Case Name:	Litzmann v. WCAB		09/27/1968
Summary:	LEWIS D. LITZMANN, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, AZUSA WESTERN, INC. et al. , Respondents. (Jarkieh v. Badagliacco, 68 Cal. App. 2d 426 [156 P. 2d 969]; Pfingst v. Mayer, 93 Cal. App. 2d 265 [208 P. 2d 1002]. )On appeals, a common custom is to allow a reasonable time within which to file amended briefs complying with the rules. (See Lady v. Worthingham, 55 Cal. App. 2d 396 [130 P. 2d 435]; Wiersma v. City of Long Beach, 32 Cal. App. 2d 405 [89 P. 2d 1107]. )While he was doing this, Mr. Dean doubled up his fist and said, 'I'll teach you to call me an S. O. B. ' Mr. Litzmann said, 'I didn't but I will now'.
Note:	Review awarded even though filed a day late when petition wrongfully rejected by clerk on last day for filing.
Citation:	266 Cal.App.2d 203, 33 CCC 584
WCC Citation:	WCC 27091968 CA

Case Name:	Lockheed Litigation Cases		02/02/2004
Summary:	LOCKHEED LITIGATION CASES. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, V. Thomas Meador III and Deanne L. Miller for Defendant and Respondent Union Oil Company of California. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Former and current employees of Lockheed Corporation (Lockheed) sued Lockheed and manufacturers and suppliers of chemicals, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by occupational exposure to chemicals. The actions were coordinated in Lockheed Litigation Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2967. (2) "Do the proffered experts' opinions for the wrongful death cases satisfy the standard of admissibility under California law?
Note:	An expert opinion must be based on matter that provides a reasonable basis for the opinion.
Citation:	115 Cal.App.4th 558
WCC Citation:	WCC 29682004 CA

Case Name:	Lockheed v. WCAB (McCullough)		03/19/2002
Summary:	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and VIRGINIA McCULLOUGH, Respondents. Employer Lockheed Martin (Lockheed) and its insurer, Bankers Standard Insurance Company (Bankers), petitioned for review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board or WCAB) reversing the finding of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) that employee applicant Virginia McCullough suffered no compensable psychiatric injury. Lockheed and Bankers (hereafter collectively "Lockheed") filed a timely petition for writ of review; G. E. did not. "An erroneous interpretation or application of the law by the WCAB is a ground for annulment of [its] decision. Nor would employers like Lockheed challenge Board decisions employing the compensable consequence test.
Note:	3208.3 threshhold applies to physical injuries, overrules REBELO
Citation:	96 Cal.App.4th 1237
WCC Citation:	WCC 28412002 CA

Case Name:	Lohnes v. Astron Computer Prod.; Crum & Forster		12/27/2001
Summary:	MARY ELLEN LOHNES, Plaintiff, v. ASTRON COMPUTER PRODUCTS, et. Al. , Defendants and Respondents; CRUM & FORSTER, Intervener and Appellant Appeal from a order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David T. McEachen, Judge. Intervener Crum & Forster appeals from a trial court's order granting a motion to strike its complaint in intervention filed in an action against defendants Astron Computer Products and John Lee. FACTS Plaintiff Mary Ellen Lohnes sued defendants for damages she sustained in an auto accident, which occurred almost a year earlier. About two and one-half months before trial, intervener, plaintiff's employer's worker's compensation carrier, filed a complaint in intervention seeking indemnification.
Note:	Court abused discretion dismissing intervention when local practices relied on.
Citation:	94 Cal.App.4th 1150
WCC Citation:	WCC 28312001 CA

Case Name:	Longval v. WCAB		12/16/1996
Summary:	Factual and Procedural Background M. J. Longval (Longval) represents applicants for workers' compensation benefits before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). On May 3, 1995, Longval petitioned the WCAB for $337. 60 in fees for obtaining vocational rehabilitation benefits on behalf of sanitation worker [51 Cal. App. 4th 798] Arthur Amaral (Amaral v. Workers' Comp. The court did not reach the validity of the amendments, which Longval now challenges after the WCAB denied his fee requests. Longval further contends representatives presenting fraudulent claims can lose their ability to practice before the WCAB. Longval and other lay representatives had no fundamental right to appear before the WCAB and receive compensation for their services.
Note:	Only attorneys licensed by State Bar of CA may receive attorney's fees.
Citation:	51 Cal.App.4th 792, 61 CCC 1396
WCC Citation:	WCC 26021996 CA

