Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Stuart)		08/20/1998
Summary:	On or about April 28, 1995, Chu received a letter from Rosenberg informing SCIF he was relocating his law office to Beverly Hills. Goldfarb's secretary called Arago on May 18, 1995, and Goldfarb himself called SCIF the next day. We conclude the WCJ's initial decision concluding SCIF unreasonably delayed payment of Stuart's benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. Following the WCJ's decision in this matter, SCIF sought reconsideration, citing Kampner, supra, 86 Cal. App. 3d 376, apparently for the first time. As noted, ante, SCIF understood this deadline and had made timely semimonthly payments for over three years.
Note:	Clerical mistake attributing to the employee a change of address for the employer led to a one-week delay in the employee's benefit check is not unreasonable delay under 5814.
Citation:	18 Cal.4th 1209
WCC Citation:	WCC 30241998 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Welcher)		08/08/1995
Summary:	SCIF petitioned for reconsideration, and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ. SCIF sought review in this court, contending that the WCJ had erred in finding applicant's injuries compensable in view of the extensive medical record demonstrating nonindustrial causation. (The records, designated exhibit 20, which were extensive, were admitted at trial after being subpoenaed by defendant SCIF. The WCJ's ruling barring the testimony of the SCIF claims adjuster was highly significant, in that SCIF was thus unable to avoid the application of the presumption. SCIF then had to assume the burden of proof on the primary issue in the case, which was industrial causation.
Note:	Failure to reject claim within 90 days created presumption of compensability; Testimony inadmissible b/c not identified as witness at MSC.
Citation:	37 Cal.App.4th 675
WCC Citation:	WCC 24921995 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Wimberly)		01/28/1972
Summary:	State Fund, as the employer's compensation carrier, raised among other issues, the question of prior disability. Applicant thereupon filed an application for Subsequent Injuries Fund benefits and both claims were jointly heard. The only proof of service accompanying the petition for reconsideration was of service by mail upon applicant's attorney of record. Failure to file proof of such service shall constitute valid grounds for dismissing the petition for reconsideration. 'The appeals board may require the petition for reconsideration to be served on other persons designated by it. '
Note:	Time limits for proper service of Petition for Recon. ('forthwith' filing) may be read strictly by Board; dismissal warranted.
Citation:	37 CCC 860
WCC Citation:	WCC 27281972 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB, CIGA		06/24/2004
Summary:	Apple One's insurer is in liquidation and the claims are administered by California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA). CIGA was dismissed and State Fund was ordered to pay the entire award. CIGA argues that Chavira is distinguishable because it does not consider the definition of disability in section 5412. Furthermore, CIGA conceded in its answer to the petition that Rodarte knew the injury was work related. Even though CIGA covered some of the period, it was relieved of liability on the ground that this is a single cumulative injury and there is other insurance available.
Note:	'Disability' for statute of limitations in 5500.5 may be either temporary or permanent disability.
Citation:	119 Cal.App.4th 998
WCC Citation:	WCC 29912004 CA

Case Name:	SCIF vs. Low		10/30/2002
Summary:	Fund v. Low CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Plaintiff and Appellant,v. HARRY LOW, as Insurance Commissioner, etc. , Defendant;F. MCCLINTOCKS, INC. , Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Generally, the greater the "loss experience" of an employer, the higher its workers' compensation insurance premiums are likely to be. Part one provides insurance coverage for claims for benefits arising out of on-the-job injuries subject to the Act. Part two of such policies, known as employers' liability insurance, provides so-called "gap-filler" coverage (see, e. g. , Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry Ins.
Note:	Attorney fees expended in providing defense under Coverage B properly reportable to WCIRB.
Citation:	Unpublished
WCC Citation:	WCC 28922002 CA

Case Name:	SCIF vs. WCAB (Silva)		06/27/1977
Summary:	The applicant, an employee of the Oakland Unified School District, was injured on January 22, 1975, in the course of his duties as a schoolteacher. In addition to receiving treatment for his physical injuries, the applicant consulted a psychiatrist for attendant emotional problems. Several months after the incident, when first notified of the psychiatric [71 Cal. App. 3d 136] treatment, petitioner arranged for the applicant to be examined by another psychiatrist. Before a hearing was held on that petition, the applicant on February 19, 1976, gave notice of his choice of physician. If there is unnecessary and extravagant treatment the employer or his insurer should not bear the cost of such treatment.
Note:	Change in right to medical control procedural, not substantive.
Citation:	71 Cal.App.3d 133, 42 CCC 493
WCC Citation:	WCC 30121977 CA

