Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Ditler v. WCAB | 05/18/1982 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | TERRY DITLER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. , Respondents. Ditler contends that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board erred in apportioning 50 percent of his overall disability to preexisting nonindustrial causes. On October 3, 1977, Ditler filed an application for adjudication of claim before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. But, because of the intervention of job problems this was up--the pattern was upset . . . . ' Dr. Groesbeck opined that Ditler was carrying a partial permanent disability. These facts do not constitute substantial evidence that Ditler suffered from a 'labor disabling' preexisting disability. | ||
| Note: | Doctor's testimony that worker would ultimately suffer disability was too speculative. | ||
| Citation: | 131 Cal.App.3d 803, 47 CCC 492 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 25511982 CA | ||
| Case Name: | DMS Services, Inc. v. Superior Court of LA County | 05/15/2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | DMS SERVICES, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY DMS SERVICES, INC. et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ZURICH SERVICES CORP. et al. , Real Parties in Interest. The court ordered arbitration of each of those claims based on an arbitration clause in DMS's workers' compensation insurance agreements with Zurich Insurance. However, Zurich Insurance also required DMS to sign annual deductible agreements, which purported to supersede any deductible endorsement to the workers' compensation policies. Zurich sought more than $3. 5 million in payment from DMS for premiums and reimbursement of workers' compensation insurance claim deductibles. DMS alleged ZSC had breached its obligations as a third party administrator by mishandling claims made against the policies, causing DMS to overpay several claims. | ||
| Note: | A third-party workers' compensation claims administrator could not compel arbitration of a client's breach-of-contract action pursuant to an agreement between the client and its insurance carrier. | ||
| Citation: | B235819 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 38952012 CA | ||
| Case Name: | DMV v. IAC | 02/16/1948 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and JOHN M. REED, Respondents. The California Highway Patrol is subject to the special provisions contained in Labor Code, section 4800. However, there are provisions for special payments to policemen and firemen who are members of the State Employees' Retirement Systems. [3] The rights of applicants for compensation are governed by the provisions of the section in force at the time of the injury. [83 Cal. App. 2d 677] [4] In construing a statute liberally courts are not permitted to pervert its purpose. | ||
| Note: | Indemnity, whether temporary or permanent, is not paid concurrently with salary. | ||
| Citation: | 83 Cal.App.2d 671, 13 CCC 23 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 26851948 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Doerflinger v. WCAB | 10/25/1994 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | David Doerflinger, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, United Parcel Service et al. , Respondents. The compromise and release further provided: 'Sums to include claims for interest if paid within 20 days of service of order approving. ''In general, the [Board] has broad equitable powers with respect to matters within its jurisdiction [Citation. ]'Given that the Board declined to determine this question, ordinarily we would remand the cause to the Board for further proceedings. Because the facts are undisputed in the interests of judicial economy we shall decide the question as matter of law. | ||
| Note: | Payments on a C&R and 'compensation' under the Code; Penalty may be based on failure to pay interest. | ||
| Citation: | 59 CCC 834 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 3921994 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Domino's Pizza v. WCAB | 11/20/2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Filed 11/20/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DOMINO'S PIZZA; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DON KERR, Respondents. For good cause it now appears that the opinion should be published in the Official Reports and it is so ordered. **** IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DOMINO'S PIZZA et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DON KERR, Respondents. We conclude that Labor Code section 5501. 5, subdivision (c) mandates that venue be changed from San Luis Obispo County to Santa Barbara County. SCIF filed an informal petition to transfer venue to the Goleta district office, which is located in Santa Barbara County. | ||
| Note: | The 2nd District Court of Appeal certified its opinion dated Oct. 23, 2006, for publication. | ||
| Citation: | 144 Cal. App. 4th 1316 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 31922006 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Donaldson vs. Nat'l Marine, Inc. | 03/14/2005 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | RICHARD DONALDSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATIONAL MARINE, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. COUNSEL Rushford & Bonotto, Phillip R. Bonotto, Brian M. Taylor, John P. Carty III and Carla L. Johansen for Defendant and Appellant. It defended on the theory that the cancer was unrelated to his exposure to asbestos, and resulted from his history of smoking. Defendant also theorized that even if exposure to asbestos was a factor in decedent's lung cancer, tobacco was a greater factor. VI, § 10), we see no fundamental jurisdictional impediment to allowing plaintiff to bring his Jones Act claim in California courts. | ||
