Case Name:	Porter v. Board of Retirement Orange County		06/18/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MARY PORTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. 03CC10643) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge. * * * This case deals with payment of disability retirement to plaintiff Mary Porter by defendant Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees' Retirement System. (Porter v. Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees' Retirement System (Dec. 23, 2005, G034319) [nonpub. Suffice it to say plaintiff was injured while driving a bus for the Orange County Transportation Authority.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because she filed this appeal before defendant held a hearing to determine the amount of workers' compensation paid to her and whether she could afford to repay it, plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative remedies and appeal is premature.
Citation:	G038450
WCC Citation:	WCC 33852008 CA

Case Name:	Portillo v. Commission on Professional Competence		06/17/2011
Summary:	PORTILLO v. COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE SABELA PORTILLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, Defendant and Respondent, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. , Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. Proc. , § 1094. 5. )*fn1 Portillo's superior court petition sought to overturn a decision by the Commission on Professional Competence (the Commission) upholding the determination of the governing board of defendant and respondent Los Angeles Unified School District (the District) to dismiss Portillo as a certificated employee of the District. Pittsburg Unified School District v. Commission on Professional Competence (1983) 146 Cal. App. 3d 964, 971. "The "decision of a Commission on Professional Competence may be challenged in superior court by means of a petition for a writ of mandate. 313-314, italics added; accord Wilmot v. Commission on Professional Competence (1998) 64 Cal. App. 4th 1130, 1138-1139. )
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld the termination of a Los Angeles Unified School District employee who pled nolo contendre to workers' compensation fraud.
Citation:	B220735
WCC Citation:	WCC 37742011 CA

Case Name:	Portnov v. Farmers Insurance Exchange		12/09/2011
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Appellant Mikhail Portnov was an independent contractor insurance agent for respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers). As part of Portnov's training, Farmers trained Portnov "to call, use and rely on Farmers' Workers' Compensation `1-800' Support telephone number/Customer Service for questions about writing his customers' Farmers' insurance policies. "Under the agreement, Portnov agreed to sell Farmers insurance policies and Farmers agreed to pay Portnov commissions for selling insurance. In January 2005, Concord General Insurance Services, Inc. (Concord), a retail insurance broker, contacted Portnov to seek workers' compensation insurance for Execair Maintenance, Inc. (Execair), a client of Concord's. Portnov alleges that "Farmers did in fact provide training, support, guidance, backing and consult from Rick Rasnick, Peter Young, Dawn Fields, Farmers Business Support Center Personnel employees, Farmers Home Office Management employees, Farmers websites/computer system, Farmers instructors, Farmers employees and agents and nameless employees that held themselves out as Farmers corporate employees or agents, either in person, writing or by telephone. "
Note:	Farmers Insurance Exchange did not breach its contract with an insurance agent who was forced to resign after failing to provide an employer with sufficient workers' compensation coverage.
Citation:	E050688
WCC Citation:	WCC 38312011 CA

Case Name:	Postural Therapeutics v. WCAB		03/31/1986
Summary:	POSTURAL THERAPEUTICS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HOME INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Respondents. [1a] Postural Therapeutics (PT) provided physiotherapy to Humberto A. who was injured while employed as a painter by Romero & Sons Painting Contractors. I have no reason to change my statements in any of my preceding reports based upon the findings in this report. '2 At trial, Humberto A. refused to produce Buehler's report, claiming it would be a 'violation of federal law. 'This is to include adjustment of the lien claim of Postural Therapeutics which claim is $5,190. '
Note:	Insurer's failure to serve physiotherapy provider with Petition for Recon. was grounds for dimissal; Failure to serve is not prejudicial error when party has notice/opportunity to argue once Petition is granted.
Citation:	179 Cal.App.3d 551
WCC Citation:	WCC 26771986 CA

