Case Name:	Diamond International Corp. v. WCAB		07/30/1984
Summary:	Diamond International Corporation, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Kenton Wills, Respondents. COUNSEL: For respondent employee--Leep, Asbill, & Tescher, by M. K. Tescher, Jr. OPINION BY: Puglia, P. J. OPINION: I Petitioner Diamond International Corporation (Diamond) seeks review of an order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration. The conference was called at the request of Wills' attorney after Diamond filed a 'request for closure. 'At the time of the conference, Andreasen told Skamser that he did not have any information about Wills' employment and seniority status with Diamond. Diamond advances two more arguments which require only brief consideration. D Our attention is directed to certain orders entered in Edith Whitley v. Diamond International, WCAB No. 80 FRE 43947.
Note:	Amendments made to conform pleading to proof allowed at any time if opposing party would not be surprised by evidence.
Citation:	49 CCC 592
WCC Citation:	WCC 27751984 CA

Case Name:	Diaz v. Carcamo		06/23/2011
Summary:	DIAZ v. CARCAMO DAWN RENAE DIAZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE CARCAMO et al. , Defendants and Appellants. But another driver, who was the only nonparty witness to the collision between Carcamo and Tagliaferri, testified that Carcamo had not accelerated. The jury found that defendants Tagliaferri and Carcamo had driven negligently, that defendant Sugar Transport had been negligent in hiring and retaining Carcamo as a driver, and that the retention was a cause of plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, had the trial court not made the errors noted above, it is reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a result more favorable to both Carcamo and Sugar Transport on the question of whether Carcamo drove negligently. Second, both Carcamo and the only nonparty witness to the accident testified that Tagliaferri pulled into Carcamo's lane without signaling, and that Carcamo never changed speed.
Note:	The Supreme Court of California clarified what type of claims a plaintiff may pursue when that plaintiff has been injured by someone driving a car in the course of employment.
Citation:	S181627
WCC Citation:	WCC 37772011 CA

Case Name:	Diaz v. S & R Farm Labor Contractor, Inc.		05/23/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             MAURA CABRERA DIAZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             S & R FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. .             D073115 .             (Super. .             Horton, Oberrecht, Kirkpatrick & Martha, Kimberly S. Oberrecht for Defendant and Respondent. BACKGROUND .           Decedent worked with multiple farm labor contracting companies, which hire employees to pick fruit in fields. .           WE CONCUR: .           HALLER, J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an employer that loaned a supervisory employee to another company could not be held vicariously liable for the electrocution of an agricultural worker who was following the supervisor’s instructions to pick fruit from a tree near a live power line.
Citation:	D073115
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. RIC1209850

Case Name:	Diaz v. West Coast Laboratories, Inc.		10/15/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN MARIA DIAZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WEST COAST LABORATORIES, INC. , et. Maria Diaz sued West Coast Laboratories ("WCL") and Charles Shad for disability discrimination and wrongful termination. WCL allegedly fired Diaz for improperly weighing capsules and misrepresenting her time; however, Diaz claims that WCL concocted this reason to fire her when she continued to require medical attention and accommodations for her injury. According to Diaz, Shad repeatedly pressured her to sign the Receipt and Acknowledgment form included within the employee handbook as a condition of her continued employment. On January 26, Diaz turned in a signed copy of the Receipt and Acknowledgment form.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the contract at issue has both procedurally and substantively unconscionable elements, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to compel arbitration.
Citation:	B195232, BC356498
WCC Citation:	WCC 32682007 CA

Case Name:	Dickey v. WCAB		11/05/1990
Summary:	WILLIAM H. DICKEY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF MORRO BAY et al. , Respondents. About two months after that injury, applicant was hired as a fire extinguisher serviceman by defendant Wayco Fire Extinguishers (Wayco). Applicant claimed workers' compensation benefits, including temporary disability indemnity for the three industrial injuries. They also stipulated applicant was an active fire fighter as defined in Labor Code section 4458 'at the time of his claimed injuries. 'If temporary disability indemnity were awarded at the maximum rate here, the rate would be $224 a week, rather than $120. 68 a week.
Note:	Firefighter entitled to max TD rate despite multiple injuries.
Citation:	224 Cal.App.3d 1460, 55 CCC 410
WCC Citation:	WCC 23801990 CA

