Case Name:	Rail Services of America vs. SCIF		07/09/2003
Summary:	RAIL SERVICES OF AMERICA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION CROSKEY, J. - Rail Services of America and Pacific Rail Services (collectively, plaintiffs) sued State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for alleged misconduct related to premiums SCIF charged them for workers' compensation insurance. SCIF stated that it would provide coverage, but only in exchange for a non-refundable agreed minimum premium of $1,365,000. Although plaintiffs' risk manager tried to persuade SCIF to agree to different and more favorable terms, SCIF would not do so. c. SCIF Had the Right to Make the Minimum Premium Nonrefundable Plaintiffs contend that SCIF could not make the minimum premium nonrefundable, citing section 11841.
Note:	Retention of non-refundable agreed minimum premium for only 15 days coverage upheld; willful failure to comply with discovery order compels dismissal.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 323
WCC Citation:	WCC 29432003 CA

Case Name:	Raine v. City of Burbank		01/25/2006
Summary:	Dennis Barlow, City Attorney, and Carol A. Humiston, Senior Assistant City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. Following the injury to his knee, Raine had difficulty running, jumping, kneeling and lifting, activities Raine concedes are essential to perform the duties of a patrol officer and school resource officer. Raine does not challenge the trial court's findings with respect to his claims for age discrimination, retaliation and harassment. Raine argues the City failed to meet this burden because it presented no evidence relating to the economic hardship the requested accommodation would impose. The City was not required to reclassify (and thus substantially alter) the front-desk job to accommodate Raine.
Note:	Temporary light duty position as accommodation does not create obligation to make the temporary assignment available indefinitely once temporary disability becomes permanent.
Citation:	135 Cal. App. 4th 1215
WCC Citation:	WCC 31362006 CA

Case Name:	Ralph's Grocery Co. v. WCAB		09/25/1995
Summary:	RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DAWN R. LARA, Respondents. Ralphs denied the request and temporarily cut off Lara's temporary disability benefits based on its belief that section 4601, fn. On July 13, 1994, Lara returned to Kaiser and Ralphs immediately reinstated disability payments and paid for Lara's interim period of disability. Under the circumstances, the WCJ concluded that to find Ralphs had unreasonably delayed would be 'patently unfair. 'Under the circumstances, the Board concluded Lara was entitled to penalties for unreasonable delay in providing medical treatment and temporary disability benefits.
Note:	When employee controlling treatment, limitation of doctor 'one time change' is not applicable.
Citation:	38 Cal.App.4th 820
WCC Citation:	WCC 24311995 CA