Case Name:	SCIF vs. WCAB, Cardoza		12/18/1967
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOHN RAYMOND CARDOZA, Respondents. John R. Cardoza, then aged 23, entered the employment of Poso Canal Company on March 17, 1964, as a mechanic. Cardoza dived into the water from the canal bank, struck his head, and suffered injuries for which the award here at issue was made. Cardoza testified that Poso employees were accustomed to take coffee breaks or work breaks, as respites from their labors. Poso sometimes parked equipment on the bank of the canal and Cardoza and other employees on occasion worked on it there.
Note:	Injury incurred during activity break for comfort of employee is AOE/COE.
Citation:	67 Cal.2d 925
WCC Citation:	WCC 29821967 CA

Case Name:	Scott v. WCAB (Moore's Western, et. al.)		03/24/1998
Summary:	Joe Scott, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Moore's Western Nursery, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Mark and Irene Richardson, dba Windows Express, illegally uninsured, Respondents. The WCJ issued an F&A awarding 5 1/4 percent PPD against Windows Express, and no PPD against Moore's Nursery, denying SCIF's lien claim against the PPD award. SCIF Petitioned for Reconsideration and the WCAB found that Applicant had already received the full amount of PPD due, and SCIF was entitled to contribution from Windows Express for the PPD SCIF paid. The WCAB also held that Applicant was not entitled to further PPD from Windows Express since he had already received the full PPD benefits from SCIF. The WCAB denied reconsideration and Applicant filed a Petition for Writ of Review, which was denied.
Note:	Credit allowed for overpaid disability benfs. in another case.
Citation:	63 CCC 488 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 25151998 CA

Case Name:	Scott v. WCAB (Time Fire & Cas.)		08/25/1981
Summary:	RODMAN R. SCOTT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and TIME FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondents. Mr. Velthoen hired Mr. Scott to assist in building a personal home for Velthoen; Scott was to install some 'sandwich panels' for the walls and place roof trusses. Scott testified he was to be paid an hourly wage and he received two paychecks totalling $480 from Velthoen for the work. This order contained a finding that Insurance Code section 11590 extended compensation insurance coverage for the injury sustained by Scott. The Board also concluded that an election to cover Scott under Labor Code section 4151 was precluded because Scott came within the exclusion of section 3352, subdivision (h).
Note:	WCAB without jurisdiction to reconsider if claimant was 'employee' since employer failed to petition within 20 days.
Citation:	122 Cal.App.3d 979
WCC Citation:	WCC 26591981 CA

Case Name:	Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. WCAB		12/02/1996
Summary:	Subsequently, the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarded Lopez scheduled permanent partial disability indemnity of $9,020. The WCAB denied reconsideration of the judge's determination, and the Court of Appeal summarily denied Sea-Land's petition for writ of review. As this very case illustrates, application of category-by-category credit would effectively require Sea-Land to pay more in compensation than if the WCAB award had come first. Second, in the absence of an agreement, the WCAB has discretion to allow credit where the employer voluntarily made payments described in the statute. Accordingly, in the WCAB proceedings, Sea-Land took the position that '[w]hen the LHWCA permanent disability payment of $7,040. 88 is credited against the WCAB liability for permanent disability of $9,020. 00, the remainder owed is $1,979. 12. ' -FN 4.
Note:	Overpaid federal disability benefits can be credited 'dollar for dollar' against state liabilities..
Citation:	14 Cal.4th 76
WCC Citation:	WCC 24541996 CA

Case Name:	Seabright Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Fitzpatrick)		01/29/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. SAC0323184) In this workers' compensation proceeding, Dianne Fitzpatrick (applicant) and Seabright Insurance Company (Seabright) separately seek writ review of the actions taken by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (2) The WCAB wrongly disregarded her expert witness's testimony as to the rating of her permanent disability. Applicant requested an expedited WCAB hearing to obtain an order that defendant authorize treatment in accordance with Dr. Prasad's recommendations. The WCJ's Report and Recommendation On February 8, 2007, the WCJ filed his report and recommendation to the WCAB on applicant's petition. As explained further in the Discussion, Escobedo is the leading WCAB decision on apportionment under Labor Code section 4663.
Note:	[Unpublished] On remand, if the WCAB determines that apportionment is warranted, it is directed to calculate apportionment consistently with Brodie v. WCAB, 40 Cal.4th 1313.
Citation:	C055227
WCC Citation:	WCC 33082008 CA