Case Name:	Potter v. Ariz. So. Coach Lines, Inc.		06/15/1988
Summary:	JOSEPH L. POTTER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ARIZONA SOUTHERN COACH LINES, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents (Opinion by Stone (S. [202 Cal. App. 3d 130] Joseph Potter and wife Rita appeal from an order dismissing Arizona Southern Coach Lines, Inc. (Arizona) and Michael Parzych as defendants after their demurrer to appellants' third amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. At that time, Rita Potter was suffering from a life-threatening illness which required extensive and costly medical treatment; Joseph Potter had previously sustained a serious and permanent injury which would also require extensive medical expense. Neither Arizona nor the group insurers notified appellants of their statutory right to convert group to individual coverage without further proof of insurability. Proc. , § 452; Foster v. xerox Corp. (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 306, 312 [219 Cal. Rptr. 485, 707 P. 2d 858]. )
Note:	Civil action prohibited against employer for damages due to failure to notify of health insurance on termination.
Citation:	202 Cal.App.3d 126
WCC Citation:	WCC 3881988 CA

Case Name:	Potter v. WCAB		03/28/1991
Summary:	n1 Bertram Potter is the senior partner in Potter & Cohen and has many years of experience practicing workers' compensation law in California. Although it was standard office procedure for Potter & Cohen to file a lien claim, apparently no lien claim by Potter & Cohen was filed in applicant's case. Paul Potter customarily practices criminal law, but agreed to represent applicant because applicant is deaf and Paul Potter speaks sign language. Chairman Little determined Paul and Bertram Potter were guilty of contempt of the Board and imposed a $ 250 fine against Paul Potter and a $500 fine against Bertram Potter. Moreover, Paul Potter testified it was standard office procedure at Potter & Cohen for a lien claim to be filed, and no evidence was introduced to support a finding that Paul Potter intentionally delayed submitting the agreement to the Board.
Note:	Portion of indemnity placed in trust for potential attorney fee valid with WCAB approval.
Citation:	56 CCC 225
WCC Citation:	WCC 25161991 CA

Case Name:	Power Fabricating v. SCIF		10/29/2008
Summary:	* * * State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) obtained summary judgment in an action filed by plaintiff Power Fabricating, Inc. , (Power), which sought declaratory relief and damages arising from State Fund's failure to defend it in a separate action against Power brought by the widow of a worker who died in an industrial accident. Power contends it presented a triable issue of fact on whether the decedent was employed by Power, a related entity, or a joint venture between the two entities. State Fund compensated Kryzak's widow under part 1, and Power does not contend part 1 created a duty to defend Power in the Kryzak action. In essence, Power seeks to aggregate the TPSI and Power entities to invoke ELI coverage, yet separate the two companies to avoid the ELI workers' compensation exclusion. On page 2, second sentence of the first full paragraph, beginning "Power contends it presented" is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place Power contends it presented a triable issue of fact on whether the decedent was employed by Power, an entity related to Power, or a joint venture between the two entities.
Note:	Employer liability insurance (ELI) coverage can accrue only if...(b) workers' compensation law either does not apply to the situation or the employer may be sued in a capacity other than as an employer. Because Power failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of the conditions required in (b), ELI coverage cannot be triggered.
Citation:	G039635
WCC Citation:	WCC 34482008 CA

Case Name:	Power Fabricating v. State Compensation Ins. Fund		09/30/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE POWER FABRICATING, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. * * * State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) obtained summary judgment in an action filed by plaintiff Power Fabricating, Inc. , (Power), which sought declaratory relief and damages arising from State Fund's failure to defend it in a separate action against Power brought by the widow of a worker who died in an industrial accident. Power tendered defense of the action to State Fund and Power's commercial general liability insurer, Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (Liberty). Power brought the present action for damages and declaratory relief against State Fund and Liberty, alleging they each had a duty to defend and indemnify Power in connection with the Kryzak action. State Fund compensated Kryzak's widow under part 1, and Power does not contend part 1 created a duty to defend Power in the Kryzak action.
Note:	[Unpublished] Employer liability insurance (ELI) coverage can accrue only if...(b) workers' compensation law either does not apply to the situation or the employer may be sued in a capacity other than as an employer. Because Power failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of the conditions required in (b), ELI coverage cannot be triggered.
Citation:	G039635
WCC Citation:	WCC 34322008 CA

