findings And Order of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) as signed the following day and served on March 16, 2016. .             An answer was not received. .           For the foregoing reasons, .           IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the March 8, 2016 Findings And Order of the workers' compensation administrative law judge is AFFIRMED. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           DEIDRA E. LOWE .           I CONCUR, .           MARGUERITE SWEENEY .           FRANK M. BRASS .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           SEP 1 2 2016 Further statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise stated.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ8969504
WCC Citation:	ADJ8969504

Case Name:	PDM Steel Service Centers v. Mullen & Filippi		08/08/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PDM STEEL SERVICE CENTERS, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MULLEN & FILIPPI, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION On July 20, 2006, appellant PDM Steel Service Centers, Inc. , filed a multi-cause complaint in Fresno County Superior Court alleging respondent Mullen & Filippi, LLP, mishandled a worker's compensation matter relating to one of appellant's employees. STATEMENT OF THE CASE*fn2 On April 6, 2007, McLean & McLean LLP, attorneys for appellant PDM Steel Service Centers, Inc. , filed a proof of service in superior court. The proof of service filed with the Court for Mullen & Filippi fails to do so; 'receptionist' appears no where thereon. We impose those sanctions jointly and severally against attorneys Mark A. McLean and Benjamin L. Kennedy, counsel for appellant PDM Steel Service Centers, Inc. B.
Note:	[Unpublished] Given all of the facts and the controlling legal authority, any reasonable attorney would agree this appeal is totally and completely without merit.
Citation:	F054031
WCC Citation:	WCC 34102008 CA

Case Name:	Peak v. IAC		12/18/1947
Summary:	GEORGE PEAK, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, Respondent. Peak September 8, 1945, and that he placed him in the hospital at that time. This letter states 'Copies of these reports are being forwarded to Mr. George Peak, 1601 Fifth Street, San Rafael. 'Peak: Have you got Dr. Tyler's report of the x-rays?Peak: I didn't get Dr. Williams, none of Dr. DeLancey's or Dr. McCarthy.
Note:	Award set aside b/c expert testimony not served to all parties involved.
Citation:	82 Cal.App.2d 926
WCC Citation:	WCC 25781947 CA

Case Name:	Pearl v. WCAB (Sup. Ct.)		07/19/2001
Summary:	He subsequently petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to determine whether the injury was industrial, entitling him to increased benefits. On another occasion, while Pearl was in a toilet stall, his supervisor set off a packet of firecrackers in the stall. Pearl also believed that his supervisor had given him an unfair performance evaluation that had damaged his career. During this period, Pearl also suffered family pressures, including his brother's spousal murder and suicide, which occurred shortly before Pearl began work at the university, and Pearl's own divorce and custody dispute. Pursuant to Government Code section 21166, Pearl petitioned the WCAB for a finding of fact on the issue.
Note:	Gov't Code sect. 20046, and not Labor Code 3208.3, governs whether disability of a PERS member is
Citation:	26 Cal.4th 189, 64 CCC 470
WCC Citation:	WCC 28102001 CA