Case Name:	Seabright Insurance Co. v. US Airways Inc.		08/22/2011
Summary:	SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY v. US AIRWAYS, INC. SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. US AIRWAYS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent; ANTHONY VERDON LUJAN, Intervener and Appellant. The airport is the actual owner of the conveyor, but US Airways uses it under a permit and has responsibility for its maintenance. Plaintiff SeaBright Insurance Company, Aubry's workers' compensation insurer, paid Verdon benefits based on the injury and then sued defendant US Airways, claiming the airline caused Verdon's injury and seeking to recover what it paid in benefits. Defendant US Airways sought summary judgment based on Privette, supra, 5 Cal. 4th 689, and Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198 (Hooker). *fn3 It found no evidence that US Airways "affirmatively contribute[d]" to the accident (Hooker, supra, 27 Cal. 4th at p. 213) and granted summary judgment for defendant US Airways.
Note:	The hirer of a contractor is immune to suits filed by the contractor's employee, even in cases where the hirer's safety violations are alleged to have caused the employee's injury.
Citation:	S182508
WCC Citation:	WCC 37942011 CA

Case Name:	Seabright Insurance v. U.S. Airways Inc.		03/29/2010
Summary:	NOTE: This case has been overruled by Seabright Insurance v. US Airways Inc. , S182508, on August 22, 2011, by the Supreme Court of California. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U. S. AIRWAYS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent; ANTHONY VERDON LUJAN, Intervener and Appellant. Ct. No. CGC-06-458707) Plaintiff Seabright Insurance (Seabright) and intervener Anthony Verdon Lujan (Verdon) (collectively appellants) appeal after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant U. S. Airways, Inc. , in this personal injury action. If U. S. Airways became aware of a problem with the conveyor system, it would contact Aubry to make the necessary repairs. It appears that on the date of the incident at issue here, U. S. Airways and America West Airlines were subsidiaries of U. S. Airways Group, Inc.
Note:	A hirer can be liable to the employee of a contractor if the hirer breaches a nondelegable duty imposed by statute or regulation, and the breach affirmatively contributes to the employee's injury.
Citation:	A123726
WCC Citation:	WCC 36122010 CA

Case Name:	Searles Valley Minerals Operations Inc., v. Ralph M. Parson Service Company et al.		01/21/2011
Summary:	Searles argues that, as an assignee of KM's indemnity rights, it was entitled to reimbursement for paying KM's defense costs. Searles, formerly known as North American Chemical Company, purchased the Argus plant from KM. In connection with the purchase, Searles agreed to indemnify KM for any accidents or injuries resulting in KM being sued. Searles incurred over $800,000 in attorney fees, costs, and expenses from providing KM with a defense in the underlying Moore lawsuit. Searles filed an opposition, arguing that, as KM's assignee under the construction contract, Searles was entitled to recover KM's defense expenses.
Note:	A company that acquired a processing plant also assumed indemnification rights from the previous owner and must be reimbursed after the contractor indemnifying the original owner refused to provide a defense in a wrongful death suit, California's 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Citation:	E049927
WCC Citation:	WCC 37032011 CA

Case Name:	Sedlak v. Ojai Valley Sanitary District		08/03/2011
Summary:	MICHAEL G. SEDLAK, JR. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OJAI VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. Lower Arbolada Sewer Association (Association) was formed by property owners in a portion of Ojai to convert from septic tanks to a sewer system owned and operated by respondent Ojai Valley Sanitary District (District). The Association and the District entered into a contract, which provided, among other things, that the project was subject to inspection by the District. The operative third amended complaint filed by Sedlak contained two causes of action against the District. The facts are undisputed that Sedlak was not a District employee nor was he hired by the District to work on the project.
Note:	A sewer district had no duty to ensure that a general contractor enforced safety rules on a worksite.
Citation:	B222509
WCC Citation:	WCC 37852011 CA

