Case Name:	Reynolds v. WCAB		11/04/1974
Summary:	WILLARD P. REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondents In Bank. Fred T. Searls, Raymond W. White, Bruce P. Sadler and Barry L. Wade for Respondents. He requested assistance with the loading, but none was available; so he continued doing the work alone. Later, in the afternoon, when he arrived at his destination, he experienced further, more severe pain when he began to unload the timbers from the truck. While discussing his condition with his supervisor, petitioner started to shake; and he expressed the opinion that he was having a heart attack.
Note:	Failure of employer to provide injured worker with required notice tolls statute of limitations.
Citation:	12 Cal.3d 726
WCC Citation:	WCC 29111974 CA

Case Name:	Rhiner v. WCAB		04/08/1993
Summary:	GRANT DAVID RHINER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, TED JONES et al. , Respondents. Facts On January 9, 1988, petitioner Grant David Rhiner was injured when he fell off a roof at work. It rejected the two cases on which the WCAB had based its decision, finding them irreconcilable with Gallamore, supra, 23 Cal. 3d 815. The WCAB had imposed only one of the requested penalties, and it had imposed no penalty for delay in travel expense reimbursement. We remanded the matter to the WCAB to reconsider the employee's two additional penalty claims.
Note:	Strict liability for delay of payment.
Citation:	4 Cal.4th 1213
WCC Citation:	WCC 3401993 CA

Case Name:	Richard H. Moss v. PG&E Corporation et al		02/01/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A126610 February 1, 2011 RICHARD H. MOSS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. PG&E CORPORATION ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Moss also alleges that PG&E harassed, discriminated and retaliated against him because he suffered from sleep apnea. The trial court determined that Moss met his initial burden and established a prima facie case of age discrimination. In the end, Moss was fired because fewer and fewer clients were willing to work with him. Moss's contention that "Hartman admitted that Moss falling asleep in meetings played a role in his decision to terminate Moss" distorts the record.
Note:	A PG&E attorney's suit against the employer failed because he provided insufficient evidence of a discriminatory reason for his termination.
Citation:	A126610
WCC Citation:	WCC 37102011 CA

Case Name:	Richardson-Tunnell v. School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE)		12/07/2007
Summary:	Filed 12/10/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX KLARE RICHARDSON-TUNNELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SCHOOL INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR EMPLOYEES (SIPE) et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. CV 050780B) (San Luis Obispo County) Klare Richardson-Tunnell appeals from a judgment of dismissal after an order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE) and Lucia Mar Unified School District (District), each public entities. The court granted their motion without leave to amend and dismissed all causes of action against SIPE and District. Section 821. 6 is a specific statute that provides immunity to public employees that are engaged in prosecutorial and investigatory activities. Cumberland, Coates & Duenow ,David M. Cumberland, Greg A. Coates, and Kevin R. Anderson for Defendants and Respondents Schools Insurance Program for Employees and Lucia Mar Unified School District.
Note:	The government immunity established in Government Code section 821.6 will override liability created by Civil Code section 1708.8, absent an expression of legislative intent to the contrary. Nothing in Civil Code section 1708.8 or its legislative history evidences any intent to create new government liability.
Citation:	157 Cal. App. 4th 1056; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 176
WCC Citation:	WCC 32862007 CA

Case Name:	Richey v. Autonation, Inc.		11/13/2012
Summary:	RICHEY v. AUTONATION, INC. AVERY RICHEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AUTONATION, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. *fn3 In October 2007, while still working full time for Power Toyota, Richey took steps to start a family seafood restaurant. The employee parked near the restaurant for a few minutes and observed Richey sweeping, bending over and using a hammer to hang a sign. On May 1, 2008 Power Toyota terminated Richey for engaging in outside employment while on a leave of absence. The Arbitrator Committed Clear Legal Error in Basing His Decision Solely on Power Toyota's Honest Belief Richey Had Abused His Leave a.
Note:	An employer could not defend against an employee's claim that it wrongfully interfered with his medical leave by firing him based on its good faith belief that the employee was working at another job while he was on leave.
Citation:	B234711
WCC Citation:	WCC 39512012 CA

