Case Name:	Batton v. Alten Construction, Inc.		04/08/2013
Summary:	Batton sued the general contractor, defendant Alten Construction, Inc. (Alten), for damages, asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract (on a third party beneficiary theory). Alten contended Batton's negligence causes of action failed because Alten "owed no duty of care to [Batton] having contractually and impliedly delegated that duty to [Batton's] employer, [Galletti]. "As to the breach of contract cause of action, Alten argued Batton lacked standing to pursue third party beneficiary recovery. Batton submitted excerpts of deposition testimony by employees of Alten and Kwan Wo about the construction of the stairway and other matters. Batton agrees the stairway was not a latent hazardous condition of which Alten had a duty to warn Batton, and he does not seek to impose liability on that basis.
Note:	The employee of an independent contractor hired to perform work on a construction project presented sufficient evidence that the contractor on the project retained control over the stairwell where the employee fell to preclude summary judgment under the Privette doctrine.
Citation:	A135146
WCC Citation:	WCC 39992013 CA

Case Name:	Baur vs. WCAB and City of Stockton		08/21/2009
Summary:	In this case, petitioner Lance Baur, a police officer employed by respondent City of Stockton (the city), was injured on the job during an altercation with suspect Richard Thomas Beck. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Officer Baur was employed by the city in August 2003 when he was injured on the job by suspect Beck. As a result of Baur's injuries, the city provided Baur with $74,408. 79 in workers' compensation benefits. In settlement of the lawsuit, CIGA agreed to pay $50,000 to Baur, and the city agreed to release its lien. Baur objected to the credit, claiming the city has no credit rights in this matter for the same reasons .
Note:	Municipality that paid workers' compensation benefits is entitled to a credit whether the tortfeasor's insurer was a solvent company or CIGA and whether the recovery was for general or special damages.
Citation:	C061042
WCC Citation:	WCC 35562009 CA

Case Name:	Bautista v. State of California		12/06/2011
Summary:	BAUTISTA v. STATE MARGARITA ALVAREZ BAUTISTA et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The complaint alleges there is a constitutional duty on the part of the state to create a workers' compensation system that adequately protects the safety of farm workers in California. DISCUSSION This appeal presents two constitutional issues affecting the viability of appellants' lawsuit against the state and the named state agencies. Labor Code section 3300, subdivision (a) of the Workers' Compensation Act defines employer as, among others, "[t]he State and every State agency. "The individual plaintiffs include Margarita Alvarez Bautista, Ana Rosa Bautista, Socorro Rivera, Mauricia Calvillo, and Natividad Carrillo.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal issued a published decision affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit contending that the state of California failed to protect farm workers from heat-related illnesses.
Citation:	B226102
WCC Citation:	WCC 38302011 CA

Case Name:	Bawaan v. Civil Service Commission of Los Angeles County		09/11/2012
Summary:	JANET BAWAAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. The court concluded, based on its independent review of the evidence presented during appellant's three-day administrative hearing before the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (the Commission) that appellant was properly medically released from her position with the Department of Mental Health (the Department) for the County of Los Angeles (the County) in 2003 because the evidence demonstrated that she had been totally disabled and unable to work in any capacity since 1995. By letter dated October 31, 2003, the Department informed appellant that effective that date, she was medically released "without prejudice" under Los Angeles County Civil Service Rule 9. 08. The notice reiterated that appellant had been medically released without prejudice under Los Angeles County Civil Service Rule 9. 08, effective October 31, 2003, and reiterated the reasons expressed in the 2003 letters. Although the rules at issue are Civil Service Rules, promulgated by the County, the normal rules of statutory construction apply.
Note:	A municipal employer could rely on competent medical and legal evidence to conclude that an employee with severe, long-standing and debilitating psychiatric conditions was unable to perform her regular duties or any alternate position, and was not required to await resolution of her workers' compensation claim before medically releasing her from employment.
Citation:	B230200
WCC Citation:	WCC 39312012 CA

Case Name:	Baxter v. Riverside Community College District		04/03/2012
Summary:	BAXTER v. RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT MARY BAXTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. INTRODUCTION Defendant Riverside Community College District (RCCD) appeals from judgment following the trial court's granting of the petition for writ of mandate filed by plaintiff Mary Baxter seeking reinstatement to her teaching position with RCCD. Baxter contends she believed she was a permanent employee with a right to return within 39 months. Baxter filed a petition for writ of mandate on June 9, 2008, requesting reinstatement and back pay to February 21, 2006. Where good cause exists, the District may request that an employee undergo a fitness-for-duty examination by a licensed physician, at District expense.
Note:	A disabled college professor was not entitled to reinstatement after taking disability leave because she did not provide adequate notice of her ability to return to work.
Citation:	E052406
WCC Citation:	WCC 38822012 CA