Case Name:	Selden v. WCAB		01/21/1986
Summary:	MICHAEL SELDEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al. , Respondents. OPINION EAGLESON, J. Petitioner Michael Selden seeks review of an order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration of its decision ordering denial of a petition to reopen the case on the issue of permanent disability. On August 28, 1980, after applicant avoided properly requested examinations, Employer filed a 'Petition to Reopen to Reduce Award and Finding of Extended Permanent Disability. 'This filing was just a few days prior to the expiration of the five-year jurisdictional period. Subsequently, on January 25, 1982, Employer sent a letter to the WCJ requesting that its petition to reopen be withdrawn.
Note:	Board had no jurisdiction to increase award when no counterpetition was filed.
Citation:	176 Cal.App.3d 877
WCC Citation:	WCC 26681986 CA

Case Name:	Self-Insurers' Security Fund v. Esis, Inc.		09/29/1988
Summary:	SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ESIS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents (Opinion by Anderson, P. J. , with Channell, J. , concurring. [3] Pursuant to that legislation, the Fund was empowered 'to bring an action against any person to recover compensation paid and liability assumed by the fund . . . . ' (§ 3744, subd. Statutes and regulations designed to require adequate security are necessary to ensure the financial soundness of the Self-Insurers' Security Fund (Fund) so that its monies will be available to injured workers. The Fund has pled no damages to CCG for which the Fund could recover. On the contrary, the Fund has filed a claim for reimbursement against CCG in the bankruptcy proceedings and CCG still is responsible to the fund for obligations paid and assumed by the Fund.
Note:	Employer's duty to secure pmt. of compensation does not extend to all knowledgeable participants.
Citation:	204 Cal.App.3d 1148
WCC Citation:	WCC 24251988 CA

Case Name:	Seretti v. Superior Nat. Ins. Co.		04/28/1999
Summary:	PHILLIP SERETTI et al. , Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-defendant and Respondent. Seretti and his wife, appellant Vujovich, owned real property on Floye Street in Hollywood on which the decedent was working at the time of the accident. 4 As such, defendants contend that payment to lien claimants on a workers' compensation basis is neither appropriate nor reasonable. ''Phillip Seretti' and 'Janja Vujovich' were expressly excluded from coverage. Furthermore, in the present case, the policy expressly excludes Seretti and Vujovich from the status of insureds. '
Note:	Homeowners who were also officers and shareholders in corporation employing applicants injured at homeowners' real property cannot bring civil action against corporation's work comp carrier for bad faith.
Citation:	71 Cal.App.4th 920
WCC Citation:	WCC 3901999 CA

Case Name:	Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 v. Schwarzenegger		06/10/2010
Summary:	Filed 6/11/10 Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 v. Schwarzenegger CA1/2 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). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al. , Defendants and Appellants, And related Cross-Complaint. While the Sacramento court's clarifying minute order does not refer explicitly to SCIF employees, these employees are not 'employees of executive branch agencies' to whom the Sacramento court considered its ruling to exclusively apply. Because the claims of SCIF employees were not adjudicated in CASE I, there is no conflicting adjudication as to those employees. The reduction in total hours worked by SCIF employees is the same whether achieved by a furlough imposed on all employees or the layoff of only some employees.
Note:	[Unpublished] Section 11873, subdivision (c) limits the Governor's authority to impose furloughs on SCIF employees.
Citation:	CPF-09-509-580
WCC Citation:	WCC 36372010 CA

Case Name:	Service Rock Products v. WCAB (Marquis)		09/11/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SERVICE ROCK PRODUCTS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ROBERT MARQUIS, Respondents. F055340 (WCAB No. BAK 146964) OPINION THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Service Rock Products (SRP) petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). SPR petitioned for reconsideration, but the WCAB denied the petition based on the report and recommendation of the WCJ. Although SRP repeatedly refers to the 2004 PDRS, like the WCAB and Marquis, we presume the reference is to 2005 PDRS as the only update to the schedule since 1997.
Note:	[Unpublished] By its very terms mandating the employer notify the employee of his or her right to dispute the temporary disability termination, the section 4061 notice must be sent regardless of the WCAB's ultimate determination on the issues of temporary disability and permanent and stationary status.
Citation:	F055340
WCC Citation:	WCC 34212008 CA

