Case Name:	Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.)		11/25/2009
Summary:	After the SIBTF appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), the WCAB issued its OPINION AND DECISION. *fn4 Appellate Review All judicial powers under the workers' compensation system are vested in the WCAB, subject only to the review by the appellate courts of this state. )*fn5 WCJs hear and decide compensation claims as trial judges, and the WCAB functions as an appellate body. The WCAB has extensive expertise in interpreting and applying the workers' compensation scheme. Accordingly, the Decision of the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board is annulled and the case is remanded to the WCAB for further proceedings.
Note:	The cost of living adjustments pursuant to Labor Code section 4659, subdivision (c), for life pensions and total permanent disability indemnity, are added to those payments, per the words of the statute, starting January 1, 2004, and every January 1 thereafter.
Citation:	H034040
WCC Citation:	WCC 35832009 CA

Case Name:	Duthie v. WCAB, McDonnell Douglas Co.		11/27/1978
Summary:	JOHN H. DUTHIE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, McDONNELL DOUGLAS COMPANY et al. , Respondents. OPINION TAMURA, Acting P. J. Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim for a heart disability suffered while in the employment of McDonnell Douglas Company. He had been employed as an administrator by McDonnell Douglas for nine years, and had just received a notice of imminent layoff. His opinion was that petitioner's condition stemmed from aggravation of his hypertension by the stress and harassment of his job. Prior to the nine-year span of present employment with McDonnell Douglas, petitioner had worked for McDonnell Douglas' predecessor Douglas Aircraft from 1962 to 1963, when he was laid off because of cancellation of a missile project.
Note:	Preexisting disability must occur at a definite, ascertainable time prior to industrial injury becoming P&S for legal apportionment.
Citation:	86 CA 3d 721, 43 CCC 1214
WCC Citation:	WCC 28441978 CA

Case Name:	Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta		09/26/2012
Summary:	MICHELLE DUTRA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MERCY MEDICAL CENTER MT. Plaintiff Michelle Dutra sued her former employer, defendant Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta (Mercy), for defamation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleged Mercy committed libel per se by communicating to her and others in a private meeting its grounds for terminating her employment. Mercy informed plaintiff the grounds for her termination in a confidential meeting attended by plaintiff, a union steward, and Mercy supervisors.
Note:	Workers' compensation exclusivity barred a hospital housekeeper from suing her former employer in tort for allegedly terminating her in retaliation for her pursuit of benefits for an industrial injury.
Citation:	C067169
WCC Citation:	WCC 39352012 CA

Case Name:	Dykes v. WCAB		11/04/2008
Summary:	Perplexed by the WCAB's actions, Dykes asks whether the WCAB exceeded its powers by reopening and reconsidering his award which already had been exhaustively litigated and affirmed through the appellate process. "Gallo timely petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for reconsideration, contending that the Labor Code mandated subtracting the percentage, not dollar amount, of the prior award from Dyke's disability award. Dykes argues that more than a simple change in the law is required to trigger good cause to reopen a WCAB decision. Dykes believes the WCAB was instead required to find our prior decision presented "exceptional circumstances of hardship and injustice. "Dykes lastly contends that permitting the WCAB to reopen a disability award based on a change in the law will cast doubt on all final WCAB awards and create "a recipe for mass relitigation," particularly when future disability tables are revised.
Note:	[Unpublished] The Supreme Court's decision in Brodie constituted good cause to reopen Dykes's prior disability award, even after it had been affirmed by this court and denied review by the Supreme Court.
Citation:	F055891
WCC Citation:	WCC 34592008 CA

Case Name:	Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County Part 1/3		04/30/2018
Summary:	Filed 4/30/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA  .             DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, INC. , Petitioner, .             v. .             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; .             CHARLES LEE et al. , Real Parties in Interest. .           Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed. .           Dynamex is a nationwide same-day courier and delivery service that operates a number of business centers in California. .           Drivers are generally free to set their own schedule but must notify Dynamex of the days they intend to work for Dynamex. .           Drivers hired by Dynamex are permitted to hire other persons to make deliveries assigned by Dynamex.
Note:	California’s Supreme Court on Monday laid down a simple, three-part test to determine whether a person is an employee of an independent contractor, in a ruling that could have implications for workers’ compensation and the gig economy.
Citation:	S222732
WCC Citation:	Ct.App. 2/7 B249546, Los Angeles County Super

