Case Name:	Jackson v. Raley's		11/29/2012
Summary:	When I attempted to discuss reasonable accommodations, such as modified or alternative jobs that [Jackson] might be able to perform with his medical restrictions, [Jackson] refused to continue the conversation. However, believing that Jackson was no longer employed by Raley's, Archie did not call Jackson during his bid time. Raley's also pointed out that Gabbert immediately sent Jackson a letter summarizing the phone call and encouraging Jackson to contact him to discuss possible accommodations, but Jackson neither responded to the letter nor contacted anyone at Raley's to discuss such accommodations. Gabbert sent [Jackson] a letter confirming their call and requesting [Jackson] contact him to discuss accommodations. Despite Gabbert's letter informing Jackson to contact him if he changed his mind and wanted to discuss qualifications or alternate positions at Raley's, Jackson refused to engage.
Note:	The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that a former supermarket worker could not hold his employer liable for its alleged failure to engage in a good faith interactive process to find accommodation for his disability when the worker himself failed to engage in the interactive process at all.
Citation:	C067248
WCC Citation:	WCC 39612012 CA

Case Name:	Jackson v. WCAB		10/27/2005
Summary:	on rehearing) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) CYNTHIA JACKSON et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al. , Respondents. II Procedure Cynthia Jackson, as the guardian ad litem for Barryn Davis, Jr. , filed an application for adjudication of claim asserting that Davis, Sr. 's heart attack arose out of and in the course of his employment. In those proceedings, Jackson invoked the presumption contained in Labor Code section 3212. 2, which provides in relevant part: "In the case of officers and employees in the Department of Corrections having custodial duties, . The WCAB concluded that the medical evidence that the cause of death was "the non-industrial viral infection that led to the development of the myocarditis" constituted sufficient evidence "to rebut the presumption of industrial causation. "Jackson filed a petition for a writ and we issued a writ of review.
Note:	Employer must do more to rebut the presumption of compensability than present evidence that nothing in the employee's job caused his heart attack.
Citation:	133 Cal. App. 4th 965; 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256
WCC Citation:	WCC 31282005 CA

Case Name:	James W. Cristler et al. v. Express Messenger Systems		01/23/2009
Summary:	Ct. No. GIC803519) Â		  BARRY NEWMANN,               Plaintiff,               v.   EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. , et al. ,               Defendants.               James W. Cristler, John Purves, James G. Harrod, Sydney Moroff and Mark Lambert, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons (collectively Cristler), sued a parcel delivery company, Express Messenger Systems, Inc. , doing business as California Overnight (Express Messenger). The lawsuit contained a number of causes of actions, all based on a core contention that Express Messenger improperly classified its employees as independent contractors.             Drivers who elected to continue working with Express Messenger after the change entered into written independent contractor agreements with SCI to perform delivery services for Express Messenger.             In December 2004, Cristler filed a complaint against Express Messenger on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees/independent contractors of Express Messenger.
Note:	Drivers for a delivery service were independent contractors, even though the company had terminated its employees and contracted with them to perform the same duties.
Citation:	D050719
WCC Citation:	WCC 34822009 CA

Case Name:	Janet v. IAC		12/01/1965
Summary:	MORTON L. JANET, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, BROWN DRILLING CO. , et al. , Respondents. On November 27, 1960, petitioner suffered an industrial injury to his stomach, back, legs and chest when a derrick board fell upon him. On December 19, 1961, petitioner applied for medical care and further total temporary disability. Applicant thereafter was examined by an orthopedist of his own selection whose report of June 7, 1962, suggested a 'high volume type of myelogram. 'On June 24, 1963, applicant again petitioned for a hearing for temporary compensation, medical treatment and reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment.
Note:	TTD awarded where worker refused surgery that wasn't an aid to cure.
Citation:	238 Cal.App.2d 491, 30 CCC 411
WCC Citation:	WCC 24841965 CA