Case Name:	Dickinson v. Allstate Insurance Co.		04/19/2013
Summary:	DICKINSON v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ERIC DICKINSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ballard Spahr, Naomi Young, Lawrence J. Gartner and John R. Carrigan, Jr. , for Defendant and Appellant Allstate Insurance Company and Defendants and Respondents Allstate Insurance Company and Eric Jentgen. Dickinson was "grandfathered" into the Allstate workforce when Allstate bought the auto insurance lines of CNA Insurance. *fn15 At a posttrial hearing, Allstate asked to have the judgment entered only against Allstate on the ground that Allstate, not Jentgen personally, was responsible for firing Dickinson, and so only Allstate, not Jentgen personally, could be responsible for self-publication regarding the reason Dickinson was fired. Dickinson appealed this ruling, arguing that Jentgen should be personally liable, along with Allstate, for the $2,000 in damages Dickinson obtained on the self-publication claim.
Note:	A former field claims adjuster's failure to introduce into evidence a right-to-sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing was fatal to his Fair Employment and Housing Act claims.
Citation:	G045033
WCC Citation:	WCC 40052013 CA

Case Name:	Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron		09/17/2009
Summary:	I INTRODUCTION In January 2004, Attorney William K. Dietz filed this action against Meisenheimer & Herron and Meisenheimer, Herron & Steele (Meisenheimer). Dietz further alleged that Meisenheimer breached an agreement between Meisenheimer and Dietz to pay Dietz 25 percent of any contingency fee that Meisenheimer might receive in the Vital matter. Dietz claimed that Meisenheimer paid Dietz only $50,000 rather than the $310,000 that Dietz alleged Meisenheimer owed him. Dietz claimed that as a result of these actions, Meisenheimer had breached a contract with Dietz. In December 2006, Dietz filed the operative first amended complaint in which he alleged that Meisenheimer had breached an oral contract with Dietz to pay Dietz 25 percent of any contingency fee Meisenheimer might receive in the Vital matter.
Note:	It was not improper for the trial court to balance the competing interests of the parties in determining whether to dismiss appellant's action in its entirety. Dismissal of a plaintiff's claim based on the due process concerns espoused in General Dynamics and its progeny is reserved for the rarest of cases.
Citation:	D052463
WCC Citation:	WCC 35672009 CA

Case Name:	Diggle v. Sierra Sands Unified Sch. Dist.		10/07/2005
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. BAK 0138299 WILMA DIGGLE, Applicant, vs. SIERRA SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured; and SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). An en banc decision of the Appeals Board is binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and WCJs. On August 21, 1997, a stipulated Award issued which determined, among other things, that this injury caused permanent disability of 12%. Applicant was awarded permanent disability indemnity in the total sum of $3,994. 45 (payable at the rate of $104. 43 per week for 38. 25 weeks). At trial, the parties stipulated that applicant's overall spinal permanent disability is now 70%, after adjustment for age and occupation, but before apportionment.
Note:	En banc decision is binding precedent on all Appeals Board Panels and WCJs.
Citation:	70 CCC 1480
WCC Citation:	WCC 31262005 CA

Case Name:	Dimmig v. WCAB		03/31/1972
Summary:	MARTHA R. DIMMIG et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE, Respondents In Bank. There is some dispute, however, over petitioners' claim that Dimmig was "required" to obtain his bachelor's degree as a condition of his employment. The executives indicated that Dimmig was hired because of his previous job experience in contract administration and because he was considered promotable. Respondents did not contradict, however, the substantial testimony that Dimmig believed a bachelor's degree was required for his continued employment with Memorex. Keith D. Chapel, a friend of Dimmig's, testified that Dimmig had indicated to him that "he [Dimmig] had been hired on the premise that he would finish his degree, because the job required a degree. "
Note:	Going and coming: commuting to and from work not in scope of employment.
Citation:	6 Cal. 3d 860
WCC Citation:	WCC 28511972 CA

Case Name:	DIR v. California State Personnel Board		10/05/2011
Summary:	CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; OLGA H. GARAU, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Proc. , §§ 1094, 1094. 5. )*fn1 The petition seeks to set aside the decision of the California State Personnel Board (the Board) reinstating respondent Olga H. Garau to her former position with the Department. In our decision Garau v. California State Personnel Board (Oct. 14, 2009, B210335 [nonpub. (California Department of Industrial Relations v. California State Personnel Board (B230790). )In her respondent's brief and at oral argument, Garau made repeated references to documents included in the record of her pending appeal (California Department of Industrial Relations v. California State Personnel Board (B230790)), without identifying them as such or requesting that we take judicial notice of them.
Note:	The Department of Industrial Relations is not procedurally barred from challenging a decision ordering it to reinstate a Division of Occupational Safety and Health attorney, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in an unpublished decision.
Citation:	B228794
WCC Citation:	WCC 38092011 CA