Case Name:	Kirby v. Contra Costa Water District		09/07/2017
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD  STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             TIMOTHYKIRBY, Applicant, .             v. .             CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by YORK RISK SERVICES, Defendants~ .             Case No. ADJ10289629 (Oakland District Office) .             OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION .             We granted Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. .             We received a Report and Reco~endation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) from the WCJ recommending the Petition be denied. .           After examining applicant and reviewing the medical record, Dr. Poston stated: .           "Mr. Kirby's psychiatric condition is such he would be expected to have some difficulty performing in the workplace, but not ·to the extent he is seen as totally or partially disabled. .           For the foregoing reasons, .           IT IS ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings, Award and Order issued by the WCJ on November 29, 2016 is AFFIRMED. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           DEIDRA E. LOWE .           I CONCUR, .           MARGUERJTE SWEENEY .           JOSE H. RAZO .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           SEP 0 7 2017 Defendant e-filed a Petition For Leave to File a Reply to Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration and subsequently filed the petition with the WCAB.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ10289629
WCC Citation:	ADJ10289629

Case Name:	Kirk v. First American Title Insurance Co.		04/07/2010
Summary:	PATRICK KIRK et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Appellants. The Underlying Litigation The instant attorney disqualification dispute arose in the context of four related class actions brought against First American Title Insurance Company and related First American entities (collectively, First American). Together, the First American team has defended First American in 80 class actions across the country, and has also been retained to give legal advice to First American. The First American Team Moves to Sonnenschein On February 2, 2009, the First American team moved from Bryan Cave to Sonnenschein. First American also submitted the declaration of its senior vice-president and national litigation counsel, who testified to the key experience of the First American team and their irreplaceability.
Note:	We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, automatic vicarious disqualification is not required, and that, instead, there is a rebuttable presumption that the attorney's knowledge of client confidences is imputed to the firm, which can be refuted by evidence that the law firm adequately screened the attorney from the others at the firm representing the adverse party. In addition, as the disqualified attorney has left the firm, the trial court's examination of the screen's adequacy should be on a retrospective, not prospective, basis.
Citation:	B218956
WCC Citation:	WCC 37322010 CA

Case Name:	Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management		06/26/2017
Summary:	Filed 6/26/17 Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management CA4/3 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(a). 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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             VALERIE KIZER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. .           Plaintiffs and appellants Valerie Kizer and Sharal Williams (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this putative class action against their former employer, defendant and respondent Tristar Risk Management (Tristar), alleging Tristar failed to pay Plaintiffs and its other claims examiners overtime compensation because it misclassified them as exempt from California’s overtime laws. I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .           Tristar provides third party risk management services, including claims adjusting and administrative services, with specialization in handling worker’s compensation and general liability claims. .           Plaintiffs presented evidence showing the standardized job description Tristar applied to claims examiners and the standardized procedures Tristar used to supervise its claims examiners.
Note:
Citation:	G052558
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00707394

Case Name:	Klee v. WCAB		07/12/1989
Summary:	FAYE KLEE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, McDONALD'S et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Abbe, J. , with Stone (S. Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe, Charles E. Finster, Miller & Folse, Deborah L. Gilman and David J. DePaolo for Respondents. 1 At the trial of the permanent disability indemnity issue, applicant Faye Klee testified about specific and cumulative industrial injuries to her back and neck while employed by McDonald's. Two physicians opined in essence that applicant is totally permanently disabled and unable to compete in the open labor market. We denied the petition, concluding that viewed in the light of the entire record, there was substantial evidence of total permanent disability.
Note:	WCAB's order annulled when prior writs were attempts to delay payment.
Citation:	211 Cal.App.3d 1519, 54 CCC 251
WCC Citation:	WCC 26291989 CA

Case Name:	Kleeman v. WCAB		03/02/2005
Summary:	Kleemann petitioned respondent, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), for a ruling that new Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664 did not apply but the WCAB remanded to the WCJ for a final decision. Accordingly, the decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. *FN 1 Kleemann petitioned the WCAB for removal, *FN 2 alleging that the WCJ's retroactive application of apportionment under new sections 4663 and 4664 would cause irreparable harm. The WCAB expressly declined to decide whether new sections 4663 and 4664 applied. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	SB 899 apportionment applies prospectively from the date of enactment of S.B. 899, regardless of the date of injury.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 274
WCC Citation:	WCC 30972005 CA