Case Name:	Rickards v. UPS, Inc.		06/19/2012
Summary:	According to Rickards, Esqueda, who managed the UPS center where Rickards worked, reacted angrily when he learned of Rickards' back injury and did not take him to see a doctor immediately. Raising his voice, Phaykaisorn followed Rickards, got in front of him, and placed a hand on Rickards' chest to stop him. Esqueda interviewed Rickards and Phaykaisorn about the incident and terminated Rickards for unprofessional conduct and unprovoked assault on a supervisor. In declarations, Rickards and his attorney stated that the attorney was authorized to file the complaint on Rickards' behalf. Rickards also relies on his declaration that, "[a]round the time" of Rickards' back injury, Esqueda threatened to have Rickards fired within two weeks.
Note:	A claim of disability discrimination filed by an attorney through the Department of Fair Employment and Housing's automated system is a 'verified' complaint.
Citation:	B234192
WCC Citation:	WCC 39062012 CA

Case Name:	Riddle v. WCAB		03/22/1995
Summary:	Sandra Riddle, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of Palmdale et al. , Respondents. In this matter, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ), the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board), and this court denied applicant relief. On September 14, 1987, City advised applicant by letter that termination of her employment was scheduled for October 12, 1987. Meanwhile, medical treatment was paid for by SCIF and was given by John J. Kayvanfar, M. D. , during 1990 and 1991. Consequently, surgery was performed and applicant was released as physically able to return to work in August 1992.
Note:	Amended 132a pleading which cured defects in fact specification dates back to original filing.
Citation:	60 CCC 170
WCC Citation:	WCC 27641995 CA

Case Name:	Rider v. WCAB		09/30/2009
Summary:	Filed 9/30/09 Rider v. WCAB CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). RHO Beta petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending the WCJ should have apportioned 96 percent of Rider's disability to nonindustrial factors. Rider timely petitioned this court for a writ of review (§ 5950; Cal. The restriction is derived from section 5900, which permits an aggrieved party only from petitioning the WCAB for reconsideration from a final order, decision, or award. In the present case, Rider requests that this court review the WCAB's order granting reconsideration and sending the matter back to the WCJ to obtain additional relevant evidence.
Note:	[Unpublished] Only those orders, decisions and awards of the WCAB deemed to be final have been held to be within section 5950.
Citation:	F058162
WCC Citation:	WCC 35682009 CA

Case Name:	Rio Linda Union School Dist. v. WCAB (Scheftner)		07/26/2005
Summary:	Filed 7/26/05 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) RIO LINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, JANETTE SCHEFTNER, Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 12, 2002, Janelle Scheftner, a third grade teacher at Rio Linda Union Elementary School, slipped on a piece of food as she was walking out of her classroom. She had a back strain in 1997, which had resolved by the time she was hired by the school in 2001. On February 21, 2002, Scheftner went to see her Kaiser physician regarding her school injury. An award of permanent partial disability, attorney fees, and further medical treatment was entered in favor of Scheftner and against the Rio Linda Union School District (District).
Note:	Where there is no final order awarding permanent disability before 04/19/04, the new apportionment standard applies.
Citation:	131 Cal.App.4th 517
WCC Citation:	WCC 31082005 CA

Case Name:	Ristow v. County of San Bernardino et al.		07/31/2012
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Cheryl Ristow (Ristow) sued (1) the County of San Bernardino (the County); (2) the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office (the Office); and (3) San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos (Ramos) (the three defendants are collectively referred to as "defendants"). The FAC lists three defendants: (1) "County of San Bernardino"; (2) "San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office"; and (3) "District Attorney Michael A. Ristow reasons the Office prevailed in the trial court, because "judgment was entered against the County of San Bernardino (erroneously sued and served as San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office). "In the County's supplemental letter brief to this court, it concedes, "The San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office is not a separate entity from the County of San Bernardino, but is a department within San Bernardino County. "The County goes on to write, "Since the Office is not a separate entity from the County of San Bernardino, but is a department within San Bernardino County, it stands in the same shoes as the County. "
Note:	Exclusive remedy bars a lawsuit alleging assault by the San Bernardino County District Attorney because the plaintiff did not name the D.A. in his individual capacity.
Citation:	E053531
WCC Citation:	WCC 39172012 CA

