Case Name:	Espinoza v. County of Orange		02/09/2012
Summary:	ESPINOZA v. COUNTY OF ORANGE RALPH ESPINOZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant County of Orange appeals from a judgment in favor of its employee, plaintiff Ralph Espinoza, in his action for harassment based on disability and failure to prevent harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. Plaintiff began working for the Orange County Probation Department (department) in July 1996 when he was in his 30's. It also ain't run by O. C. E. A. ," the last presumably referring to the Orange County Employees Association. In Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 121 we held the alleged sexual harassment of plaintiff was not sufficiently pervasive or severe to sustain a judgment under FEHA.
Note:	A California appellate court affirmed an $820,700 disability harassment award for an Orange County juvenile probation officer on Thursday, after concluding that the trial court rightfully considered hurtful comments that were posted on a co-worker's blog.
Citation:	G043067
WCC Citation:	WCC 38562012 CA

Case Name:	Espinoza v. WCAB (Los Angeles County Jail)		02/05/2013
Summary:	ESPINOZA v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STEWART ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL, Respondents. On January 17, 2012, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that petitioner Stewart Espinoza, while an inmate of the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail, was not an employee of the County of Los Angeles (County) at the time that he was injured while working as a cook in the jail, and that he was therefore not eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The solution to this problem was the enactment in 1970 by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors of an order, referred to hereafter as Order #91, which provides that persons confined in the county jail may be compelled to perform labor under the direction of a county official. Facts Prior to the trial before the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), Espinoza and County stipulated that Espinoza was working as a cook in the county jail on November 1, 2005 when he sustained an injury to his left shoulder. The parties also stipulated that if Espinoza was found to be County's employee, the injury arose in the course and scope of employment.
Note:	California's 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that a Los Angeles County inmate who hurt his shoulder while working in the kitchen at the jail was not an
Citation:	B239438
WCC Citation:	WCC 39812013 CA

Case Name:	Esquivel v. WCAB		10/13/2009
Summary:	For reasons unrelated to her need for that treatment, Esquivel drove about 130 miles to her mother's home in Hesperia, in San Bernardino County. With respect to those injuries, Esquivel was insured through her employer for workers' compensation by New Hampshire Insurance Company. B. Esquivel's New Injuries and Amended Workers' Compensation Claim In May 2007*fn1 Esquivel resided in the City of San Diego. Esquivel later claimed that her motor vehicle accident injuries were a compensable consequence of her industrial injuries. The WCJ awarded Esquivel temporary disability indemnity in a specified weekly amount, plus further medical treatment.
Note:	The employer bears the risk of incurring compensability liability under the Act for an injury an employee suffers during travel to or from a medical appointment related to an existing compensable injury while the employee is traveling a reasonable distance, within a reasonable geographic area, to or from that appointment.
Citation:	D054197
WCC Citation:	WCC 35712009 CA

Case Name:	Estrada v. WCAB		11/05/1997
Summary:	OPINION CROSKEY, Acting P. J. - In this petition for writ of mandate challenging a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board or WCAB), Miguel A. Estrada (Estrada), the injured worker, requests relief from the Board's decision regarding his rights to vocational rehabilitation temporary disability (VRTD). 7 The issue of whether the parties' vocational rehabilitation provision could be enforced resurfaced in a disagreement between Estrada and defendants over whether Estrada was entitled to receive retroactive VRTD and retroactive 'maintenance allowance. '8 Defendants asserted they had properly delayed giving Estrada vocational rehabilitation benefits, including VRTD, until January 25, l994, because Estrada was examined by Dr. Endler on that [58 Cal. App. 4th 1465] day. In contrast, Estrada asserted he was entitled to VRTD retroactive to a date prior to January 25, 1994. She determined that as a QIW, Estrada was owed VRTD for the period April 17, 1990, through January 24, 1994.
Note:	Commutation allowed if good faith issue that might defeat applicant's claim for all benefits exists (Thomas finding).
Citation:	58 Cal.App.4th 1458, 62 CCC 1384
WCC Citation:	WCC 26141997 CA

Case Name:	Estrada v. WCAB		11/05/1997
Summary:	OPINION CROSKEY, Acting P. J. - In this petition for writ of mandate challenging a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board or WCAB), Miguel A. Estrada (Estrada), the injured worker, requests relief from the Board's decision regarding his rights to vocational rehabilitation temporary disability (VRTD). 7 The issue of whether the parties' vocational rehabilitation provision could be enforced resurfaced in a disagreement between Estrada and defendants over whether Estrada was entitled to receive retroactive VRTD and retroactive 'maintenance allowance. '8 Defendants asserted they had properly delayed giving Estrada vocational rehabilitation benefits, including VRTD, until January 25, l994, because Estrada was examined by Dr. Endler on that [58 Cal. App. 4th 1465] day. In contrast, Estrada asserted he was entitled to VRTD retroactive to a date prior to January 25, 1994. She determined that as a QIW, Estrada was owed VRTD for the period April 17, 1990, through January 24, 1994.
Note:	Absent express approval by WCJ in Order Approving, Thomas request inapplicable.
Citation:	58 Cal.App.4th 1458
WCC Citation:	WCC 4051997 CA