Case Name:	Ralph's Grocery vs. Superior Court (Swanson)		10/23/2003
Summary:	RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; DAVID SWANSON, Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC384875, Mary Ann Murphy, Judge. )The reviewing court accepts as true all facts properly pleaded in the complaint in order to determine whether the demurrer should be overruled. Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Note:	Bonus plan, to extent based on deduction of any cost of work comp, is unlawful.
Citation:	112 Cal.App.4th 1090
WCC Citation:	WCC 29662003 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Columbia Machine, Inc.		05/01/2012
Summary:	RAMIREZ v. COLUMBIA MACHINE, INC. ANDRES RAMIREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COLUMBIA MACHINE, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ramirez suffered serious injury, including burns on his face, neck and hands. That code section is one of the maxims of jurisprudence found in the Civil Code at sections 3509 et seq. That issue was not raised in the complaint, and thus the `easy' explanation for why the theory was not addressed. No such contractual agreement or promise was alleged by Ramirez, however, and he makes no contention that there was any such agreement with or promise by Desert Block.
Note:	A California worker could not assert a claim against his employer for the negligent spoilage of evidence necessary to prove liability for his injuries from an industrial explosion.
Citation:	F061169
WCC Citation:	WCC 38902012 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services		09/09/2008
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA (AHM 0089109) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Case No. ADJ4579659 DEE ANNE RAMIREZ, Applicant, vs. DRIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES; and ONE BEACON INSURANCE CO. , Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant was employed by Drive Financial Services as a collections specialist from August 9, 2000 through February 15, 2001. Therefore, there was no basis to consider what factors might be balanced in determining the amount of the penalty. The current version of section 5814 was enacted on April 19, 2004, and became operative on June 1, 2004. Moreover, section 5814. 5 fees should be allowed only for legal services rendered in "enforcing" the unreasonably delayed prior award, and not for any other purpose.
Note:	[En Banc] Although, under new section 5814(a), a successive penalty may still be awarded for an unreasonable delay in making a prior penalty payment, it should not be awarded where the defendant had genuine doubt as to its liability or where there is no legally significant intervening event.
Citation:	ADJ4579659
WCC Citation:	WCC 34202008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. Nelson		04/08/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. CIV217462 MARIA DOLORES RAMIREZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THOMAS NELSON et al. , Ventura County Defendants and Respondents. Statement of Facts and Procedural Background Maria Dolores Ramirez and Martin Flores (plaintiffs) are the parents of the decedent, Luis Flores. Thomas and Vivian Nelson are homeowners. Vivian Nelson could see Flores working about halfway up in the eucalyptus tree from her kitchen window. After the accident, Vivian Nelson noticed that the polesaw Flores had been using was made of aluminum and wood.
Note:	As tragic as this accident was, we find the homeowners breached no special duty of care owed to unlicensed contractor Rodriguez or his workers under section 385(b).
Citation:	S143819
WCC Citation:	WCC 34072008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. WCAB		08/29/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PATRICIA RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, VLOT BROTHERS CUSTOM HEIFER RAISING et al. , Respondents. Petitioner's husband, Arturo Bucio Ramirez, worked as an employee for Mr. Medina for about a day in 2002. Unfortunately, the work led to a fatal accident for Mr. Ramirez, who died several days later. The WCAB denied reconsideration on April 15, 2008, adopting and incorporating the reasoning from the WCJ's report and recommendation. In her report and recommendation to the WCAB, the WCJ also expressed her uncertainty in discerning petitioner's position on reconsideration.
Note:	[Unpublished] The uncontroverted evidence here reveals decedent entered into a notarized partnership agreement with alleged employer to act as equal partners in the business of JM & AG Silage Covering. The WCAB's finding of such was supported by significant evidence.
Citation:	F055279
WCC Citation:	WCC 34162008 CA

Case Name:	Ramirez v. WCAB (State Department of Health Care Services)		03/29/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/29/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             DANIEL RAMIREZ, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES et al. , Respondents. .             C078440 .             (WCAB No. ADJ6821103) .             ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of review. .           Lisa A. Liebson, Deputy Chief Counsel, Mary R. Huckabaa, Assistant Chief Counsel, and William L. Anderson, Appellate Counsel, for Respondents State Department of Health Care Services and State Compensation Insurance Fund. II  Denial of Ramirez’s Treatment  .           In this case, petitioner Daniel Ramirez sustained an injury to his lower leg and ankle in the course of his job as an office assistant for the State Department of Health Care Services (Department). .           Stevens relied on this court’s decision in California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. Department of Managed Health Care (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 684 (California Consumer).
Note:
Citation:	C078440
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ6821103

Case Name:	Ramirez vs. WCAB, Safeway		08/04/1970
Summary:	MARIO S. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAFEWAY STORES, INC. , et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Selber, J. , with Stephens, Acting P. J. , and Reppy, J. , concurring. )Rupert A. Pedrin, Nathan Mudge, Sheldon M. Ziff, Waite, Drapeau & Peters and David R. Drapeau for Respondents. Awarding additional compensation under the rule of the Berry Case would constitute a denial of due process as condemned in the National Auto Case. "They argue that in no event is the employee [10 Cal. App. 3d 232] entitled to benefits from both sources (Garcia v. Industrial Acc. The penalty issue was stated by the referee as follows: "Ten per cent penalty for unreasonable failure to pay benefits. "
Note:	Advancement of EDD disability does not excuse penalty against employer/carrier for late payments of, or failure to pay, benefits.
Citation:	10 CA 3d 227; 35 CCC 383
WCC Citation:	WCC 29091970 CA