Case Name:	Ritchie v. WCAB		05/04/1994
Summary:	ROCKY D. RITCHIE, Petitioner v. ,WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, Respondents. Procedural History On August 20, 1991, Rocky D. Ritchie (petitioner), then a police detective for the respondent City of Bakersfield (the City), sustained an admitted injury to his back. Petitioner appealed the consultant's decision to respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In due course, the WCAB adopted and incorporated the report and recommendation of the WCJ and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Lack of Discrimination [6a] Petitioner claims that the result arrived at by the WCAB impermissibly discriminates against municipal peace officers.
Note:	Officer not entitled to voc. rehab. after effective date of retirement under PERS.
Citation:	24 Cal.App.4th 1174
WCC Citation:	WCC 26831994 CA

Case Name:	Rivas v. Altawood, Inc.		04/18/2012
Summary:	RIVAS v. ALTAWOOD, INC. CINDY RIVAS, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. ALTAWOOD, INC. , Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. )*fn1 Altawood, a paint manufacturer, employed Rivas as a bookkeeper from February 2006 through November 26, 2006. In a special verdict, the jury found that (1) Rivas was employed by Altawood, (2) Altawood discharged Rivas from her employment based on her pregnancy, (3) Altawood acted with malice, oppression, and fraud, and (4) Altawood was liable to Rivas for $82,777 in damages. In her original complaint, Rivas alleged that Altawood hired her around February 2006 and terminated her on November 26, 2006, "due to her pregnancy. "Accordingly, Rivas requested leave to file the FAC to "amend a typographical error" in her first cause of action.
Note:	A California appellate court on Wednesday upheld an $82,777 award in favor of a bookkeeper who claimed her employer fired her for being pregnant.
Citation:	E049597
WCC Citation:	WCC 38862012 CA

Case Name:	Rivera v. Tower Staffing, etc., et al		11/08/2002
Summary:	------------------- WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUAN A. RIVERA, Applicant, vs. TOWER STAFFING SOLUTIONS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). "With respect to interest and penalties under. . . section 4650(d), applicant received $10,424. 84 in section4650(d) penalties and $1,535. 93 in interest. Between the Award and the Order of Commutation, $109,659. 08 in benefits should have been paid the applicant and applicant's attorney by January 2, 2001. This would mean that the proper amount of the section4650(d) penalty should have been $10,965. 91, not $10,424. 84 as alleged by SCIF. As noted at the outset, SCIF's petition for reconsideration was granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues.
Note:	4650(d) penalties do not apply to lump sum payments.
Citation:	67 CCC 473 [En Banc]
WCC Citation:	WCC 28952002 CA

Case Name:	Rivera v. WCAB		04/08/1987
Summary:	EDDIE RIVERA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Respondents. OPINION STONE, P. J. Petitioner Eddie Rivera (applicant) seeks review of a decision of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) reinstating the decision of the Rehabilitation Bureau (Bureau) which terminated [190 Cal. App. 3d 1454] applicant's rehabilitation benefits. We conclude that the Board erred in determining that applicant's appeal from the Bureau decision was procedurally defective. After his initial request for rehabilitation benefits, Bureau proceedings commenced and he was paid vocational-rehabilitation temporary-disability indemnity. In view of the foregoing, the Board erred in determining that applicant's appeal from the Bureau decision was procedurally defective.
Note:	Declaration of Readiness not procedurally defective as an appeal of Rehab Bureau decision.
Citation:	190 Cal.App.3d 1452
WCC Citation:	WCC 27551987 CA

Case Name:	Rivera v. WCAB		04/08/1987
Summary:	EDDIE RIVERA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Respondents. OPINION STONE, P. J. Petitioner Eddie Rivera (applicant) seeks review of a decision of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) reinstating the decision of the Rehabilitation Bureau (Bureau) which terminated [190 Cal. App. 3d 1454] applicant's rehabilitation benefits. We conclude that the Board erred in determining that applicant's appeal from the Bureau decision was procedurally defective. After his initial request for rehabilitation benefits, Bureau proceedings commenced and he was paid vocational-rehabilitation temporary-disability indemnity. In view of the foregoing, the Board erred in determining that applicant's appeal from the Bureau decision was procedurally defective.
Note:
Citation:	190 Cal.App.3d 1452
WCC Citation:	WCC 27561987 CA