Case Name:	Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central		04/07/2008
Summary:	Filed 4/7/08 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ANTONINA LONICKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUTTER HEALTH CENTRAL, Sacramento County Defendant and Respondent. In 1989, Sutter Health Central (defendant) hired plaintiff Antonina Lonicki to work in the housekeeping department at its hospital in Roseville. During the employee's medical leave, the employer must continue to provide the employee with health benefits (§ 12945. 2, subd. Under the applicable regulations, a "serious health condition" is defined as a physical or mental condition that involves continuing treatment by a health care provider. Turning to the present case, as the lead opinion recounts, defendant employer Sutter Health Central sought a second medical opinion to test plaintiff Antonina Lonicki's medical certification, but did not seek a third binding opinion.
Note:	An employee is not entitled to leave under the Family Rights Act (CFRA) and to continuing benefits and job preservation with one employer while she demonstrates she is fully capable of performing a job with the same 'essential functions' for a second employer.
Citation:	S130839
WCC Citation:	WCC 33372008 CA

Case Name:	Lopez v. Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel		12/27/2012
Summary:	LOPEZ v. ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL HERIBERTO LOPEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL, Defendants and Respondents. * INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Heriberto Lopez appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel, LLC (Aramark) after an order granting Aramark's motion for summary judgment on Lopez's complaint alleging disability-related employment claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq. )To accommodate Lopez, Aramark granted him a leave of absence, which Aramark extended several times for over a year. In a letter dated July 16, 2008, Smith informed Lopez that because there were no jobs available that Lopez was able to perform, Lopez had declined Aramark's offer to remain on leave, Lopez had requested termination if Aramark could not place him in a distribution job immediately, and Lopez had been unable to return to work after a lengthy absence, Aramark had no choice but to view Lopez as having resigned. Finally, Lopez contends that there were triable issues of material fact regarding whether Aramark fulfilled its duty reasonably to accommodate Lopez, whether Aramark engaged in the interactive process in good faith, and whether Aramark discharged Lopez in retaliation for his seeking accommodation for his disability.
Note:	An employer did not discriminate against an injured worker by refusing to put him in a position that was not available when he recovered from his injury and had met its requirement to make a reasonable accommodation by offering to allow the worker to stay on leave until the position became available.
Citation:	B233058
WCC Citation:	WCC 39632012 CA

Case Name:	Lopez v. C.G.M. Development, Inc.		08/21/2002
Summary:	On June 18, 1998, Lopez was at his work station, standing on a wooden platform that was attached to the roof with a metal hanger. The metal hanger failed to support the wooden platform, causing Lopez to fall approximately 30 feet onto the concrete floor below. In this action, Lopez sued CGM on a negligence theory, alleging that it had maintained dangerous working conditions at the jobsite and had not provided Lopez with safety equipment. Lopez and other parties filed opposition papers, contending that CGM was liable under the "peculiar risk" doctrine. Regardless, Lopez cannot be heard to complain that we have overlooked any disputed or undisputed material facts.
Note:	Injured employee of uninsured subcontractor cannot sue property owner.
Citation:	101 Cal. App. 4th 430
WCC Citation:	WCC 28742002 CA

Case Name:	Lopez v. City of San Jose		05/22/2017
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD  STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             FRANCISCO LOPEZ, Applicant, .             v. .             CITY OF SAN JOSE; SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND, Defendants. .             Case No. ADJ7345508 (San Jose District Office) .             OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION .             Applicant, Francisco Lopez, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, issued January 31, 2017, in which this panel of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) from the November 10, 2016 Findings and Award to find applicant did not met his burden to establish his entitlement to SIBTF benefits. .           For the foregoing reasons, .           IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration, filed February 17, 2017, is DENIED. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           KATHERINE ZALEWSKI .           !CONCUR, .           DEIDRA E. LOWE .           I DISSENT (See Dissenting Opinion), .           MARGUERITE SWEENEY .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           HAY' ·2 ·2. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           MARGUERITE SWEENEY, COMMISSIONER .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           MAY 2 2 2017
Note:
Citation:	ADJ7345508
WCC Citation:	ADJ7345508

Case Name:	Lopez v. Sikkema		04/08/1991
Summary:	DOLORES LOPEZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RALPH SIKKEMA, Defendant and Respondent. Respondent is Ralph Sikkema, who is named individually and doing business as Sikkema Dairy. [1a] Respondent contends it clearly and unambiguously releases respondent from any and all claims arising out of the injury and death of Rene Lopez. *** Disposition We affirm the judgment in favor of respondent and against appellants Guadalupe Lopez, Efren Lopez, Rebecca Lopez and Yolanda Lopez. We reverse the judgment in favor of respondent and against Dolores Lopez, individually, and as administratrix of the Estate of Renee Lopez, Juan [229 Cal. App. 3d 45] Lopez, and Dolores Lopez as guardian ad litem of Iliana Lopez.
Note:	C&R does not bar civil claims, not compensable under work comp., unless clear intent expressed in agreement.
Citation:	229 Cal.App.3d 31, 56 CCC 272
WCC Citation:	WCC 25721991 CA