Case Name:	Ramsey v. WCAB		06/16/1971
Summary:	PHIL RAMSEY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HUMKO PRODUCTS et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Tamura, J. , with Gardner, P. J. , and Kerrigan, J. , concurring. )On the prior occasion (Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Following the remittitur in Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. That award was undisturbed by Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. In any event the time commenced no later than March 25, 1970, when the Board reissued its award and decision after remittitur in Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	If a party prevails then other party wins on rehearing, first party may petition for rehearing of order as first time aggrieved party.
Citation:	18 Cal.App.3d 155
WCC Citation:	WCC 26501971 CA

Case Name:	Raphael vs. Bloomfield		11/21/2003
Summary:	GILMORE E. RAPHAEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUNE S. BLOOMFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Peter I. Bersin, Peter I. Bersin; Drucker & Steinschriber and Stephen Marc Drucker for Plaintiff and Respondent. At trial, the only contested issue was whether the workers' compensation awards each spouse received were community property. The court ordered wife to pay husband $155,929. 52, i. e. , one-half of wife's lump sum award. Ordinarily, "[t]he theory upon which a case was tried in the court below must be followed on appeal. "
Note:	Only that portion of an Award attributable to disability or medical expenses during the marriage is community property.
Citation:	113 Cal.App.4th 617
WCC Citation:	WCC 29672003 CA

Case Name:	Rausch v. WCAB		06/26/1969
Summary:	MELANIE RAUSCH, a Minor, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, TERESITA PINES, INC. , et al. , Respondents. In the summer of 1967 the petitioner, Melanie Rausch, who was at that time 19 years of age, was employed as a camp counselor by Teresita Pines, Inc. , whose compensation insurance carrier was respondent, Phoenix Insurance Company. The camp had accommodations for 160 girls and was operated from the last week of June to the last week of August. A brochure relating to the 1967 camp program contained a picture of about 15 younger girls and two older girls on horseback. The caddy was permitted to play, without charge on his day off, on the golf course where he was employed.
Note:	When no dispute of facts, whether injured on job is question of law and finding on issue is not conclusive.
Citation:	274 Cal.App.2d 357
WCC Citation:	WCC 27401969 CA

Case Name:	Raymond Garcia, Sr., v. Department of Water and Power et al.		01/06/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B222442 January 6, 2011 RAYMOND GARCIA, SR. , PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Lisa S. Berger, Deputy City Attorney; Richard M. Brown, General Counsel for Defendants and Respondents. Raymond Garcia appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Department of Water and Power (hereinafter, "DWP"), and City employee Gregory Troschak, after defendants' demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Vargas answered that he was not the culprit, and that he knew who had done it but could not tell. Pleadings in the workers' compensation proceeding are in accord, as is plaintiff's filing with the Department of Fair Housing and Employment.
Note:	Workers' compensation exclusivity prevents an employee who was injured after a coworker shortened his cane from bringing tort actions against the coworker and employer, the California's Second District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B222442
WCC Citation:	WCC 36982011 CA

Case Name:	Raymond Plastering v. WCAB		07/24/1967
Summary:	RAYMOND PLASTERING et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CLEO KING, Respondents. The injury caused total temporary disability through November 30, 1965, for which he was paid temporary disability benefits at the maximum rate. Award issued for permanent disability benefits of $4,305 payable at the rate of $52. 50 per week for 82 weeks. The award is based on a finding that applicant's earnings were maximum for purposes of computing permanent disability benefits. They seek annulment of the award and an order directing the appeals board to take additional evidence on the issue.
Note:	Board must develop record if parties fail to provide sufficient evidence for rendering fair decision.
Citation:	252 Cal.App.2d 748
WCC Citation:	WCC 27241967 CA

