Case Name:	Drasin & Assoc. v. WCAB		02/28/1992
Summary:	On June 13, 1984, based on stipulations of the parties, applicant was awarded $9,105 in retroactive temporary disability indemnity and applicant's counsel, Kessler & Drasin, was awarded a fee of $1,300. 71. Lawrence Drasin and other attorneys from Kessler & Drasin and its successor firms fn. The WCJ awarded attorney fees of $500 to Ms. Itatani and $3,500 to Mr. Drasin, payable from permanent disability indemnity. Mr. Drasin also argued that, even if the permanent disability indemnity were not increased on reconsideration, $10,000 in attorney fees would be appropriate. Kessler & Drasin became Drasin, Sparagna, Polan, Kessler & McNulty, and then Drasin, Sparagna, Polan & Sparagna. The firm later became Drasin & Polan and is now Lawrence Drasin & Associates.
Note:	WCAB should request counsel for info to determine fee if record lacks basis to value services.
Citation:	3 Cal.App.4th 1564, 57 CCC 142
WCC Citation:	WCC 26841992 CA

Case Name:	Draus v. WCAB		02/21/1995
Summary:	Peter Draus, Horizon Medical Group, Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Pasadena Scottish Rite Temple et al. , Respondents. He sustained an industrial hip injury on June 15, 1990, and medical treatment was provided by defendants. Applicant filed two workers' compensation claims, alleging both specific and cumulative orthopedic industrial injuries, as well as injury from work-related stress and strain. 'Prior to filing the claims, applicant became a patient at the Horizon Medical Group (Horizon), which provided evaluation in orthopedic and internal medicine. On June 17, 1991, defendants' orthopedic surgeon, Richard M. Siebold, M. D. , reported that applicant was permanent and stationary,' with certain work restrictions.
Note:	Lien claimant's failure to timely object to C&R clause settling lien does not waive right to hearing when clause is ambiguous.
Citation:	60 CCC 79
WCC Citation:	WCC 27511995 CA

Case Name:	DuBois v. WCAB		06/28/1993
Summary:	When Rohrer Trucking failed to make such payments, DuBois requested a supplemental hearing before the WCAB, seeking, pursuant to section 3716, subdivision (a), to collect from the UEF the award DuBois had received against Rohrer Trucking, and seeking, pursuant to section 5814, an additional amount in penalties for the unreasonable delay on the part of Rohrer Trucking in paying the benefits. On the same date, this stipulation was entered by a WCJ as an award in favor of DuBois against the UEF. At that proceeding, DuBois stated he had received no payments under the December 14, 1989, award, and a UEF representative stated that the UEF had been unable to determine whether payments to DuBois had been made. Thereafter, the Court of Appeal summarily denied DuBois's petition for a writ of review, and DuBois petitioned for our review. Subsequent enactments pertaining to the UEF add no support to the foregoing assertion by DuBois and amicus curiae.
Note:	UEF not liable for penalties from unreasonable delay in payment of award.
Citation:	5 Cal.4th 382, 58 CCC 286
WCC Citation:	WCC 24391993 CA

Case Name:	Duenas v. WCAB		08/19/2010
Summary:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) found Juan Jose Ayala was an employee of Guillermo Duenas, while performing landscaping work at Duenas's private residence. We find there was no dispute Ayala was hired by Duenas, and thus was presumptively an employee. After the work at the home sites was completed, Duenas then hired Ayala to work at Duenas's private residence in Chino Hills. Duenas testified that he did not pay Ayala for the work done at the job assignment at his residence in Chino Hills. The Board found Ayala was presumed to be an employee pursuant to section 3357, since he rendered service for Duenas.
Note:	A homeowner who hired a landscaper to replant some flower beds at his home was not an employer for workers' compensation purposes because there was no evidence the applicant had worked long enough to waive the statutory exclusion for casual labor.
Citation:	B215894
WCC Citation:	WCC 36582010 CA

Case Name:	Duffy v. Technicolor Entertainment Services		01/29/2009
Summary:	[U] Duffy v. Technicolor Entertainment Services, Inc. , No. B196126 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 01/29/2009) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No. B196126 January 29, 2009 EUGENE DUFFY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. TECHNICOLOR ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC. Loeb & Loeb, Scott M. Lidman; Dreier Stein & Kahan, Fred B. Griffin; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Timothy T. Coates and Lillie Hsu for Defendant and Appellant Technicolor Entertainment Services, Inc. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. INTRODUCTION Defendant Technicolor Entertainment Services, Inc. (Technicolor) appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) as to causes of action for negligent retention and supervision and for assault brought by plaintiff Eugene Duffy and from the subsequently entered judgment for Duffy. After the trial as to liability, the jury found by special verdict that Duffy's injury was not caused or contributed to by events which arose out of or occurred within the course and scope of his employment with Technicolor; that Technicolor negligently retained and/or supervised Streng; that Technicolor's negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Duffy; that Streng's conduct occurred after the conduct of Technicolor; that a reasonable person would not consider Streng's conduct as a highly unusual or an extraordinary response to the situation; that Streng committed one or more acts of willful physical aggression before Duffy left work at Technicolor on August 18, 2004; that Duffy had reasonable fear of bodily harm caused by Streng's conduct; that Duffy did not consent to Streng's conduct; that Technicolor later learned of Streng's conduct toward Duffy which occurred before Duffy left work on August 18, 2004; and that after learning of Streng's conduct directed at Duffy and which occurred before Duffy left work at Technicolor on August 18, 2004, Technicolor ratified Streng's conduct. Duffy then said that as he walked away, Streng told Duffy he had better be careful because Streng knew where Duffy lived.
Note:	Exclusive remedy does not apply to an employer that failed to protect a supervisor from an off-premises assault by a workplace bully.
Citation:	B196126
WCC Citation:	WCC 34862009 CA