Case Name:	Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County Part 2/3		04/30/2018
Summary:	.           In addressing these largely unexplored issues, the Martinez court turned initially to the language and legislative history of section 1194. .           The court in Martinez then considered how the IWC, utilizing its broad legislative authority (see Cal. The court explained in this regard: “The verbs ‘to suffer’ and ‘to permit,’ as we have seen, are terms of art in employment law. .           The Martinez court summarized its conclusion on this point as follows: “To employ, then, under the IWC’s definition, has three alternative definitions. 74-77), the court concluded that the record did not indicate “the field representatives ever supervised or exercised control over [Munoz’s] employees” (id.
Note:	California’s Supreme Court on Monday laid down a simple, three-part test to determine whether a person is an employee of an independent contractor, in a ruling that could have implications for workers’ compensation and the gig economy.
Citation:	S222732
WCC Citation:	Ct.App. 2/7 B249546, Los Angeles County Super

Case Name:	Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County Part 3/3		04/30/2018
Summary:	(See Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal. 4th at p. 1032 [class certification is not an abuse of discretion if certification is proper under any theory]. )Here the class of drivers certified by the trial court is limited to drivers who, during the relevant time periods, performed delivery services only for Dynamex. V. CONCLUSION .         For the reasons discussed above, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 319, 326; Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 429, 435-436. )Defendant is only liable to those drivers with whom it entered into an agreement (i. e. , knew were providing delivery services to Dynamex customers).
Note:	California’s Supreme Court on Monday laid down a simple, three-part test to determine whether a person is an employee of an independent contractor, in a ruling that could have implications for workers’ compensation and the gig economy.
Citation:	S222732
WCC Citation:	Ct.App. 2/7 B249546, Los Angeles County Super

Case Name:	E & J Gallo Winery v. WCAB		05/20/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT E & J GALLO WINERY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CARMELA GARCIA, Respondents. -ooOoo- *Before Levy, Acting P. J. , Cornell, J. , and Gomes, J. E & J Gallo (Gallo) petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Gallo subsequently terminated Garcia either for not working overtime on October 17, 2006, or for misleading Gallo about the medical appointment. *fn3 On February 6, 2007, Garcia petitioned the WCAB to reopen for new and further disability based on medical reporting from Drs. Gallo also contends the WCAB inappropriately placed the burden of proof as to temporary disability on the defense rather than on Garcia.
Note:	[Unpublished] Having found the record inadequate, the WCAB appropriately exercised its power to defer making a permanent disability award and seek additional medical evidence.
Citation:	F058643
WCC Citation:	WCC 36282010 CA

Case Name:	E & J Gallo Winery v. WCAB		07/31/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT E. & J. GALLO WINERY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOE RUBIO, Respondents. -ooOoo- *Before Vartabedian, Acting P. J. , Gomes, J. , and Hill, J. E. & J. Gallo Winery (Gallo) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Gallo petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, arguing the WCJ's denial of apportionment lacked any basis in law or fact. Gallo contends the WCAB should have reduced Rubio's permanent disability award because it met its burden of proving a prior industrial injury. As the WCAB concluded, it was Gallo that failed to meet its burden of proving apportionment due to overlapping injuries.
Note:	[Unpublished] In apportioning permanent disability, the employer carries the burden of proving that some or all of an injured worker's current level of permanent disability overlaps with a prior permanent disability.
Citation:	F055156
WCC Citation:	WCC 34052008 CA

Case Name:	E&J Gallo Winery v. WCAB (Dykes)		12/20/2005
Summary:	FACTUAL HISTORY David Dykes injured his back while working as a winery worker for E & J Gallo Winery (Gallo) in September 1996. Dykes returned to work with Gallo with a lighter duty and a medical restriction of lifting up to 50 pounds. Gallo timely petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for reconsideration, contending that the Labor Code mandated subtracting the percentage, not dollar amount, of the prior award from Dyke's disability award. Gallo and the WCAB, however, contend that Dykes is not entitled to the life pension because his level of disability, after apportionment, is only 52. 5 percent. Gallo and the WCAB declined our invitation to demonstrate how this figure would be calculated for Dykes assuming a 73 percent level of disability.
Note:	Employee sustaining multiple disabling injuries while working for the same selfinsured employer is entitled to compensation for the total disability above any percentage of permanent disability previously awarded.
Citation:	134 Cal. App. 4th 1536
WCC Citation:	WCC 31342005 CA