Case Name:	Rea vs. WCAB; Boostan, et al.		03/15/2005
Summary:	JOHN REA, as Acting Director, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, EREZ BOOSTAN et al. , Respondents. Milbauer and the Fund again proceeded to trial, and the Fund raised various issues including the illegally uninsured employer's identity. Moreover, the Fund failed to provide benefits contrary to section 3716, subdivision (b), Yant, DuBois, and Aubry v. Workers' Comp. Without proper jurisdiction, the Fund argues it is inhibited or precluded from fulfilling its statutory obligations under section 3710 et seq. The proof of service should specify the time, place and manner of service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 417. 10 et seq.
Note:	WCAB can not implement regulatory procedures without notice and opportunity to be heard.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 625
WCC Citation:	WCC 30842005 CA

Case Name:	ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. Jones		11/06/2012
Summary:	Nurses register with ReadyLink, which verifies the nurses' credentials, notifies them when shifts are available and pays their wages. The SCIF conducted its final audit of ReadyLink in 2007 for the policy period of September 2005 through September 2006. She questioned ReadyLink about its per diem payments and requested documentation to substantiate these payments. ReadyLink appealed the SCIF's decision to the Administrative Hearing Bureau of the California Department of Insurance. Instead, the Commissioner provided a useful interpretation of an existing regulation and applied it to the set of facts presented by ReadyLink.
Note:	A staffing company must pay State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) an additional $555,327.53 in premium, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday, agreeing with the carrier that the firm had disguised wages it paid to traveling nurses by labeling the bulk of its payments as reimbursement for living expenses.
Citation:	B234509
WCC Citation:	WCC 39492012 CA

Case Name:	Redner v. WCAB		06/10/1971
Summary:	CLAUDE REDNER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA WHOLESALE ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. , Respondents. Upon applicant's attorney's strenuous objection to the admission of the medical reports, the referee refused to admit them into evidence. 4 [5 Cal. 3d 89] Thereafter the insurance carrier petitioned for reconsideration on every statutory basis except the discovery of new evidence. It is noted that in its petition, defendant refers to motion picture film which was never offered in evidence. (W. C. A. B. rule 10856(e); see Standard Rectifier Corp. v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	WCAB doesn't have arbitrary powers to grant reconsideration, must be based on 5903.
Citation:	5 Cal.3d 83
WCC Citation:	WCC 26691971 CA

Case Name:	Regents of Univ. of CA v. WCAB (Oberhoffer)		08/25/1994
Summary:	THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CATHLEEN OBERHOFFER, Respondents. The University of California Board of Regents petitions for review of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision awarding the applicant, a university police officer trainee, full salary in lieu of workers' compensation disability payments pursuant to Labor Code section 4806. fn. 1 We granted review because the WCAB misinterpreted the applicable statutes. In March 1992, she returned to the university police department and was given light work in the investigations unit and evidence room. [¶] This section shall apply only to those members of the University of California Police Department specified in [Labor Code] Section 3213. '
Note:	Applicant must complete training and graduate from academy to qualify for 3213 & 4806 consideration.
Citation:	27 Cal.App.4th 1101
WCC Citation:	WCC 4171994 CA

Case Name:	Regents of Univ. of CA v. WCAB (Ryan)		02/20/1998
Summary:	Regents of the University of California, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Gloria Ryan, Respondents. Applicant sustained admitted industrial injuries to her back on 1/19/95, and to her psyche during the period 9/19/93 through 4/18/95. Defendant sought reconsideration on the grounds that the WCAB is vested with equitable power to credit Defendant with attorney's fees and costs from the superior court action against Applicant's future workers' compensation benefits. Petitioner seeks to offset any workers' compensation benefits awarded by an attorney fee award in a related superior court action. Labor Code section 4901 provides that compensation awards may not be taken for the debts of the worker except as 'hereinafter provided. '
Note:	No offset of comp. award by civil award in action from same injury.
Citation:	63 CCC 335 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 25141998 CA