Case Name:	Kleinman v. California State Personnel Board		03/20/2012
Summary:	SUSAN KLEINMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Susan Kleinman (Kleinman) appeals a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, defendant and respondent California State Personnel Board (the Board). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1994, Kleinman began working at the Board as an administrative law judge (ALJ). Following Kleinman's rejection of the offer, the Board continued to interact with Kleinman about the offer and other alternatives. On September 21, 2009, Kleinman responded, requesting that the Board file for disability retirement on her behalf.
Note:	An administrative law judge attempting to return to work after suffering a back injury failed to raise a triable issue as to the reasonableness of her employer's effort to accommodate her.
Citation:	B226239
WCC Citation:	WCC 38712012 CA

Case Name:	Kmart Corp. v. Lewis Brisbois et al		07/19/2010
Summary:	KMART CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP et al. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Jana I. Lubert, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Respondent Kmart Corporation sued its former attorneys, Appellant Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, for professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Kmart's complaint included allegations that, while representing Kmart in a related matter, Appellant filed a declaratory relief action on behalf of an insurer whose interests were adverse to Kmart. Although Kmart notified National Union of the lawsuit, Kmart retained its own counsel and did not involve National Union in the litigation.
Note:	An appellate court denied Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP's motion to strike its former client's malpractice complaint based on the firm's role in complex personal injury litigation.
Citation:	B209833
WCC Citation:	WCC 36492010 CA

Case Name:	KMS Courier, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.		11/30/2007
Summary:	APPEAL from a judgment of dismissal of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan M. Lewis, Judge. The Plaintiffs are employee-based courier service providers that do business throughout California. We decline to consider their arguments to this effect raised for the first time in their reply brief. Although the Plaintiffs point out that the Unfair Practices Act is to be liberally construed to promote its purposes (Bus. Finally, the Plaintiffs contend in passing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying them leave to amend.
Note:	[Unpublished] Standing alone, the Customer Defendants' requests for bids from, and entrance into service contracts with, the Plaintiffs' competitors do not constitute solicitations of a violation of the Unfair Practices Act.
Citation:	D049775
WCC Citation:	WCC 32842007 CA

Case Name:	Knight v. United Parcel Service		10/12/2006
Summary:	AHM 127807 AHM 129147 BRUCE KNIGHT, Applicant, vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE; and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. FACTS In 1973, applicant was first employed as a delivery person/driver with United Parcel Service (UPS), insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty). "As Mr. Knight was aware the MPN was in place and elected to treat with you anyway, we are considering any and all treatment with you self-procured. Therefore, Mr. Knight will be responsible for all medical treatment and service charges. "Also be advised that if Mr. Knight elects to continue treatment with you, he will be responsible for all medical treatment and service charges. "
Note:	Employer or insurer's failure to provide required notice to an employee of rights under the MPN that results in a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment renders the employer or insurer liable for reasonable medical treatment self-procured by the employee.
Citation:	71 CCC 1423 (2006)
WCC Citation:	WCC 31862006 CA

Case Name:	Knopfer v. Flournoy		09/20/1973
Summary:	JACK KNOPFER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HOUSTON I. FLOURNOY, as State Controller, et al. , Defendants and Respondents (Opinion by Friedman, J. , with Richardson, P. J. , and Janes, J. , concurring. ). . . ' In this mandate action appellants complain that the State Controller is making unauthorized deductions from the payments directed by section 4800. This cryptic allegation is the only hint in the record or briefs that income tax withholding may be involved. Federal and state tax agencies are not parties to this litigation and questions of taxability have not been briefed. We do not decide whether the payments in question are subject to federal or state income taxation or income tax withholding.
Note:	Payments made in lieu of disability payments indemnify him for work-connected disability.
Citation:	34 Cal.App.3d 318, 38 CCC 913
WCC Citation:	WCC 27071973 CA