Case Name:	Bazzini v. Technicolor, Inc.		01/21/2010
Summary:	INTRODUCTION In this lawsuit, plaintiff and appellant Terry Bazzini and his wife, plaintiff and appellant Phyllis Bazzini, sued Mr. Bazzini's ex- employer, defendant and respondent Technicolor, Inc. , for personal injuries. Technicolor did not provide Mr. Bazzini with protective devises that would have prevented the chemicals from touching Mr. Bazzini's skin and Technicolor did not refer Mr. Bazzini to a physician. Additionally, plaintiffs allege Ms. Bazzini developed severe illnesses and injuries, including urinary infections and red spots on her bladder wall through secondary exposure to the chemicals Mr. Bazzini brought home on his body and clothes. With regard to Mr. Bazzini, Technicolor argued any redress was limited to workers' compensation as it did not fraudulently conceal from Mr. Bazzini any work-related injury or illness. Since the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Technicolor with regard to Mr. Bazzini, it also properly granted summary judgment with regard to Ms. Bazzini.
Note:	Workers' compensation is the only redress for an employee who contracted cancer from chemical exposure at work because he submitted no proof that his employer concealed the danger and caused an aggravation of his injury.
Citation:	B205947
WCC Citation:	WCC 35932010 CA

Case Name:	Beaida v. WCAB		06/17/1968
Summary:	JOSEPH BEAIDA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, PLACER COUNTY HOSPITAL et al. , Respondents. In summary, WCAB takes the position that Dr. Cummings' September 26 letter was not entitled to recognition as a pleading or petition, since the claimant still had an attorney of record; that the attorney, not the doctor, was the claimant's spokesman in the WCAB proceedings. It vests WCAB with jurisdiction to make the award if the injured employee institutes proceedings within five years of the injury date. A broader proceeding is available under sections 5803 and 5804, which authorize WCAB to amend an award upon a good cause where the disability has recurred or increased. The response of WCAB and the oral argument in this court discussed section 5803 as well.
Note:	Doctor's letter to WCAB asking for adjustment in disability rating was valid petition for review, timely filed.
Citation:	263 Cal.App.2d 204, 33 CCC 345
WCC Citation:	WCC 26421968 CA

Case Name:	Becerra v. Eastside Reservior Proj., et. al.		07/17/1997
Summary:	Ramon Becerra, Applicant v. Eastside Reservoir Project/Advanco Constructors, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Defendants. WCAB No. AHM 51304 CCC 937 July 17, 1997 The Order Granting Reconsideration is vacated and defendant's petition for reconsideration is dismissed. When their petition for dismissal was not granted, defendants filed a Petition for Reconsideration. We have completed our study and, as explained below, we will vacate the order granting reconsideration, grant removal, and dismiss the Application. Defendants filed a petition for reconsideration arguing that the workers' compensation referee (WCR) erred in refusing to grant their petition for dismissal of the Application.
Note:	Proper procedure to follow involving 3201.5 cases.
Citation:	62 CCC 937
WCC Citation:	WCC 3941997 CA

Case Name:	Bed, Bath & Beyond v. WCAB		12/13/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT BED, BATH & BEYOND, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and KIM COSTA, Respondents. Bed, Bath & Beyond petitions for review of the WCAB's decision, contending that the WCJ should have applied the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule. Bed, Bath & Beyond petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration of the permanent disability award, arguing that the WCJ should have applied the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule to calculate Costa's permanent disability, pursuant to section 4660, subdivision (d). Standard of Review The appellate courts are authorized to review WCAB decisions and to issue a writ of review pursuant to section 5950. The WCAB panel relied on the en banc decision in Pendergrass I, supra, 72 Cal. Comp. Cases at page 98, where the WCAB stated that "for purposes of section 4660 .
Note:	[Unpublished] An employer is not required to provide a notice of permanent disability benefits until the last temporary disability payment is made or has become due.
Citation:	H031400
WCC Citation:	WCC 32882007 CA

Case Name:	Bekins Moving & Storage Company v. WCAB		11/23/1982
Summary:	BEKINS MOVING & STORAGE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GEORGE HANSEN, Respondents. Applicant George Hansen injured his back on January 20, 1975, while employed by Bekins Moving & Storage Company (hereafter Bekins) as a furniture mover. Before the hearing, Hansen returned to work with Bekins, but he left in 1976 to form his own furniture moving business in Santa Cruz, California. Bekins concluded upon review of the reports and analysis that Mr. Hansen was not in need of rehabilitation. The Bureau disagreed and ordered Bekins to refer Mr. Hansen to a qualified rehabilitation specialist and to pay the applicant temporary disability benefits while rehabilitation was underway.
Note:	There is a five year statute of limitations for requests for rehabilitation.
Citation:	137 Cal.App.3d 665, 47 CCC 1260
WCC Citation:	WCC 25031982 CA