Case Name:	Rehab Unit Administrative Guidelines		02/14/1997
Summary:	INDEX ^1-10-01^ Application of Administrative Guidelines ^8-10-01^ Undocumented Workers ^8-10-02^ Injured Worker Living Out-of-State/Country (Amended effective September 25, 1998) ^8-10-03^ Non-English Speaking Qualified Injured Worker (Amended effective September 25, 1998) ^8-10-04^ Return to Modified/Alternate Work via the RU-94 (Amended effective September 25, 1998) ^8-20-00^ Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (Amended effective September 4, 1997) ^8-20-01^ Independent Vocational Evaluator ^8-20-02^ Work Evaluation/Testing ^8-30-01^ Employee Requests for Vocational Rehabilitation Services ^8-30-01. 1^ Deferral/Interruption of Rehabilitation Services ^8-30-01. 2^ Employee Request for Reinstatement of Rehabilitation Services (Amended effective September 4, 1997) ^8-30-01. 3^ Declination and Employee Request for Services Following Declination ^8-30-01. 4^ Statute of Limitations ^8-30-02^ Initiation of Vocational Services/Referral to a Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (Amended effective September 4, 1997) ^8-30-02. 1^ Change of Qualified Rehabilitation Representative ^8-30-02. 2^ Waiver of Qualified Rehabilitation Representative ^8-30-03^ Identification of Vocational Feasability ^8-40-00^ Continuous Trauma/Multiple Employers ^8-40-01^ Disputed Compensability and Compromise and Release Cases ^8-40-02^ Uninsured Employer Fund Cases ^8-50-00^ Nature, Extent and Duration of Plan Services ^8-50-01^ Plan Evaluation and Approval ^8-50-01. 1^ Subsequent Rehabilitation Plan ^8-50-02^ Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance/Vocational Rehabilitation Temporary Disability (Amended effective September 25, 1998) ^8-50-02. 1^ Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance/Vocational Rehabilitation Temporary Disability During On-the job Training (Suspended effective June 5, 1997) ^8-50-02. 2^ Maintenance Benefits due to Public Safety Employees ^8-50-03^ Self-employment/Capital Investment (Amended effective September 4, 1997) ^8-50-04^ Additional Living Expenses (Amended effective September 25, 1998) ^8-50-04. 1^ Transportation Expenses ^8-50-04. 2^ Relocation Expenses ^8-50-04. 3^ Tools ^8-50-05^ Job Placement ^8-50-06^ Plan for Modified/Alternate Work via the RU-102 ^8-60-00^ Interpreting Fees ^8-60-01^ Multiple Rehabilitation Providers ^8-60-02^ Sub Rosa Films ^8-60-03^ Service of Medical/Vocational Reports ^8-60-04^ Dispute Resolution ^8-60-05^ Determinations ^8-60-06^ Enforcement of Unit Determinations ^8-60-07^ Attorney Fees ^8-60-08^ Fee Disputes ^8-60-09^ Communication with the Parties ^8-60-10^ Venue Assignment, Maintenance and Transfer of Case Files ^8-60-11^ Jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Unit ^8-60-12^ Proceedings before the WCAB/Procedures following Appeal ^8-70-00^ Conclusions/Terminations ^8-80-00^ Public Access to Rehabilitation Unit Records/H. I. V. Case Handling ^8-80-01^ Considerations For Audit Referral
Note:	The Rehabilitation Unit's published guidelines.
Citation:	N/A
WCC Citation:	WCC 26931997 CA

Case Name:	Reich, Adell, Crost & Perry v. WCAB		01/01/2001
Summary:	As required by Section 10860 of the WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (hereinafter 'WCAB Rules'), the judge filed a report on each petition for reconsideration wherein he responded to the contentions made by petitioner. In doing so consideration should be given to the standards set forth in WCAB Rules Section 10775 and in the WCAB Policy & Procedure Manual. Thus, while the WCAB should not lightly disregard a fee agreement between the attorney and his client, such an agreement is not binding upon the WCAB. Similarly, Section 10776 of the WCAB Rules [n6] does not declare attorneys fee agreements necessarily invalid, but only requires their prompt submission to the WCAB for review. If dissatisfied with the fee awarded the attorney's recourse is to seek reconsideration by the WCAB.
Note:	Notice to atty. required before Bd. reduces fee that was agreed to by client in the settlement before Bd. for approval.
Citation:	44 CCC 1119
WCC Citation:	WCC 27192001 CA