Case Name:	Loranger v. Jones		04/23/2010
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Licensed contractor Shane Loranger, doing business as Shane Loranger Construction (hereafter Loranger), contracted with Ronald and Carol Jones (the Joneses) to build a single family residence on their property. Earl Houk had 40 years of experience as an electrician, and Loranger had used him on several previous projects. John Larsen, a retired electrician, testified Loranger hired him to do some dirt excavation with a backhoe on the Joneses' property. In support of this conclusion, Loranger attached to his brief portions of a transcript of a deposition of the underwriting manager for SCIF, Rob Getzinger, taken by Loranger during the break in the trial. Moreover, since Loranger believed Houk to be licensed, the Joneses argue it should be obvious Loranger would not have reported any wages for Houk's work to SCIF.
Note:	[Unpublished] Licensed contractor's unknowing use of unlicencensed subcontractor and employment of minor workers did not create an automatic suspension under s. 7125.
Citation:	C061517
WCC Citation:	WCC 36162010 CA

Case Name:	Loranger v. Jones		05/13/2010
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Licensed contractor Shane Loranger, doing business as Shane Loranger Construction (hereafter Loranger), contracted with Ronald and Carol Jones (the Joneses) to build a single family residence on their property. John Larsen, a retired electrician, testified Loranger hired him to do some dirt excavation with a backhoe on the Joneses' property. The trial court reserved ruling on the motion and asked Loranger to supply a written response before trial resumed. In support of this conclusion, Loranger attached to his brief portions of a transcript of a deposition of the underwriting manager for SCIF, Rob Getzinger, taken by Loranger during the break in the trial. Moreover, since Loranger believed Houk to be licensed, the Joneses argue it should be obvious Loranger would not have reported any wages for Houk's work to SCIF.
Note:	Licensed contractor's unknowing use of unlicencensed subcontractor and employment of minor workers did not create an automatic suspension under s. 7125.
Citation:	C061517
WCC Citation:	WCC 36202010 CA

Case Name:	Los Angeles Co. Professional Peace Officers' Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles		07/22/2008
Summary:	It is not reported to the Los Angeles County Retirement Association and does not become part of the pension calculation. They and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association filed this action for declaratory relief, challenging the County policy which denies employees on 4850 leave the cash out option. (Mannetter v. County of Marin (1976) 62 Cal. App. 3d 518, 524; Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Assn, supra, 115 Cal. App. 4th at p. (Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Assn, supra, 115 Cal. App. 4th at pp. The County also cites Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 1536, decided after the trial court decision here.
Note:	The county's payment policy violates Labor Code s. 4850.
Citation:	B200582
WCC Citation:	WCC 34022008 CA

Case Name:	Los Angeles County Fire Dept vs. WCAB (Norton)		05/25/2010
Summary:	The County filed a petition for reconsideration of the statute of limitation finding with the WCAB, which denied reconsideration on September 10, 2007. Thus, the County argued, Norton was not entitled to maintenance allowance from September 8, 2005, to September 26, 2006. On December 30, 2008, two days before the repeal of former section 139. 5 went into effect, the County petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration. The County also contends that the WCAB incorrectly interpreted former section 139. 5, subdivision (c) as providing for continuation of former section 4642. The County then petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's order, and the WCAB denied reconsideration in September 2007.
Note:	An award of VRMA that was not final before repeal of LC 139.5 is disallowed.
Citation:	B214649
WCC Citation:	WCC 36292010 CA

Case Name:	Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. WCAB		01/11/1984
Summary:	LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and RUSSELL L. MATTHEWS, Respondents. OPINION THOMPSON, J. Petitioner, Los Angeles Unified School District, seeks review and annulment of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration of an award allowing simultaneous recovery of temporary disability benefits for vocational rehabilitation and a disability retirement pension through the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Respondent Russell Matthews, employed as a custodian for petitioner Los Angeles Unified School District, suffered industrial injuries during the period of his employment from 1949 through September 22, 1978. Petitioner appealed the order, claiming it was entitled to a credit for retirement disability payments against rehabilitation temporary disability indemnity. In Gorman, an industrially injured police officer took a one-year leave of absence with pay pursuant to section 4850 fn.
Note:	Entitled to TD indemnity concurrently with PERS retirement payments.
Citation:	150 Cal.App.3d 823, 49 CCC 48
WCC Citation:	WCC 27011984 CA