Case Name:	Power Fabricating, Inc. v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp.		10/30/2007
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION Plaintiff Power Fabricating, Inc. , (Power) challenges the judgment entered after the trial court sustained the demurrers of defendant Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (Liberty) without leave to amend. Power tendered defense of the action to its workers' compensation insurer, State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) and its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer, Liberty. ), Power demurred to the complaint in the Kryzak action, arguing that Power employed Kryzak at the time of the accident. Attached to the complaint as exhibits were Kryzak's employment agreement with Power, a payroll check reflecting Power as his employer, and a W-2 form also reflecting Power as Kryzak's employer. Liberty demurred to the complaint, citing its CGL policy's exclusion for employees and claims covered by workers' compensation insurance.
Note:	[Unpublished] Whether the injured worker was the insured's employee acting within the course and scope of that employment is a mixed question of law and fact, and therefore does not constitute a binding judicial admission against the insured.
Citation:	G037648
WCC Citation:	WCC 32742007 CA

Case Name:	Powers v. WCAB (Vapor Cleaners)		09/14/1995
Summary:	Powers, applicant's Attorney O'Boyle sent a letter to defendant's Attorney Cohen asking for payment of Dr. Powers they were not going to pay the bill, because they questioned the medical necessity for the MRIs. Powers was billing for services which had actually been performed at a facility with which Powers had contracted to provide service, and declared they would only pay the direct, lesser charges of the facility. Powers because he had not provided defendant carrier with information about the charges of the facility with which Dr. Powers had contracted to perform the MRIs of applicant, defendant carrier would continue to contest the reasonableness of the billing.
Note:	Lien claimant denied due process if not afforded a hearing prior to approval of C&R which reduces lien.
Citation:	60 CCC 821
WCC Citation:	WCC 27501995 CA

Case Name:	Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., Inc.		08/23/2007
Summary:	On the authority of Ralphs Grocery, the instant Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment for Ralphs, entered after Ralphs's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint was sustained without leave to amend. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2001, plaintiff, a produce manager in a Ralphs store, filed original and first amended complaints against Ralphs, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Ralphs employees. The Ralphs Grocery court observed at the outset that Ralphs had persuasively demonstrated the beneficial effects of profit-based incentive compensation plans for both employers and employees. Prachasaisoradej is a Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc. (Ralphs) employee. 322- 323 [sustaining regulation making it unlawful to subtract shortages from wages]; Ralphs Grocery, supra, 112 Cal. App. 4th at pp.
Note:	Ralphs' profit-based supplementary ICP, designed to reward employees beyond their normal pay for their collective contribution to store profits, did not violate the wage protection policies of Labor Code sections 221, 400 through 410, or 3751, or Regulation 11070, insofar as the Plan included store expenses such as workers' compensation costs, cash and merchandise shortages, breakage, and third party tort claims in the profit calculation.
Citation:	42 Cal. 4th 217
WCC Citation:	WCC 32442007 CA

Case Name:	Preferred Auto Dealers Self Insurance Program v. Anderson Enterprises Part 1/2		03/02/2018
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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             PREFERRED AUTO DEALERS SELF INSURANCE PROGRAM, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             ANDERSON ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. , Defendants and Appellants. .             A148518, A149294, A149446 .             (Contra Costa County Super. .           Section 3700 “establishes the duty of the private employer to provide compensation security by either (1) carrying insurance with an authorized company (subd. .           With this regulatory scheme in mind, we turn to the facts of the present case. .           PADSIP incorporated these factual allegations into one cause of action alleged against all defendants for breach of a written contract.
Note:
Citation:	A148518, A149294, A149446
WCC Citation:	Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC12-0090