Case Name:	Reichelt v. Slotnick		07/30/2010
Summary:	Filed 7/30/10 Reichelt v. Slotnick CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE 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(b). Lawrence Reichelt, in pro. Lawrence Kevin Reichelt appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent George Slotnick following the sustaining of a demurrer to ppellant's third amended complaint. He also argues the trial court erred in sustaining respondents demurrer to causes of action in the second amended complaint. We find that the third amended complaint stated insufficient facts upon which to base a cause of action.
Note:	An injured worker's breach of contract suit against his former attorney failed because he did not adequately plead his case.
Citation:	B215506
WCC Citation:	WCC 36522010 CA

Case Name:	Reiman v. WCAB		02/02/1977
Summary:	MILFORD H. REIMAN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondents (Opinion by Rattigan, J. , with Caldecott, P. J. , and Christian, J. , concurring. )[66 Cal. App. 3d 734] OPINION RATTIGAN, J. Milford H. Reiman (hereinafter applicant) is the recipient of benefits in a proceeding conducted pursuant to the workers' compensation law. In January 1973, applicant and Barbara Jean Reiman, his wife, petitioned the appeals board for an order reimbursing Mrs. Reiman for 'practical nursing services' which applicant conceived to be self-procured medical treatment. In February 1973, Mrs. Reiman herself filed a 'Notice and Request for Allowance of Lien' in which she claimed a lien, for her services, against any award to be made to applicant upon the petition. In the report, and among other things, she stated her determinations that 'this case is governed by Henson vs. WCAB (Standard Oil Company) 37 CCC 654 and that Mrs. Reiman is entitled to payment for the reasonable value of her services. '
Note:	No lien or credit for voluntary payments as gifts separate from compensation.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.3d 732
WCC Citation:	WCC 25131977 CA

Case Name:	Reiner v. Greyhound Lines		10/17/2017
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             MARTIN REINER, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             GREYHOUND LINES INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             GREYHOUND LINES INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Roy G. Weatherup, Kenneth C. Feldman, Caroline E. Chan and David D. Samani for Defendants and Respondents Greyhound Lines Inc. , FirstGroup America, Inc. , and Tricia Martinez. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .           In March 2014, Reiner acted as counsel for two defendant employees of Greyhound Lines Inc. in Yennisen de Santiago v. Greyhound Lines Inc. Greyhound was represented by Ian Wade for Littler Mendelson, P. C. .           In September 2014, Reiner sent a series of emails to Wade and Greyhound’s in-house counsel, Tricia Martinez, purporting to represent another individual who had claims against Greyhound and knew facts that could be used against Greyhound in the Santiago litigation. You can cooperate and save Greyhound significantly, or you can be uncooperative and cause Greyhound significant harm. ” .           On October 1, 2014, Martinez sent an email to Wade and Reiner saying, “Please provide me with the proper ‘authorities’ to whom I should address a compliant [sic] against Reiner.
Note:	California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal refused to reinstate a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress filed by an attorney disbarred earlier this year for not abiding the terms of his probation for willfully disobeying three orders issued by workers’ compensation judges.
Citation:	B265943 c/w B269440
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC564127

Case Name:	Reiner v. Kebel, Tobin & Truce		03/08/2012
Summary:	MARTIN REINER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KEGEL, TOBIN & TRUCE et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Berger Kahn, and Steven H. Gentry for Defendants and Respondents Kegel, Tobin & Truce and Sheila Kashani. True to his word, Reiner brought suit against Kashani and her law firm, Kegel, Tobin & Truce (Kegel), as well as their client, Commerce and Industry Insurance (Commerce) on September 21, 2010 for defamation and fraud. DISCUSSION On appeal, Reiner challenges the trial court's orders granting the anti-SLAPP motion and denying Reiner the right of discovery with regard to the attorney fee and costs award. However, Reiner provides no legal authority to support a contention that he is entitled to discovery on the issue.
Note:	A defamation action by a California workers' compensation defense attorney against defense counsel in another case involving the same claimant was subject to a special motion to strike as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, a state appellate court ruled.
Citation:	B234815
WCC Citation:	WCC 38692012 CA