Case Name:	Janya v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group Part 1/2		01/07/2020
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 .             JAMES JANYA et al. ,Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP,Defendant and Respondent. .             B290754 .             (Los Angeles CountySuper. .             The Rager Law Firm, Jeffrey Rager, James Y. Yoon; Gusdorff Law and Janet Gusdorfffor Plaintiffs and Appellants. .             Davis Wright Tremaine, John P. LeCrone and Rochelle L. Wilcoxfor Defendant and Respondent.   .             Plaintiffs James Janya and Michael Salloom appeal from a summary judgment on their retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims related to the termination of their employment with defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG). . Bailey’s Meetings With Janya and Salloom .           On September 15, 2015, Bailey met (separately) with Janya and Salloom to discuss the results of his investigation.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the dismissal of two workers’ claims for retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Citation:	No. B290754
WCC Citation:	No. B290754

Case Name:	Janya v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group Part 2/2		01/07/2020
Summary:	Thus, Janya, and not Alepian, was the person responsible for the serious violation of policy. .           As a preliminary matter, we fail to see how this evidence establishes the existence of the glitch Janya describes. Janya stated that the glitch happened sometimes when he logged out without first hitting the “file” button. .           Finally, SCPMG presented evidence that Baileyinvestigated the purported glitch by contacting an expert from HealthConnect. .         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS .         WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the dismissal of two workers’ claims for retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Citation:	No. B290754
WCC Citation:	No. B290754

Case Name:	Janzen v. WCAB		12/30/1997
Summary:	STEPHANIE JANZEN et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CLAYTON CURTIS et al. , Respondents. [61 Cal. App. 4th 112] OPINION PUGLIA, P. J. - Petitioner, Stephanie Janzen, seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) dismissing her application for death benefits. Petitioner's father, Stanley Janzen (the deceased), a California resident, was killed in an airplane crash while working in Wyoming as a pilot for a Wyoming employer. 1 Curtis made a 'special appearance' in the workers' compensation proceeding, objecting to subject matter [61 Cal. App. 4th 113] jurisdiction. The State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) was later added as a defendant and Marvin Janzen was dropped.
Note:	Employment contract was entered into in CA; thus Sec. 5305 confers subject matter jurisdiction over dispute
Citation:	61 Cal.App.4th 109, 63 CCC 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 24811997 CA

Case Name:	Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.		09/03/2009
Summary:	FACTS Marc Brandon worked for Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Warner) as Vice-President of Anti-Piracy Internet Operations. The accident occurred at approximately 4:35 p. m. One or both cars struck and injured pedestrians Chuenchomporn Jeewarat, Tipphawan Tantisriyanurak and Kanhathai Vutthicharoen. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 2, 2007, Jeewarat and Tantisriyanurak filed a personal injury action against Brandon and Southard. On July 5, 2007, Jeewarat and Tantisriyanurak filed an amendment to the complaint substituting Warner as a Doe defendant. Warner asserted that even if the special errand doctrine applied, any special errand ended when Brandon drove his regular commute route home.
Note:	An employee's attendance at an out-of-town business conference may be considered a special errand under the special errand doctrine and the errand is not concluded simply because the employee drives his regular commute route, but rather, the errand is concluded when the employee returns home or deviates from the errand for personal reasons.
Citation:	B212323
WCC Citation:	WCC 35592009 CA

Case Name:	Jefferson v. CA Dept. of Youth Authority		07/01/2002
Summary:	MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The California Department of Youth Authority (the Youth Authority) employed Mary Jefferson from September 1992 to February 1994 to work part-time as a teacher's assistant in the high school classroom of Larry Berg. Eventually, the Youth Authority reassigned Jefferson to a different classroom, but at about the same time, her doctor recommended she stop working due to work-related stress. On July 9, 1996, Jefferson settled her workers' compensation claim against the Youth Authority using the mandatory form adopted by the workers' compensation appeals board (WCAB) for compromise and release of claims. Jefferson filed this civil action on August 23, 1996, against the Youth Authority and Larry Berg.
Note:	C&R that releases all claims sufficient to defeat FEHA claim arising from same facts.
Citation:	28 Cal.4th 299; 67 CCC 727
WCC Citation:	WCC 28662002 CA