Case Name:	Preferred Auto Dealers Self Insurance Program v. Anderson Enterprises Part 2/2		03/02/2018
Summary:	Putnam “was seeking an admission of law rather than fact,” and that legal issue went to the heart of this case. .         PADSIP identifies an independent ground for affirming the CCP section 2033. 420 ruling as to all defendants in the Anderson group except for Putnam. The other defendants in the Anderson group did not establish any basis for recovering their fees under this statute. .         Cross-appellants contend that there is no difference between the purchase orders in Linear and the 2012 resolution. The director’s decisions on such matters may be challenged in the appropriate superior court pursuant to a writ of mandate.
Note:
Citation:	A148518, A149294, A149446
WCC Citation:	Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC12-0090

Case Name:	Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. CIGA		05/30/2008
Summary:	(Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY We take portions of this summary from our opinion in Premier I, supra, 136 Cal. App. 4th at pages 468-472. California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), The Explorer Insurance Company (Explorer), Insurance Company of the West (ICW), and other entities sought a determination by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) that Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. was improperly representing treating physicians in WCAB proceedings. (Premier I, supra, 136 Cal. App. 4th at p. 477, citing Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 82, 88-89. )(Premier I, supra, 136 Cal. App. 4th at p. 478, quoting Ludwig v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 8, 21, fn.
Note:	General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice in challenging attorney fees as excessive. Failure to raise specific challenges in the trial court forfeits the claim on appeal.
Citation:	B195889
WCC Citation:	WCC 33762008 CA

Case Name:	Premier Medical Mgmt. v. CIGA		02/06/2006
Summary:	Under this scheme, an insurer ordinarily must pay all medical or medical-legal bills of an injured employee within 60 days of receipt. In this case, CIGA became responsible for some covered claims because of the insolvency and liquidation of the insurer on those claims. In July 2002, CIGA asked the WCAB to consolidate 13 pending cases involving claims filed by Premier plaintiffs in litigated cases covered by CIGA. They also alleged that Premier and its affiliates were illegally referring business and making improper and excessive charges. Plaintiffs are Premier Medical and five individual physicians affiliated with it (Francis G. D'Ambrosio, Robert Schatz, Frank J. Coufal, Afshin Mashoof, Manuel Anell).
Note:	Plaintiffs not entitled to summary judgment on complaint under Anti-SLAPP law where the action arises from defendants' litigation of claims in WCAB proceedings.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 4th 464
WCC Citation:	WCC 31402006 CA

Case Name:	Price v. Connolly-Pacific Co.		05/13/2008
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Daniel C. Price ("Price") is a "seaman" under the terms and conditions of the Jones Act which was enacted in 1920 to give protection to any seaman injured in the course of employment. Price was an operating engineer, a licensed merchant mariner, and a crew member of a special purpose derrick barge named the "Long Beach. "Price is referred to in this litigation as a "commuter seaman" or sometimes as a "brown water seaman. "Price sued Connolly in the Los Angeles County Superior Court contending that he was entitled to "maintenance and cure. "Appellant Price was a marine construction worker who resided in La Mesa, in San Diego County.
Note:	Shipowner's generosity in allowing plaintiff to use his RV-camper in an otherwise empty parking lot, without more, is an insufficient basis on which to award plaintiff maintenance and cure.
Citation:	B200083
WCC Citation:	WCC 33552008 CA