Case Name:	Respini v. RMG Electric, Inc.		08/21/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE HELEN RESPINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RMG ELECTRIC, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. SCV-237730) Plaintiff was severely injured in an automobile accident involving an employee of defendant RMG Electric, Inc. (RMG) and seeks to hold RMG vicariously liable for her injuries. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Helen Respini filed an action against defendant Micah Ashley, alleging injury and economic loss as a result of an automobile accident involving Ashley. As he explained, RMG employs a person referred to as a 'shop boy' to transport materials from the shop to RMG worksites as they are needed on the job. Gugel further confirmed that Ashley was not required by RMG to drive his personal vehicle to the worksite and was not reimbursed by RMG for his travel expenses.
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff submitted evidence sufficient to support a jury finding that employee's trip was within the scope of his employment.
Citation:	A119232
WCC Citation:	WCC 34132008 CA

Case Name:	Rex Club et al. v. WCAB (SCIF)		03/31/1997
Summary:	The REX CLUB et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and State Compensation Insurance Fund et al. , Respondents. (e)) against the Rex Club, seeking reimbursement for a portion of the workers' compensation benefits SCIF paid to the injured worker. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rejected the Rex Club's position that the petition for contribution should be dismissed as untimely. By petition for writ of review, the Rex Club and its insurer, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (hereafter collectively referred to as Rex Club), seek to annul the WCAB's order finding that SCIF's petition for contribution is not time-barred. Thereafter, Rex Club and Fairlane Meat Market-two other employers for whom the applicant had worked during that period-were joined as defendants.
Note:	Since the original findings of fact and award issued in November 1987 constitute 'an award' of compensation benefits within the meaning of section 5500.5, subdivision (e), the WCAB's petition for contribution filed in November 1994 is untimely as to that award.
Citation:	C022162
WCC Citation:	WCC 37091997 CA

Case Name:	Reyes v. Van Elk, Ltd.		03/14/2007
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiffs Jose Reyes, Francisco Reyes, Jose Perez and Carlos Flores were employed by defendant Van Elk, Ltd. ("Van Elk") on allegedly public works projects which were subject to California's prevailing wage law. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS Plaintiffs performed welding-related work for Van Elk on different construction projects in Los Angeles County. When Perez was asked if he provided false employment information to Van Elk, he objected, but admitted he had. However, judgment was only entered in favor of three of the four defendants - - Van Elk, Fidelity and Fassberg. There is some indication in the record that Van Elk did not ask for employment authorization documents from plaintiffs.
Note:	Undocumented workers' have standing to raise prevailing wage claims, and the prevailing wage law is not preempted by the IRAC.
Citation:	148 Cal. App. 4th 604
WCC Citation:	WCC 32112007 CA

Case Name:	Reyes vs. Hart Plastering		02/10/2005
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. POM 261149 JOSE REYES, Applicant, vs. HART PLASTERING; FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; and CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. (Servicing Facility), Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant, while employed as a plasterer by Hart Plastering on May 22, 2000, sustained severe injuries when he fell approximately 53 feet. He was working on the third story of a five-story building when he attempted to step onto a scaffold. His right foot missed the wooden board and he fell through the space between the scaffold and the wall. Jose Reyes, born October 12, 1961, while employed as a plasterer by Hart Plastering on May 22, 2000, sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment.
Note:	Changes made to apportionment statutes in SB 899 do not affect the determination of AOE/COE.
Citation:	69 CCC (2005); Panel
WCC Citation:	WCC 30812005 CA