Case Name:	Evans v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.		03/27/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No. B192848 March 27, 2008 ESSIE EVANS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Plaintiff and appellant Essie Evans (Evans) appeals a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (Mutual) in an action for breach of contract and bad faith arising out of Mutual's refusal to pay benefits under an accident insurance policy. Mutual further argued that regardless of what Evans now asserted, she previously had conceded before the WCAB that it was "the long lingering 'cumulative . Mutual averred that Evans was barred by judicial estoppel from now taking a legal position diametrically opposed to the position she took in another tribunal. Thereafter, Evans filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment in favor of Mutual.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because Plaintiff has previously, and successfully, argued to another tribunal that decedent's death was due to cumulative job stress over a period of many years, Plaintiff is judicially estopped from asserting the loss of life was an 'accidental result of standing' so as to entitle her to benefits under the accidental death policy.
Citation:	B192848
WCC Citation:	WCC 33322008 CA

Case Name:	Evans v. Sunamoto		12/09/2010
Summary:	JONATHAN EVANS et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents,v. RONALD KENT SUNAMOTO et al. , Defendants and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Appellants Ronald Kent Sunamoto (Sunamoto) and Keystone Freight Corporation (Keystone) appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants Jonathan Evans (Evans) and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The complaint was initially filed on February 6, 2007, in Stanislaus County by Evans. Evans alleged that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident while Sunamoto was driving in the course of his employment with Keystone. Travelers filed a complaint in intervention, seeking reimbursement of the workers' compensation benefits it had paid Evans.
Note:	A Los Angeles Superior Court was correct to deny a defense attorneys last-minute request to withdraw his waiver of a jury.
Citation:	B218630
WCC Citation:	WCC 36892010 CA

Case Name:	Evard v. Southern California Edison		07/11/2007
Summary:	Plaintiffs Daniel Evard and Christina Evard, and defendant and cross-complainant Southern California Edison (SCE), appeal from a summary judgment entered for defendants Heywood Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Heywood) and Western Empire Industries, Inc. (Western Empire) in plaintiffs' personal injury action. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 23, 2004, plaintiffs Daniel Evard and Christina Evard filed a complaint against defendants SCE, Heywood, and William H. Dagg and the William H. Dagg Trust (Dagg). Before the accident, however, Evard did not tie his harness to the ladder he stood on at the top of the billboard. As Evard attempted to place a metal bar into vinyl at the corner of the billboard, he felt "zapped" and "jolted. "Costs on appeal are awarded to plaintiffs Daniel Evard and Christina Evard and defendant and cross-complainant Southern California Edison.
Note:	A nondelegable duty is a definite affirmative duty the law imposes on one by reason of his or her relationship with others. One cannot escape this duty by entrusting it to an independent contractor.
Citation:	153 Cal. App. 4th 137
WCC Citation:	WCC 32352007 CA

Case Name:	Ezra v. State of California Dep't of Health Services		09/07/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN HABTNESH EZRA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. In January of 2007, DHS filed a Form 1099 with the IRS reporting the payment of the settlement to Ezra. *fn3 The violation is identified as respondents' act of filing the Form 1099 with the IRS "in an effort to harm Ezra. "(The Capital Gold Group, Inc. v. Nortier ( 2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 1119, 1127; see also, Leader v. Health Indus. Ezra asks this court to reinstate her claim against respondents "by returning it from a state of make-believe to its reality. "
Note:	An employer's filing of a Form 1099 with the Internal Revenue Service about a former employee's settlement was not an act of retaliation because it was a business necessity, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B216144
WCC Citation:	WCC 36642010 CA

Case Name:	Ezzy v. WCAB		08/19/1983
Summary:	Marilyn Ezzy (hereafter Ezzy) at all relevant times was employed by the law firm of Gassett, Perry & Frank (hereafter GPF) as a law clerk. The record of the WCAB hearing discloses that GPF participated in a softball league composed primarily of civil defense law firms. Ezzy testified that she did not volunteer but was 'drafted' to join the team. Ezzy understood there was a coed requirement, and when there appeared to be shortage of women, the female members were urged to get out and play. Ezzy stated that the firm paid for postgame pizza and other refreshments.
Note:	Law clerk injured in employer-sponsored softball game rx. believed was in course of employment.
Citation:	146 Cal.App.3d 252, 48 CCC 611
WCC Citation:	WCC 28051983 CA