Case Name:	Rivera vs. WCAB (Tower Staffing)		10/03/2003
Summary:	Rivera also requested commutation of future indemnity payments into a lump sum, which was approved by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Accordingly, the decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On December 12, 2000, Rivera and Tower entered into Stipulations with Request for Award (Stipulations), which was awarded by the WCJ. In addition, Rivera would receive a life pension at the indemnity rate of $51. 75 per week after the payment of permanent disability indemnity. At the same time, Rivera petitioned for commutation into a lump sum all future indemnity payments, including the life pension.
Note:	Overrules En Banc decision in Rivera vs Tower Staffing: 4650 applies to both periodic and accrued indemnity, but not commuted lump sums.
Citation:	112 Cal.App.4th 1124
WCC Citation:	WCC 29562003 CA

Case Name:	Rivera-Sanchez v. Perez		03/19/2013
Summary:	RIVERA-SANCHEZ v. PEREZ DOLORES RIVERA-SANCHEZ, Individually and as Successor in Interest, etc. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ALEJANDRO PEREZ, Defendant and Respondent. Prior to the incident, Defendant Perez was informed and believed that there were some areas of dry rot under the eaves on various portions of the roof. The sole cost of the roof repairs was $186. 68, which was the cost of supplies purchased by Perez. The decedent used his own tools and ladder to make the repairs, with the exception of one saw which was provided by Defendant Perez. As decedent was familiar with roof repairs, Defendant Perez did not direct the details of the decedent's work.
Note:	The widow of a California man who fell to his death while performing roof repairs for a friend could not assert a viable claim against the property owner as the putative employer of her late-husband or in tort.
Citation:	C065350
WCC Citation:	WCC 39922013 CA

Case Name:	Rivera-Sanchez v. WCAB		01/16/2009
Summary:	Rules of Court, rule 8. 494) contending a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reducing his permanent disability award from 38 percent to 28 percent following reconsideration lacks substantial evidence. Foster Farms petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending the WCJ's decision was not based on substantial evidence in part because Dr. Burt had not reviewed x-rays of Rivera-Sanchez taken on December 4, 2003. Foster Farms again petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, which the WCAB granted. Rivera-Sanchez contends the WCAB never stated it disbelieved Dr. Burt's assessment of applicant's subjective factors of disability and wonders why his lack of credibility somehow tainted Dr. Burt's opinion. In referring to the "range of evidence" theory in its opinion, the WCAB relied on U. S. Auto Stores v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	A forklift operator is not entitled to a higher permanent partial disability rating because he failed to present a legal basis to reverse the Workers Compensation Appeals Boards factual findings
Citation:	F056372
WCC Citation:	WCC 34802009 CA

Case Name:	Riverview Fire Protection Dist. v. WCAB		03/25/1994
Summary:	RIVERVIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WALTER SMITH, Respondents. 1 Background Walter Smith (applicant), born September 10, 1947, was a firefighter for Riverview Fire Protection District (employer) from September 1980 on. For example, for certain peace officers compensable injury is defined to include a hernia, heart trouble or pneumonia developed during employment. The WCJ and the Board found that the presumption of industrial causation in section 3212. 1 applied in this case. That statute does not provide the level of presumption enumerated in the other statutes listed in the preceding paragraph.
Note:	Presumption of cancer in firefighters eliminates need to show that cancer proximately caused by exposure to carcinogens.
Citation:	23 Cal.App.4th 1120
WCC Citation:	WCC 28891994 CA

Case Name:	RMC Pacific Materials v. Metropolitan Stevedore		09/10/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR RMC PACIFIC MATERIALS, INC. , Cross-complainant and Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY, INC. , Cross-defendant and Appellant. FACTS*FN1 Respondent RMC Pacific Materials, Inc. (RMC) imports and sells cement. RMC contracted with appellant Metropolitan Stevedore Company, Inc. (Metropolitan) to provide longshoreman laborers who unload the ships. Metropolitan agreed to indemnify RMC from claims asserted against RMC "by any person for personal injury [or] death" resulting from Metropolitan's negligence. Metropolitan notes that the jury assigned 100 percent of the causal blame for the fatal accident to Metropolitan and zero percent to RMC, yet awarded RMC only 75 percent of the amount RMC paid to settle with Padgett's heirs (i. e. , $4,687,500 of the $6,250,000 paid).
Note:	Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the employer's negligence was the proximate cause of the longshoreman's death. The trial court did not erroneously instruct the jury that the employer was responsible for Padgett's death.
Citation:	A119173
WCC Citation:	WCC 35652009 CA

