Case Name:	Schermerhorn v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.		09/19/2008
Summary:	Filed 9/19/08 Schermerhorn v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE ROBERT SCHERMERHORN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found that LAUSD failed to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with plaintiff Robert Schermerhorn, an LAUSD employee with a physical disability, as required by Government Code section 12940, subdivision (n). Fischer told Schermerhorn that the decision on returning him to work was Dr. Bierer's to make, and he told Schermerhorn to meet again with Dr. Bierer, which Schermerhorn did. In January 2003, Schermerhorn again contacted Fischer, who said that he was waiting for Dr. Bierer to release Schermerhorn for work.
Note:	[Unpublished] LAUSD had notice of (1) Schermerhorn's medical release to return to work, (2) his desire to return to work, and (3) his disability, as expressed in the listed work restrictions. Nothing more was required to trigger LAUSD's duty to offer a reasonable accommodation.
Citation:	B196937
WCC Citation:	WCC 34272008 CA

Case Name:	Schlick v. Comco Mgt., Inc.		12/04/1987
Summary:	GREGORY SCHLICK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COMCO MANAGEMENT, INC. , Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Taylor, J. , with Sonenshine, Acting P. J. , and Crosby, J. , concurring. )I Gregory Schlick appeals a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer to his complaint without leave to amend. As a result of his employment, Schlick suffered many industrial injuries for which he filed claims with the board. While his claims before the board were pending, Schlick instituted this action against Comco Management, Inc. , the independent claims administrator for the City of Anaheim. Each count was based on Comco's alleged failure to pay Schlick workers' compensation benefits.
Note:	WCAB has broad jurisdiction over rights, liabilities arising out of compensation.
Citation:	196 Cal.App.3d 974
WCC Citation:	WCC 24271987 CA

Case Name:	Scholar v. City of Chico		12/27/2011
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA GARY SCHOLAR, Applicant, vs. CITY OF CHICO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant. Applicant was a Division Chief in the Chico Fire Department, a position he held for over 20 years until his retirement in 2004. Applicant testified at trial that, at some point in 2004, he noticed a lump on the side of his neck. As applicant testified at trial regarding the results of the first fine needle biopsy, "They - they just said they couldn't tell. Dr. Heithecker referred the applicant to another otolaryngologist, James P. Lacey, M. D. Dr. Lacey performed the guided needle biopsy.
Note:	A city of Chico firefighter's cancer claim was timely because his physicians never definitively informed him that he had neck cancer until 2008.
Citation:	ADJ402198
WCC Citation:	WCC 38442011 CA

Case Name:	Schreifer v. Industrial Accident Comm'n		05/05/1964
Summary:	SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA L. A. No. 27656 May 5, 1964 DAVID D. SCHREIFER, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission denying compensation for personal injuries. Peters [61 Cal2d Page 290] Applicant David Schreifer sought compensation from his employer, the County of Los Angeles, and its insurer, State Compensation Insurance Fund, for injuries suffered by him as a result of an automobile accident. The referee of the commission found that the accident arose out of the course and scope of the employment. While en route he was involved in an automobile accident in which he sustained the injuries here involved. He had not requested compensation for the use of his car on the date of the accident here involved.
Note:	Special mission involves employer requiring something extraordinary in relation to employee's normal duties.
Citation:	61 Cal. 2d 289
WCC Citation:	WCC 30381964 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. IAC (Aten)		02/01/1949
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. , Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, MYLES J. ATEN et al. , Respondents. State Compensation Insurance Fund, petitioner herein, was the insurance carrier of the petitioner D. D. Dunlap, who was the employer of respondent Myles J. Aten. Thereafter the employee applied for adjustment of compensation, and on October 22, 1947, a hearing was had thereon. On October 24, 1947, the insurance carrier paid the employee $100 and on November 24, 1947, the remaining $125. Although the last hearing was held on October 22, 1947, the findings and award were not filed until January 26, 1948.
Note:	Award annulled b/c attorney's fees already paid in full to employee.
Citation:	89 Cal.App.2d 821
WCC Citation:	WCC 26701949 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. IAC (George)		05/17/1954
Summary:	Petition for writ of review and annulment of portion of findings and order on apportionment. May the commission, on rehearing, after reviewing the record, make findings and order differing from its first findings and order, where no additional evidence is introduced?Petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund and other compensation insurance carriers were subsequently joined as defendants. The period of employment at Empire Foundry he found to be 501 weeks instead of the 328 weeks previously found. We do not suggest a solution, but shall leave it to the Commission to settle the problem. '
Note:	IAC, on rehearing, can change its prev. findings and order without further evidence, though no party complained of any finding.
Citation:	125 Cal.App.2d 201
WCC Citation:	WCC 26951954 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. Sup. Crt. of LA County		08/24/2001
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. Code, § 956) overrides any attorney-client privilege and the State Fund does not have standing to assert any privilege. State Fund specifically argued that the District Attorney had to make a prima facie showing of the crime/fraud exception (Evid. Code, § 956) to overcome the attorney-client privilege and could not rely on the sealed affidavit used to obtain the search warrant. The trial court reconsidered its prior ruling and stated: 'I realize that I do have a right to exercise .
Note:	Employer cannot waive carrier's privilege; court must grant review if colorable claim made.
Citation:	91 Cal. App. 4th 1080
WCC Citation:	WCC 28122001 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. Superior Court of San Francisco		02/23/2010
Summary:	Filed 2/23/10 Ordered published by Supreme Court 5/20/10 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, Respondent; ONVOI BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC. , Real Party in Interest. The Fund contends the superior court erred by granting a motion for summary adjudication directed to a superseded pleading, and it seeks a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the superior court to set aside its order. Respondent superior court heard Onvoi's motion for summary adjudication on June 23, 2009. Two days after the superior court announced its ruling, Onvoi filed its answer to the Fund's amended complaint. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. CGC07470352, Charlotte W. Woolard, Judge.
Note:	The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.
Citation:	A125834
WCC Citation:	WCC 36262010 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB		03/28/2012
Summary:	We therefore annul the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and remand with instructions to deny Garcia's claim for psychiatric injury. SCIF petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending that Garcia's injury was not the result of an extraordinary employment condition, but rather an ordinary occupational hazard of picking fruit while standing on a ladder. Even the WCAB majority acknowledged that this is "not particularly strong evidence on extraordinariness. "SCIF did not introduce evidence that such falls are an industry hazard or that insurance costs reflect that risk, but that was not its burden. DISPOSITION The order denying reconsideration is annulled, and the matter is remanded to the WCAB with instructions to deny Garcia's claim for psychiatric injury.
Note:	A California agricultural worker was not entitled to compensation for his alleged psychiatric injuries resulting from his fall from a 24-foot ladder.
Citation:	B235258
WCC Citation:	WCC 38802012 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Adame)		11/01/1983
Summary:	Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe, Alvin R. Barrett, Banks, Leviton, Kelley, Drass & Kelsey and Mary Carol Scherb for Respondents. State Compensation Insurance Fund, the employer's workers' compensation carrier, petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for reconsideration. There, the WCAB failed to specify reasons for disapproval of a posttrial compromise and release. Here, the WCAB did not generate a record in order to support its disapproval of the settlement of rehabilitation benefits. The matter is remanded to the WCAB for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	Pre-trial C&R valid if record is sufficient for 'Thomas Finding'.
Citation:	148 Cal.App.3d 649
WCC Citation:	WCC 27451983 CA