Case Name:	DuFour v. WCAB		08/09/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RACHAEL DUFOUR et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF MODESTO, Respondents. BACKGROUND Modesto Police Officer Michael DuFour (DuFour) passed away in his home on December 13, 2003, after having experienced two days of flu-like symptoms. Referring to DuFour's autopsy reports, the WCJ found insufficient evidence that DuFour was infected with a blood-borne infectious disease. The WCAB found the suggestion DuFour died of a blood-borne infectious disease "speculation, not evidence" and noted Petitioner repeatedly mischaracterized the burden of proof by insisting the statutory presumption applies any time a police officer becomes ill from an unknown source. Dr. Blau's opinion here is not based on a medical finding that DuFour died from a blood-borne infectious disease.
Note:	[Unpublished] The WCAB properly declined to presume [decedent's] death arose out of and in the course of his employment.
Citation:	F052954
WCC Citation:	WCC 32472007 CA

Case Name:	Dufresne v. City of Hayward		03/25/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No. A116737 MARGARET DUFRESNE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF HAYWARD, Defendant and Appellant. Ct. No. 2002-067063) Defendant City of Hayward (the city) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Margaret Dufresne, a former building inspector for the city, on her complaint for sexual harassment. The city also argues that the court erred in admitting evidence that the city accepted liability in workers' compensation proceedings arising out of the same alleged harassment. Hulse continued to assign her more work than the other inspectors until she stopped working for the city in 2001. Had the city wished to settle plaintiff's workers' compensation claim and at the same time avoid making such an admission, the city could have drafted such an agreement.
Note:	[Unpublished] The Superior Court did not err by admitting a plaintiff's evidence of her workers' compensation claim for psychiatric injury that allegedly resulted from years of sexual harassment.
Citation:	A116737
WCC Citation:	WCC 35072009 CA

Case Name:	Duncan v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.		12/31/1969
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115.   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             DENISE MICHELLE DUNCAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, .             v. .             WAL-MART STORES, INC. , Defendant; .             HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. , Claimant and Appellant. .             G054220 .             (Super. .             England Ponticello & St. Clair, Barry W. Ponticello, Renee C. St. Clair and Kristina M. Pfeifer for Claimant and Appellant. .           Respondent Denise Michelle Duncan sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) for personal injuries she sustained at one of Wal-Mart’s stores while acting within the course and scope of her employment with Acosta, Inc. (Acosta). .           Hartford filed a notice and application for a lien on the judgment based on the workers’ compensation benefits it paid Duncan.
Note:	Outlines why insurance companies have the right to recoup their workers’ compensation expenses from an applicant's third-party award before the worker can touch the money, and why judges can’t make any deductions from the recoupment other than attorney’s fees.
Citation:	G054220
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00735595

Case Name:	Duncan v. Walmart Stores (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.)		12/31/1969
Summary:	Filed 11/14/17; Certified for Publication 12/13/17 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT  DIVISION THREE .             DENISE MICHELLE DUNCAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, .             v. .             WAL-MART STORES, INC. , Defendant; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. , Claimant and Appellant. .             G054220 .             (Super. .             England Ponticello & St. Clair, Barry W. Ponticello, Renee C. St. Clair and Kristina M. Pfeifer for Claimant and Appellant. .           Respondent Denise Michelle Duncan sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) for personal injuries she sustained at one of Wal-Mart’s stores while acting within the course and scope of her employment with Acosta, Inc. (Acosta). Filed 12/13/17  CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT  DIVISION THREE  .           DENISE MICHELLE DUNCAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, .           v. .           WAL-MART STORES, INC. , Defendant; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. , Claimant and Appellant.
Note:	An insurance carrier has the right to reimbursement of the benefits it paid to an injured worker from her recovery from a third party.
Citation:	G054220
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00735595

Case Name:	Duncan v. WCAB		08/26/2008
Summary:	Concluding that a sanction against the UEBTF for bad faith action is not prohibited by section 3716. 2, the WCJ ordered the UEBTF to pay a sanction of $100 to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Accordingly, the WCAB held: "When a sanction is warranted under section 5813 and Rule 10561 [Cal. However, appellate review of WCAB decisions is limited to "final" orders that determine a substantial right or liability of a party. Therefore, Solorio has misused, and the WCJ and the WCAB have misapplied, section 5813 for that purpose. DISPOSITION The WCAB decision is annulled, and the cause is remanded to the WCAB for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	A sanction is not a workers' compensation 'benefit' within the meaning of section 3716.2, which limits the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's (UEBTF) liability 'only' to 'benefits' that would be paid by an employer properly insured for worker's compensation.
Citation:	C056727
WCC Citation:	WCC 34152008 CA