Case Name:	Robbins v. Sharp Healthcare		09/26/2006
Summary:	These allegations are based principally upon past recusal orders of Judge Ordas indicating bias against the firm and its attorneys. The accusing attorneys, some still in TIPD's firm, testified against the WCJs and submitted documentation in support of their allegations. I have not done a file audit yet but that will probably take place within the next quarter if necessary. If a judge has previously exercised recusals in any kind of blanket' fashion, that practice is now going to stop - beginning today. "I am confident that each of you has great skill and aptitude when it comes to legal reasoning.
Note:	Bias or the appearance of bias solely against an attorney or law firm may be a valid ground for a petition for disqualification of a WCJ.
Citation:	71 CCC 1291
WCC Citation:	WCC 31852006 CA

Case Name:	Robbins v. Yellow Cab Co.		06/03/1948
Summary:	No. 16268 June 3, 1948 MARTHA GOUGH ROBBINS, APPELLANT, v. YELLOW CAB CO. (A CORPORATION), RESPONDENT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. plaintiff is not entitled to proceed against the employer in this case," and entered its judgment of dismissal of the action. [85 CalApp2d Page 813] Appellant was respondent's cashier and worked on the "graveyard" shift -- midnight to 8 o'clock a. m. Her husband was also employed by respondent but he worked in the daytime in the trim department. Compensation may be awarded by the commission only for an injury "arising out of and in the course of the employment. "
Note:	Injury not compensable if check can be picked up at place of employee's convenience.
Citation:	85 Cal. App. 2d 811
WCC Citation:	WCC 30511948 CA

Case Name:	Robertson vs. WCAB, Moutain People's Warehouse		10/21/2003
Summary:	ABRAHAM ROBERTSON, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MOUNTAIN PEOPLE'S WAREHOUSE et al. , Respondents. In this workers' compensation action, we conclude that the employer, Mountain People's Warehouse (hereafter Company), failed to satisfy its obligation to offer the benefit of vocational rehabilitation (VR) to its injured employee, Abraham Robertson (Robertson). Subsequently, Robertson was found to be a qualified injured worker, making him eligible to receive VR. The one exception involved an absence so Robertson could care for his seriously ill wife. If Robertson is not disqualified from receiving payment for medical treatment and for disability, why, then, is he disqualified from receiving VR benefits?
Note:	Alternative work offer to position from which terminated not in good faith, not meet VR requirements.
Citation:	112 Cal.App.4th 893
WCC Citation:	WCC 29572003 CA

Case Name:	Robinson v. City of Los Angeles		05/18/2012
Summary:	ROBINSON v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES STEVEN L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Gregory P. Orland, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. When plaintiff Steven L. Robinson, a firefighter and fire department helicopter pilot employed by defendant City of Los Angeles (the City), became disabled, the City employed him in an unofficial and unbudgeted light-duty position for more than six years, paying him out of the fire department's discretionary funds. The City offered substantial evidence that the Civil Service Commission and Los Angeles City Council created the fire helicopter pilot classification in 2008, five years after Robinson's disability was deemed to be permanent. Here, Robinson has not identified any reasonable accommodation for his disability other than the one offered by the City, i. e. , as dispatcher.
Note:	An injured fire helicopter pilot who lacked the requisite medical clearance to continue flying could not assert a viable claim of disability discrimination based on his employer's refusal to assign him to a pilot position after his light-duty job was eliminated.
Citation:	B230078
WCC Citation:	WCC 38962012 CA

Case Name:	Robinson v. Pascoe Steel Corp.		11/29/1977
Summary:	JEAN ROBINSON, widow (JERRY L. ROBINSON, deceased) Applicant v. PASCOE STEEL CORPORATION, self-insured, Defendant. W. C. A. B. Nos. It consisted of a two part form as follows: 'I, JEAN ROBINSON, widow of JERRY L. ROBINSON, deceased, hereby give my full permission for the exhumation and autopsy of Jerry L. Robinson. [signed]Jean Robinson JEAN ROBINSON, widow of JERRY L. ROBINSON, deceased. ''I, JEAN ROBINSON, widow of JERRY L. ROBINSON, deceased, refuse to give my permission for the exhumation and autopsy of Jerry L. Robinson. [signed) JEAN ROBINSON, widow of JERRY L. ROBINSON, deceased. '
Note:	Board will not order exhumation unless necessary and serves justice.
Citation:	42 CCC 891
WCC Citation:	WCC 25941977 CA