| Note: | California courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Jones Act injured maritime worker claims. | ||
| Citation: | 35 Cal.4th 503 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 30832005 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Dorman v. Dept. of Justice | 10/23/2008 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CHRISTINE DORMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Dorman and L. A. Impact's Chief Financial Officer Rea Pfeiffer worked together to identify benefits for civilian employees within L. A. Impact's budget, which Dorman negotiated with L. A. Impact Executive Director Jerry Hunter. Dorman Initiates Legal Action On August 29, 2006, Dorman filed a new complaint with the DFEH. The DOJ did not provide compensation to Dorman or L. A. Impact for any services that Dorman rendered in the dispatch office. The State of California Department of Justice is awarded its costs on appeal from plaintiff and appellant Christine Dorman. | ||
| Note: | [Unpublished] A simple pleading of personnel management activity is insufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged. If personnel management decisions are improperly motivated, the remedy is a suit against the employer for discrimination. | ||
| Citation: | B204217 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 34382008 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Doty Bros. Equipment Co. v. Palp, Inc. | 09/20/2010 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Doty added Palp to its policy as an additional insured, but the policy had a $500,000 self insured retention (SIR). It subcontracted with Doty Bros. Equipment Co. for installation of Department of Water and Power underground conduit and vaults. (Palp v. Doty Brothers Equipment Co. (Super. Ct. L. A. County, 2007, No. EC045359 (case No. A subcontract was sent by Palp to Doty, but Doty made changes, notably to delete Palp's right to indemnification for its active negligence. Doty argues there was an enforceable contract which included the indemnification clause as modified by Doty. | ||
| Note: | A general contractor for a Los Angeles roadway improvement contract cannot recoup its settlement with a subcontractor's employee from the subcontractor, because the general contractor did not pursue a breach of contract claim against the subcontractor. | ||
| Citation: | B219706 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 36712010 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Douglas Ross Construction, Inc. v. Narver Insurance Agency | 10/31/2011 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | DOUGLAS ROSS CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. NARVER INSURANCE AGENCY DOUGLAS ROSS CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Cross-Complainant and Appellant, v. NARVER INSURANCE AGENCY, Cross-Defendant and Respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS PREMO, J. Douglas Ross Construction, Inc. (Ross) sued Narver Insurance Agency (Narver) for negligence on the theory that Narver failed to obtain liability insurance for Ross's subcontractor that covered Ross for construction-job injuries suffered by an employee of the subcontractor's subcontractor. Narver obtained from Admiral Insurance Company (Admiral) a commercial general liability insurance policy for Northstate that named Ross as an additional insured. Thus, even supposing that Northstate told Narver that Ross was to be a third party beneficiary of the insurance policy, Narver complied with Northstate's request. Here, however, Ross had no contact with Northstate's insurance broker, Narver, and Narver did not know that the policy must have coverage against Northstate's subcontractors. | ||
| Note: | A general contractor has no cause of action against an insurance broker who sold one of its subcontractors a policy that did not cover a workplace injury to an employee of his subcontractor's subcontractor, the California 6th District Court of Appeals ruled. | ||
| Citation: | H036119 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 38182011 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Draper v. Aceto | 11/01/2001 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | PEGGY M. DRAPER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BYRON A. ACETO et al, Defendants and Respondents. FACTS On January 26, 1995, while driving a vehicle in the course and scope of her employment for the Compton Unified School District (CUSD), Peggy M. Draper (Draper) was injured in an automobile accident. To obtain further compensation for the same injury, Draper also brought a personal injury action in superior court against Byron A. Aceto and Ben Aceto (defendants), respectively the driver and owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident. Because the settlement amount was insufficient to fully reimburse CUSD, none of the settlement proceeds were payable to Draper. And because Draper received no benefit from the settlement, her attorney could not recover his fees from the settlement proceeds. | ||
| Note: | Subrogation: contingency fee attorney gets nothing if net result to client is zero. | ||
| Citation: | 26 Cal.4th 1086, 66 CCC 1297 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 28242001 CA | ||