Case Name:	Shanahan v. State Farm General Insurance Co.		03/08/2011
Summary:	SHANAHAN v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY JOHN M. SHANAHAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Shanahan had a renter's insurance policy and a separate personal liability policy (umbrella policy) with State Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm). He sued State Farm for breach of contract and breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing based upon State Farm's refusal to defend the Skigin lawsuit. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, contending it had no duty to defend Shanahan. Shanahan had two insurance policies with State Farm: a renter's policy and an umbrella policy.
Note:	An employer's personal liability policy and renter's insurance policy provided no coverage for his $700,000 settlement of a sexual harassment and battery suit, according to a published decision from the California 4th District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	G042988
WCC Citation:	WCC 37292011 CA

Case Name:	Shannon et al. v. Los Angeles County Fire Department et al.		01/25/2012
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT MICHAEL SHANNON et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. BC380970) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. * * * * * * This case arises out of appellant Michael Shannons (Shannon) termination from employment at the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). While on leave, on November 5, 2005, Shannon completed a form entitled Los Angeles County Fire Department Employees Report of Injury/Illness. Shannon Is Diagnosed With PTSD On April 4, 2006, Dr. Diane DeSilva diagnosed Shannon with major depressive disorder and PTSD.
Note:	A California appellate court rejected a Los Angles firefighters claim that he was wrongfully terminated due to his post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis.
Citation:	B223650
WCC Citation:	WCC 38472012 CA

Case Name:	Sharareh v. WCAB		10/18/2007
Summary:	A113864 (WCAB Case No. WCK 51625) Shahiram and Violeta Sharareh (petitioners), successors in interest to the estate of their son Sina Sharareh (Sharareh), seek to annul an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying their son compensation for injuries he suffered when he was shot in the throat. Thys then left, checked with his supervisor [and] approved a deal made with [Sharareh] to check on Matt Anderson . The arbitrator and the Board also unduly emphasized that Sharareh initiated the contact and offered to assist Thys. If Sharareh and Thys had entered into an agreement that Sharareh would assist Thys, the fact that Sharareh initiated the contact should not be a basis upon which to deny him informant status. The arbitrator found: "The evidence does show that [Sharareh] did provide information to law enforcement officials which was, in fact, used against Anderson, and the evidence further suggests Anderson almost certainly became aware of this later, prior to the time he shot [Sharareh] and was then killed by police. "
Note:	The legal consequence of the Board's failure to prepare a summary of evidence is that the Court of Appeal is unable to conduct a meaningful review of the Board's order and therefore, the order is annulled.
Citation:	156 Cal. App. 4th 189; 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 147
WCC Citation:	WCC 32692007 CA

Case Name:	Sheaffer v. Board of Retirement San Joaquin Couty		07/02/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- TIMOTHY A. SHEAFFER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND, Real Party In Interest and Respondent. As to the merits, Sheaffer contends the evidence established his psychological disability was permanent and service-connected, or if the evidence was insufficient, the Board of Retirement of the San Joaquin County Employees' Retirement System (the Board) had a duty to develop a fuller record on these issues. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Beginning in 1985, Sheaffer was a deputy district attorney for San Joaquin County. The ALJ granted the motion of real party in interest San Joaquin County Employees' Retirement Fund (the Fund) to exclude the report. Sheaffer petitioned for a writ of mandate to set aside the decision denying industrial disability retirement or to reinstate Sheaffer to his former position.
Note:	[Unpublished] Since Sheaffer failed to establish a permanent disability, the trial court did not err in denying the petition for a writ.
Citation:	C054229
WCC Citation:	WCC 33902008 CA

Case Name:	SHELBY v. SeaRIVER MARITIME INC.		02/18/2011
Summary:	SHELBY v. SeaRIVER MARITIME INC. MACK SHELBY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEARIVER MARITIME INC. , Defendant and Appellant. This is an appeal from the final judgment after the jury awarded plaintiff Mack Shelby $8 million in damages for harm sustained from exposure to petroleum products containing benzene and other hydrocarbons while employed as an able-bodied seaman by defendant SeaRiver Maritime Inc. , formerly named Exxon Shipping Company (SeaRiver). After taking a six-month medical leave of absence to address his condition, plaintiff returned to work with SeaRiver. In 2006, plaintiff brought this action, asserting claims against SeaRiver under the Jones Act (see 46 U. S. C. 30104) (Jones Act), and general maritime law. According to SeaRiver, plaintiff failed this burden because he presented "no evidence of [his] present inability to work at SeaRiver or anywhere else. "
Note:	The California 1st District Court of Appeal upheld an $8 million jury verdict in favor of a cancer-stricken seaman in a Jones Act lawsuit, rejecting the employer's arguments that a doctor's testimony that petroleum products had likely caused the cancer was only conjecture.
Citation:	A122449
WCC Citation:	WCC 37192011 CA