Case Name:	Robinson v. WCAB		09/09/1987
Summary:	STELLING ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondents (Opinion by Best, J. , with Woolpert, Acting P. J. , and Reid, J. , concurring. )Pursuant to respondents' motion, the WCAB ordered petitioner to report for examination to Dr. Joseph Bailey who was appointed by the Board as an independent medical examiner. Based on the existing evidence, the WCAB could have issued an award that was even less favorable to petitioner. III Was the WCAB precluded from making a permanent disability award because vocational rehabilitation benefits had been resumed?This court having determined that the WCAB did not abuse its discretion in failing to permit petitioner to withdraw from the stipulation, petitioner's contention must fail.
Note:	Tried to object after stipulating to determination of permanent disability.
Citation:	194 Cal.App.3d 784
WCC Citation:	WCC 25611987 CA

Case Name:	Roby v. McKesson Corp.		11/30/2009
Summary:	Roby also asserted that McKesson had applied the attendance policy unevenly, overlooking instances when other employees were absent without notice. On April 14, 2000, McKesson terminated Roby by telephone, and it sent a followup letter on April 17, 2000. This led to an $800,000 reduction in the total compensatory damages award against employer McKesson, resulting in a net compensatory damages award of $2,005,000 for Roby. None involved Schoener's exercising the authority that McKesson had delegated to her so as to cause McKesson, in its corporate capacity, to take some action with respect to Roby. The majority assigns a relatively low degree of reprehensibility to the conduct of defendant McKesson Corporation (McKesson) toward plaintiff Charlene Roby.
Note:	In the circumstances of this case the amount of compensatory damages sets the ceiling for the punitive damages.
Citation:	S149752
WCC Citation:	WCC 35842009 CA

Case Name:	Roby v. McKesson HBOC, et al.		12/26/2006
Summary:	Two years later, McKesson fired Roby for abusing its attendance policy, although many of her absences were attributable to her psychiatric disability. Roby told Saamer the absences were related to her panic disorder, and that she was trying to get it stabilized. McKesson supervisors Christopher Rafter and Grover told Roby she was subject to termination for abuse of the absence program. McKesson HBOC changed its name to McKesson Corporation during the pendency of this litigation. McKesson filed a separate appeal (C048799) from the trial court's postjudgment award to Roby of $728,668. 75 for attorney fees.
Note:	Schoener did not commit discriminatory harassment under FEHA. The appellate court also reduced Roby's award against McKesson $1.4 million in compensatory damages, and $2 million in punitive damages.
Citation:	C047617
WCC Citation:	WCC 35522006 CA

Case Name:	Rocha vs. Puccia Construction, Zenith Ins. Co.		04/30/1982
Summary:	JAVIER ROCHA, Applicant v. PUCCIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Following the Board's decision to consider this matter en banc, it solicited amicus curiae briefs from interested parties in the workers' compensation community. Participation of employers was wholly voluntary, their financial responsibility was limited, and employees who opted for rehabilitation were subject to post-rehabilitation reevaluation for permanent disability entitlements. Finally, we do not find the withholding of money without a Board order is in contravention of Labor Code Section 4902. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Jack R. Fenton, Chairman Robert E. Burton John F. Dunlap Gordon R. Gaines H. J. Martin C. L. Swezey Richard W. Younkin
Note:	Rehab attorney fee based on time and effort extended by attorney.
Citation:	47 CCC 377 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28261982 CA

Case Name:	Rodgers v. Long Beach Civil Service Commission		08/14/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE DAN RODGERS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LONG BEACH CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al. , Defendants and Appellants. The City of Long Beach (the City) appeals an order granting a petition for writ of mandate directing the Long Beach Civil Service Commission (the Commission) to determine the amount of back pay and benefits the City owes respondent, Dan Rodgers. Rodgers filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Los Angeles Superior Court challenging the Commission's ruling. Rodgers appeared for a scheduled "return to work" medical examination on September 23, 2005, pursuant to the City's civil service rules. The trial court directed the Commission to calculate the amount due Rodgers and the amount of any offsets to which the City was entitled.
Note:	[Unpublished] Claim for back pay and benefits is exempt from the requirements of the Workers' Compensation Act because it is incidental to the demand for reinstatement. The City cannot, by reinstating Rodgers, eliminate his claim for back pay and benefits.
Citation:	B200060
WCC Citation:	WCC 34122008 CA