Case Name:	Price v. WCAB		12/17/1984
Summary:	Approximately 7:50 a. m. on June 20, 1980, petitioner, Andrew Leo Price, was injured outside his place of employment. As he put the oil into his car, Price straddled the left headlight and extended his right leg to the side. Although Price was not physically on the employer's premises when the accident occurred, he was waiting to be admitted to work. The board relied on the fact that Price was not on the employer's premises when he was injured. Price had finished his journey to work although, because the doors were locked, he had not yet entered his employer's premises.
Note:	Coming and going rule not applicable to employee waiting to be admitted to employer's premises.
Citation:	37 Cal. 3d 559
WCC Citation:	WCC 30361984 CA

Case Name:	Price v. WCAB		10/27/1992
Summary:	STEPHEN M. PRICE et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, G. L. NUNEZ PLASTERING et al. , Respondents. On May 9, 1990, Mr. Cadena, Mr. Price, and counsel for defendants, G. L. Nunez Plastering and Nationwide Insurance Company, signed stipulations with a request for an award. On the stipulation form, Mr. Price requested a $4,270 attorney fee for himself and indicated Mr. Kay requested a $2,135 attorney fee. 3 Mr. Price asserts defendants were informed of Mr. Cadena's death within a few days after he died. On March 28, 1991, Mr. Price filed a letter with the Board, asserting he was entitled to payment of his fee under the stipulated award.
Note:	PD award improper after worker's death where insurer overpaid and no accrued but unpaid indemnity.
Citation:	10 Cal.App.4th 959
WCC Citation:	WCC 25521992 CA

Case Name:	Priest v. WCAB		10/23/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DEANNA PRIEST, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MICHAEL HOUSEPIAN, Respondents. The accident led to a workers' compensation hearing on December 16, 1996, where Priest claimed average weekly earnings of $507. 70 per week. Housepian petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, to which Priest, at this point unrepresented by counsel, did not respond. The WCAB majority noted there was no record of Priest having filed a petition to reopen for good cause prior to August 7, 1999. Priest does not point to any evidence offered to the WCAB to justify its continuing jurisdiction beyond August 7, 1999.
Note:	[Unpublished] Priest's failure to produce evidence supporting the WCAB's continued jurisdiction, coupled with her affirmative conduct in leading to the WCJ's alleged miscalculations in 1997, constituted sufficient evidence and basis for the WCAB to rescind the WCJ's amended award.
Citation:	F055953
WCC Citation:	WCC 34402008 CA

Case Name:	Privette vs. Superior Court		06/19/1993
Summary:	FRANKLIN PRIVETTE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; JESUS CONTRERAS, Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 701139, Read Ambler, Judge. )[FN 1] In support of his motion, Privette presented these undisputed facts: Privette, a school teacher, owned some rental properties, including the duplex where roofing employee Contreras was injured. (Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 465, 468 [165 Cal. Rptr. 858, 612 P. 2d 948, 9 A. L. R. 4th 758], citing § 3602. )Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed with directions to grant the petition for writ of mandate ordering respondent court to enter judgment for defendant.
Note:	Peculiar risk doctrine does not create exception to exclusive remedy of the Work Comp Act.
Citation:	5 Cal.4th 689
WCC Citation:	WCC 30711993 CA

Case Name:	Prock v. Tamura Corporation of America		01/25/2013
Summary:	PROCK v. TAMURA CORPORATION OF AMERICA JUSTIN G. PROCK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TAMURA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Justin Prock appeals a judgment entered after the trial court granted Tamura Corporation of America's (hereafter Tamura) motion for summary judgment. FACTS In his complaint, Prock alleged that he was employed by Tamura and that Tamura is an employer subject to the Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). Tamura "was notified" and was provided with documentation from Prock's doctor that Prock would need leave from work through September 19, 2008. However, it is also undisputed that Tamura summarily dismissed Prock when Prock requested a further extension of his leave.
Note:	The existence of triable issues of fact about whether a worker was a "qualified individual with a disability" barred an employer from obtaining summary judgment against a disability discrimination suit.
Citation:	E054185
WCC Citation:	WCC 39752013 CA