Case Name:	Shell Oil Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n		01/23/1962
Summary:	No. 77 January 23, 1962 SHELL OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, BETTY BYRD ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding death benefit to widow and minor children of an employee. Stone [199 CalApp2d Page 427] Petitioner, Shell Oil Company, seeks annulment of an award to the widow and minor children of Charles H. Byrd, deceased. On March 16, the Shell Oil Company held a dinner meeting in Stockton, which was called the Spring Dealers' Meeting. They were unable to determine immediately what was wrong with the automobile, so they parked it at a Shell station and continued on to the meeting. Petitioner stresses the fact that the agreement between Byrd and Shell Oil Company prohibited him from making any major automobile repairs at the service station.
Note:	Employees injuries are in course and scope of employment if related to attendance of special meeting/training.
Citation:	199 Cal. App. 2d 426
WCC Citation:	WCC 30411962 CA

Case Name:	Sherwood v. City of Los Angeles		01/28/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE ROCKY SHERWOOD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Carlos De La Guerra, Assistant City Attorney, and Martin R. Boags, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Following a hearing before the Board of Rights, Rocky Sherwood (Sherwood) was removed from his position as a police officer for the City of Los Angeles (City). In December 2002, Sherwood was informed by Sergeant Linder that there was a pending criminal and administrative investigation against Sherwood. (Jackson v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 111 Cal. App. 4th at p.
Note:	[Unpublished] At the relevant time and during the period Plaintiff was off duty TTD, there is no evidence that he knew or should have known that he should have returned to work.
Citation:	B195551
WCC Citation:	WCC 33072008 CA

Case Name:	Shipley v. WCAB		06/29/1992
Summary:	MARSHALL S. SHIPLEY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF WHITTIER, Respondents. OPINION WALLIN, J. Marshall S. Shipley successfully petitioned this court for a writ of review of orders of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturning a compensation award and denying Shipley's petition for reconsideration. The city referred Shipley to Dr. Hillsman, who concluded his injury was '100% non industrial. 'Several months later, Shipley again inquired about the status of the petition and the location of the file. Shipley is entitled to the board's review of his petition and its decision on its merits.
Note:	Time period is subject to tolling by Board when circumstances warrant it.
Citation:	7 Cal.App.4th 1104
WCC Citation:	WCC 26991992 CA

Case Name:	Shipman v. California Dep't of Corrections and Rehabilitation		01/03/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. F050317 January 3, 2008 JAMES SHIPMAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant, Michael W. Pott and Thomas L. Riordan for Defendants and Respondents California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Matthew C. Kramer and Kathleen Prosper. Shipman has no information, however, that Kramer, Prosper or Bollinger ever said Shipman had broken into Bollinger's office. While these counselors didn't indicate Bollinger made any such statements about Shipman, Shipman believed the counselors heard that from Bollinger. H. Shipman's Government Claim and Appeal On July 6, 2004, Shipman filed a government claim with the State of California Board of Control.
Note:	Making comments about an employee's truthfulness in the course of a workplace investigation does not exceed all bounds of conduct usually tolerated in a civilized society.
Citation:	F050317
WCC Citation:	WCC 32972008 CA

Case Name:	Shope v. WCAB		12/02/1971
Summary:	RICHARD SHOPE, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondents (Opinion by Aiso, J. , with Stephens, Acting P. J. , and Reppy, J. , concurring. )That he was entitled to workmen's compensation benefits awarded him by the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (Board) is not disputed. The employer went out of business in December 1968 and has not joined in this review. We hold in favor of petitioner on both questions and order the decision of the Board annulled for the reasons we set forth below. We therefore, hold that petitioner has standing to have this court review the Board's determination as to the insurance coverage.
Note:	Worker can institute review of decision because he was affected adversely.
Citation:	21 Cal.App.3d 774
WCC Citation:	WCC 27081971 CA