Case Name:	Jefferson v. CA Youth Authority		03/26/2001
Summary:	MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Introduction Plaintiff Mary J. Jefferson appeals judgment entered in favor of defendants California Department of Youth Authority (CYA) and Larry Berg (defendants) following the trial court's ruling granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Jefferson v. California Dept. of Youth Authority (2001) , Cal. App. 4th [No. E026915. MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents.
Note:	A general release in a C&R is effective against ALL other claims.
Citation:	87 Cal.App.4th 1357, 66 CCC 343
WCC Citation:	WCC 4232001 CA

Case Name:	Jeffrey Tverberg v. Fillner Construction (1st DCA opinion)		12/05/2008
Summary:	Fillner contracted with Lane Supply, which in turn hired Perry Construction, Inc. (Perry), to install a canopy at the project site. On May 2, 2006, Jeffrey Tverberg fell into a hole at the project site, resulting in both physical and emotional injuries. *fn1 Jeffrey Tverberg alleged causes of action for negligence and premises liability; Catherine Tverberg pled a cause of action for loss of consortium. Finding that Fillner had established a complete defense to the Tverbergs' action, the trial court entered judgment for Fillner in November 2007. Furthermore, those assertions are supported by a declaration from a Fillner employee made under penalty of perjury, by a declaration from Jeffrey Tverberg made under penalty of perjury and by the deposition testimony of Jeffrey Tverberg himself.
Note:	An injured independent contractor is not barred from filing a personal injury action against a general contractor, despite a contrary ruling by another appellate court.
Citation:	A120050
WCC Citation:	WCC 34662008 CA

Case Name:	Jeffrey v. Temple City Unified School District		02/11/2013
Summary:	JEFFREY v. TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RANDOLPH JEFFREY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of a public school district, in a lawsuit alleging that the district violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FACTS Plaintiff's Employment and Injuries Randolph Jeffrey was hired as a part-time custodian in December 2005 by the Temple City Unified School District (TCUSD) to perform light maintenance and repairs, and to direct traffic. TCUSD contacted Jeffrey regularly regarding his medical status until he told the district to "stop harassing me while I'm convalescing. "Jeffrey's Ability to Do His Job The school district contends that Jeffrey cannot prevail on his discrimination claim because he was not "qualified to do his job. "
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an injured school custodian's claims of disability discrimination failed as a matter of law.
Citation:	B241688
WCC Citation:	WCC 39852013 CA

Case Name:	Jenkins v. WCAB		05/29/1975
Summary:	ELDA E. JENKINS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Taylor, P. J. , with Kane and Rouse, JJ. , concurring. )COUNSEL Maurice S. Marcus and Richard A. Hellesto for Petitioner. T. Groezinger, James J. Vonk, George S. Bjornsen and Robert A. The policy expressed in Labor Code section 3202 applies equally to 'the courts' and to the board (Gross v. Workmen's Comp. The policy seems frequently overlooked by the board (Gross, supra, p. 403).
Note:	Commutation of death benefit appropriate where beneficiary terminally ill.
Citation:	48 Cal.App.3d 570, 40 CCC 329
WCC Citation:	WCC 24241975 CA

Case Name:	Jensen vs. Amgen		02/03/2003
Summary:	DARCY M. JENSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMGEN, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff and appellant Darcy M. Jensen is employed by defendant and respondent Amgen, Inc. as a module team coordinator. Amgen transferred Jensen out of buildings 5 and 15 shortly after the safety report was filed. Jensen voluntarily dismissed her claim for unfair business practices and appealed the judgment subsequently entered in favor of Amgen. Nor did Jensen present evidence of the second condition necessary for the fraudulent concealment exception, namely, that Amgen concealed the connection between her symptoms and her employment.
Note:	Work comp is exclusive remedy for injuries from mold in the workplace absent fraudulent concealment.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 1322
WCC Citation:	WCC 29122003 CA

Case Name:	Jensen vs. WCAB		07/19/1985
Summary:	OTTO JENSEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GILLIG CORPORATION, Respondents. Carl J. Weber and Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen for Respondents. [170 Cal. App. 3d 246] OPINION KLINE, P. J. Petitioner Otto Jensen seeks review of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) opinion and order denying reconsideration. Petitioner Jensen was employed as a sheet metal welder by respondent Gillig Corporation and was injured in a fall in the course of his employment. On December 13, petitioner filed a petition for imposition of a 10 percent penalty for respondent's failure to pay temporary disability compensation.
Note:	No 'grace period' for delay in payment provided by the statutory right to reconsideration or appellate review.
Citation:	170 Cal.App.3d 244
WCC Citation:	WCC 30221985 CA