Case Name:	Prudential Ins. Co. v. WCAB		12/15/1978
Summary:	OPINION MANUEL, J. Petitioner Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) seeks review of an order of the respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying its claim of lien filed against an award in favor of respondent Thomas Wright (Wright), an airline employee. Pursuant to the policy, Prudential made payments to him without offset for workers' compensation benefits to which he may have been entitled. In August 1976, Wright filed an application with the WCAB, alleging the October injury was industrial in nature. Prudential filed with the WCAB a notice and request for allowance of lien seeking to recover back these payments to the extent Wright received workers' compensation benefits. The original findings and award of WCAB failed to dispose of Prudential's claim, apparently because the WCAB had misplaced the claim of lien.
Note:	Overpaid disability benefits are outside reach of group disability insurer's liens.
Citation:	22 Cal.3d 776
WCC Citation:	WCC 24481978 CA

Case Name:	Public Service Mutual Ins. Co. v. Svetlik		01/13/2017
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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE .             PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervener and Appellant, .             v. .             STEVEN M. SVETLIK, Defendant and Respondent. .             A144803 .             (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13676541) .             Steven M. Svetlik drove his car into a restaurant where Jennifer Carranza was working, injuring her. The restaurant’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), paid $18,388. 14 in workers’ compensation benefits and medical expenses on Carranza’s behalf. Rules of Court, rule 8. 278. ) .           _________________________ Jones, P. J. .           We concur: .           _________________________ Needham, J.
Note:
Citation:	A144803
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG13676541

Case Name:	Pugh v. WCAB		11/03/2008
Summary:	Delores Pugh petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding that her claim for benefits is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. In August 2003, Pugh filed a claim with the WCAB alleging that she suffered cumulative psychological and physical injuries while employed by the County during the period April 1972 through July 1999. The WCAB did not reject the judge's factual findings that the County had not posted the statutory notice and that Pugh was unaware of her rights. Rather, the WCAB concluded that Pugh knew in 1998, or at the latest 1999, that her stress was work related and such knowledge was sufficient to trigger the one-year period for filing a claim under sections 5405 and 5412. The WCAB did not address the County's arguments relating to the merits of Pugh's disability award, finding those issues moot.
Note:	[Unpublished] if an employer fails to post the notice of employees' workers' compensation rights required by Labor Code section 3550 and the employee is otherwise unaware of her rights, then the statute of limitations is tolled until the employee gains actual knowledge that she may be entitled to benefits.
Citation:	B201677
WCC Citation:	WCC 34572008 CA

Case Name:	Pullman Kellogg vs. WCAB (Normand)		02/04/1980
Summary:	PULLMAN KELLOGG et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MARTIN G. NORMAND, Respondents (Opinion by Mosk, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Normand's employer, Pullman Kellogg, and its insurance carrier, Eldorado Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as Pullman Kellogg) seek review of the board's decision, asserting primarily that the medical evidence before the board compelled the conclusion that part of the disability was due to Normand's smoking habit, and therefore apportionment was required. We see no reason, nor does Pullman Kellogg offer any, to distinguish between a cumulative trauma and a specific injury in these circumstances. Another contention made by Pullman Kellogg is that Normand is bound by Dr. Sills' opinion because he introduced the doctor's report into evidence. (1966) 243 Cal. App. 2d 380 [52 Cal. Rptr. 276], upon which Pullman Kellogg relies, is not persuasive authority.
Note:	Apportionment is question of fact and must be supported by substantial evidence.
Citation:	26 Cal3rd 450
WCC Citation:	WCC 30261980 CA