Case Name:	Losonsky v. Tektronix, Inc.		01/23/2013
Summary:	LOSONSKY v. TEKTRONIX, INC. GREGG M. LOSONSKY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TEKTRONIX, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. He did not qualify for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (29 U. S. C. § 2601 et seq. On April 16, 2009, about two weeks before appellant's leave was to begin, he was involved in an automobile accident. Appellant's doctor certified that he could work with restrictions, and Davis Instruments approved an extension of his leave of absence. Although appellant was scheduled to return to work on July 20, 2009, his doctor had not released him by that date.
Note:	A self-represented worker should not have been denied his day in court based solely on his failure to comply with the filing deadline for his amended complaint for violations of his civil rights and wrongful termination.
Citation:	B239696
WCC Citation:	WCC 39732013 CA

Case Name:	Lovett v. Carrasco		04/15/1998
Summary:	Ct. No. 671133) Cal. App. 4th 48, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 496 April 15, 1998 MICHAEL A. LOVETT, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. PEDRO CARRASCO ET AL. , DEFENDANTS; DAVID RUTBERG ET AL. , CLAIMANTS AND APPELLANTS APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles R. Hayes, Judge. After Lovett settled with the defendants, the court apportioned Lovett's attorney fees among claimants under the common fund doctrine. Lovett received treatment for his injuries and psychotherapy for anxiety and depression from a number of medical providers, including claimants. On the new trial date the court ordered Lovett and the defendants to participate in a mandatory settlement conference. Lovett then filed a motion for an order determining the payment of the medical liens.
Note:	The common fund doctrine cannot be applied to apportion a plaintiff's attorney fees among contractual medical lienholders.
Citation:	63 Cal.App.4th 48
WCC Citation:	WCC 35921998 CA

Case Name:	Luchini v. WCAB		04/30/1970
Summary:	JAMES B. LUCHINI, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, McCARTER LYDON ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Kingsley, J. , with Jefferson, Acting P. J. , and Alarcon, J. , concurring. )Everett A. Corten, Sheldon M. Ziff, Herlihy, Herlihy, Jones & Nelson and Kennis T. Jones for Respondents. [1a] The board refused to incorporate, as factors of permanent disability, certain work restrictions recommended by the medical experts. On June 11, 1964, petitioner, an electrician, sustained a compound fracture of the right leg just above the ankle when a ladder on which he was working collapsed. Each of the several medical experts who examined petitioner expressed the opinion that the residuals from the industrial injury restrict him in the performance of work activities.
Note:	Prophylactic restrictions are valid for rating permanent disability.
Citation:	7 Cal.App.3d 141, 35 CCC 205
WCC Citation:	WCC 25211970 CA

Case Name:	Lui v. City and County of San Francisco		12/11/2012
Summary:	LUI v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO KENNETH LUI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent. Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Elizabeth S. Salveson, Chief Labor Attorney, and Erik A. Rapoport, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. Following a court trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendant and respondent City and County of San Francisco (defendant) on causes of action brought by plaintiff and appellant Kenneth Lui (plaintiff) under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. ). Plaintiff's TMD assignment was pursuant to Department General Order (DGO) 11. 12. DGO 11. 12 was implemented in March 2004, following negotiations with the San Francisco Police Officers' Association (POA). Although defendant is the City and County of San Francisco, this decision more frequently refers to the Department, which is responsible for the policies at issue in the present lawsuit.
Note:	The city and county of San Francisco's inability to accommodate a disabled police officer in an administrative position did not violate the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	A131882
WCC Citation:	WCC 39542012 CA

Case Name:	Lujan vs. Minagar		12/09/2004
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT B170438 December 9, 2004 ARTHUR S. LUJAN ETC. , PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SHALA MINAGAR ETC. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION State Labor Commissioner Arthur S. Lujan appeals from the judgment dismissing his action against Shala Minagar for retaliatory job termination under the state's Occupational Safety and Health Act. In response, the state Labor Commissioner (the Commissioner) cited Minagar for firing Dianella in retaliation for the Cal-OSHA complaint. Dianella testified that after speaking with Evans, she phoned Minagar, who told Dianella she must have known of the investigation because she was Grana's good friend and should have warned Minagar about it. Evidence came in without objection that Minagar might have fired Dianella either because Minagar mistakenly believed Dianella had made the complaint, or because Dianella was Grana's friend.
Note:	Retaliatory discharge action lies for who MIGHT report a safety violation.
Citation:	124 Cal. App. 4th 1040
WCC Citation:	WCC 30682004 CA