Case Name:	Jersey v. John Muir Medical Center		04/16/2002
Summary:	ESTER B. JERSEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN MUIR MEDICAL CENTER et al. , Defendants and Respondents. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff was employed by the defendant medical center in various nursing assistant and technician positions for approximately seven years. Discharging an employee for exercising a right is tortious only if the criteria enumerated in Gantt and subsequent decisions are met. The public policy that is violated must be one that is delineated by constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions. Suing a patient who cannot be held accountable for his actions because of a medical or psychological condition fits neither our mission nor its values.
Note:	Okay to fire hospital worker who sued patient that assaulted her at work.
Citation:	97 Cal.App.4th 814
WCC Citation:	WCC 28832002 CA

Case Name:	Jimenez v. San Joaquin Valley Labor		01/24/2002
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARIA YOLANDA JIMENEZ, Applicant, vs. SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY LABOR; and SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. In the former case the prediction of earnings need only be made for the duration of the temporary disability. Specifically, there is no significant evidence applicant likely would have worked during the off-season, had she not been injured. Second, the finding of two different temporary disability indemnity rates for a seasonal employee is fully consistent with the governing law. Vocational rehabilitation is one of the most important benefits under the Labor Code (Martinez v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	On-season & off-season TD rates; 2 tiered VR rates.
Citation:	67 CCC 74 [En Banc]
WCC Citation:	WCC 28352002 CA

Case Name:	JKH Enterprises Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations		09/11/2006
Summary:	JKH filed the petition for writ in an effort to overturn the administrative stop work order issued and upheld by the Department of Industrial Relations, respondent here. The drivers turn in their delivery logs and JKH keeps track of those in order to bill its customers. Cheng asked the dispatcher for a list of the names of drivers then working for JKH, which the dispatcher provided. JKH contested the "Stop Order-Penalty Assessment" and requested a hearing before the Department. [JKH] obtains the clients who are in need of delivery services and provides the workers who conduct the service on behalf of [JKH].
Note:	All but one of the employer's drivers were functioning as its employees rather than as true independent contractors.
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 1046
WCC Citation:	WCC 31802006 CA

Case Name:	John Futrell et al. v. Payday California, Inc., et al.		12/16/2010
Summary:	Between July and December 2008, Payday and Futrell filed arguments, evidence and evidentiary objections on the issue of whether Payday had been Futrell's employer. Futrell submitted his own declaration attesting he "understood" he was a Payday employee because of the payroll documents that Payday processed, and because representatives of Payday made statements to that effect. The pay stubs provided with Futrell's paychecks identified Futrell as the "employee" and identified Payday as the "employer of record. "Payday did not and could not hire or fire Futrell, nor did Payday have any control over Futrell's work activities. Our references to "Payday" include Payday California, Inc. , Screaming Eagle, Inc. , Payday LA, Inc. , Payday Management, Inc. , and PDSI, Inc. .
Note:	A class action suit against a payroll company for unpaid overtime and other wages failed because the payroll company was not his employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded in a published opinion.
Citation:	B215110
WCC Citation:	WCC 36962010 CA

Case Name:	Johns-Manville vs. Sup. Court (Rudkin)		07/03/1980
Summary:	It requested the trial court to take judicial notice of an application filed by plaintiff seeking workers' compensation benefits for disability caused by "[e]xposure to asbestos. "The court declared that the Legislature never intended that an employer's fraud was a risk of the employment. However, the court concluded that having undertaken treatment in a doctor-patient relationship, the employer should be liable in tort for acts of malpractice. [27 Cal. 3d 488] I would issue the writ and order respondent court to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court reasoned that the Legislature did not intend to deny an employee all redress for that tort.
Note:	Employer civil liability if conceals knowledge of potential injury and connection with employment.
Citation:	27 Cal.3d 465
WCC Citation:	WCC 28601980 CA