Case Name:	Quadri v. Alkayali		03/09/2011
Summary:	QUADRI v. ALKAYALI AKRAM QUADRI et al. , Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. AHMAD ALKAYALI et al. , Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and cross-defendants Akram Quadri and Fatma Boukhari, who are married to each other (individual plaintiffs), and NeoCell Corporation against defendants and cross-complainants Ahmad Alkayali (Alkayali) and Terri Alkayali, finding the individual plaintiffs owned all the shares in NeoCell and defendants owned none. In the breach of contract count defendants pleaded that pursuant to the 2002 amendment 66 percent of the shares were transferred to Alkayali and plaintiffs breached that agreement by claiming Alkayali owned no shares. Alkayali was "intelligent and sophisticated" whereas Quadri who was 81 was less sophisticated and completely trusted Alkayali, so much so that he would sign anything Alkayali requested. But they fail to include evidence on which the court relied that Quadri would "sign any paper put in front of him [by Alkayali]" because he had "placed all of his faith and confidence in [him] .
Note:	The forgery of an employer's stock certificates to defraud a workers' compensation carrier played a role in a breach of contract suit about who actually owned a business, according to a decision from the 4th District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	G042758
WCC Citation:	WCC 37252011 CA

Case Name:	Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District		04/19/2017
Summary:	Filed 4/19/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Plumas) .             REBECCA MEGAN QUIGLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             GARDEN VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             C079270 .             (Super. She sued, inter alia, defendants and respondents Garden Valley Fire Protection District, Chester Fire Protection District, and their employees Frank DelCarlo, Mike Jellison, and Jeff Barnhart for damages, claiming she was injured as a result of their negligence, a dangerous condition of public property, and defendants’ failure to warn. The three men, all retired Forest Service employees, became employees of defendant local fire agencies Chester Fire Protection District and Garden Valley Fire Protection District in order to serve on NorCal 1. .           We concur: .           /s/ DUARTE, J.
Note:
Citation:	C079270
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. CV1000225

Case Name:	Quinn v. State of California		09/10/1975
Summary:	Case no. 23146 THOMAS QUINN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent; INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Claimant and Respondent (In Bank. Plaintiff sued the state, which owned the construction site, alleging its negligence as the proximate cause of his injuries. California courts have long applied this principle of apportionment. Furthermore, we point out below that the Legislature has clearly referred to this general equitable precept in the statute before us. (See Lasky, Subrogation Under the California Workmen's Compensation Laws -- Rules, Remedies and Side [15 Cal. 3d 182] Effects (1972) 12 Santa Clara Law.
Note:	When an injury involves a negligent third party, the employer should bear his share of litigant's attorney fees due to the equitable principle of apportionment.
Citation:	15 Cal.3d 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 32121975 CA

Case Name:	Quinn v. U.S. Bank		06/06/2011
Summary:	QUINN v. U. S. BANK NA ROBERT QUINN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U. S. BANK NA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Robert Quinn (plaintiff) is a former senior vice president of defendant U. S. Bank NA. Peatros was brought by a bank vice president who contended that Bank of America (bank) terminated her because of her race and age in violation of FEHA and other state laws. Two of the cases cited do not assist the Bank: Andrews v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (4th Cir. In the third case cited by the bank, Arrow v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (6th Cir.
Note:	A federal statute does not preempt bank officers from filing disability discrimination suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B226143
WCC Citation:	WCC 37722011 CA

Case Name:	Rabin v. Lotta		12/07/2009
Summary:	Rabin met Lotta at the Workers Compensation Appeals Board in the first half of the 1990s. Lotta represented Rabin in collecting his liens from workers compensation cases. Lotta cross-complained against Rabin, Rabins son Mathew, and Mathews wife, Jennifer Rabin. According to Lotta, Rabin was supposed to trade services to Lotta on a quid pro quo basis in exchange for the time Lotta spent on the Pourzia matter. According to Lotta, this list represented way less than 10 percent of the cases Lotta had with Rabin over the years. Rabin testified that Lotta was behind in payments to him, that Rabin was in his 80s, and felt the need to memorialize what Lotta owed him for his services.
Note:	[Unpublished] Probable cause for quantum meruit exists if any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.
Citation:	B211590
WCC Citation:	WCC 35852009 CA