Case Name:	Bell v. Samaritan Medical Clinic, Inc.		07/26/1976
Summary:	BELL as Administrative Director, etc. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SAMARITAN MEDICAL CLINIC, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Appellants (Opinion by Kane, J. , with Taylor, P. J. , and Rouse, J. , concurring. )As we shall explain, the answer to this inquiry is clearly "no. " We accordingly affirm the order of the trial court. Bell, as the Administrative Director of the Division of Industrial Accidents ("Director"), and the Workers' Compensation [60 Cal. App. 3d 488] Appeals Board ("Board") filed the present action to enjoin fn. Thus, under section 5307. 1, the Director is authorized -- after public hearings -- to adopt an official minimum medical fee schedule. We see no distinction in substance between the physician's rendition of treatment and medical reports and the rendition of legal services by the claimants' attorney.
Note:	Medical provider may not charge injured worker for any amount not covered by comp.
Citation:	60 CA 3d 486; 41 CCC 415
WCC Citation:	WCC 30251976 CA

Case Name:	Bell v. WCAB		03/10/1987
Summary:	Rosemary Bell, Applicant, and Blue Cross of California, Petitioner in Intervention v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and County of Los Angeles, Respondents On June 1, 1977, Rosemary Bell filed an application for workers' compensation benefits. Blue Cross paid for Bell's psychiatric treatment. On 6/21/78 a C&R was approved but Blue Cross had not filed its lien. Blue Cross filed its lien 10/16/78, but didn't file a Declaration of Readiness until 9/24/85. Blue Cross lost on Reconsideration, and its Petition for Writ of Review was denied.
Note:	Motion to set aside C&R by lien claimant barred by laches because claimant waited 7 years.
Citation:	52 CCC 72 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28781987 CA

Case Name:	Bell vs. Agee Construction		12/29/2004
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D043626 December 29, 2004 DOUGLAS BELL, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. GREG AGEE CONSTRUCTION, INC. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION Douglas Bell appeals from a summary judgment in favor of general contractor Greg Agee Construction, Inc. and its principal Greg Agee (collectively Agee) on Bell's complaint for personal injuries he sustained after a wall fell on him at his workplace. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2002, Bell, an employee of Kincaid Construction Co. (Kincaid), was working at a construction site when a gust of wind caused a framed wall to fall on him, injuring his back. Bell further alleged Agee should have recognized that the work of framing was likely to create a special risk of bodily harm to others unless special precautions were taken. Bell's Contentions In a series of arguments based on Privette's underlying policies and objectives, Bell contends Privette should not bar his claims against Agee.
Note:	Subcontractor's failure to maintain WC does not create liability for general contractor.
Citation:	125 Cal. App. 4th 453
WCC Citation:	WCC 30702004 CA

Case Name:	Bell-Sparrow v. Farmers Insurance Company		11/13/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ARLENE BELL-SPARROW, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. HG08373500) Arlene Bell-Sparrow (plaintiff) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Farmers Insurance Company (defendant or Farmers)*fn1 in this employment discrimination/wrongful termination action. In her briefing on appeal, plaintiff appears to be arguing that defendant used its "employment connection" with Insurance Recruitment Specialists to get her "black listed" in the insurance industry. Defendant's true name apparently is "Farmers Insurance Exchange. "However, for purposes of this lawsuit, its name is set forth as "Farmers Insurance Company. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Only if a plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case does the burden shift to the employer to present evidence showing it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action, which plaintiff here failed to do.
Citation:	A124481
WCC Citation:	WCC 35772009 CA

Case Name:	Belletich v. Carley		03/12/2008
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Beverly Belletich (plaintiff) filed a workers' compensation claim and a civil complaint against her employer Carley, LLC (Carley). On February 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a civil action against Carley in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. This [Release] settles all claim [sic] whether civil, administrative, federal, or state against defendants Carley LLC & State Farm. "*fn3 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 1, 2006, Carley filed a motion for summary judgment in plaintiff's civil action. the Court issued its order, granting the summary judgment, upon the ground that this matter was settled, compromised and release[d] in plaintiff's Workers' Compensation case, against Carley, L. L. C. [¶] Therefore, judgment is hereby rendered for defendant, Carley .
Note:	[Unpublished] The release language of the settlement agreement is not reasonably susceptible to the narrow interpretation urged by plaintiff. In such case, parole evidence is inadmissible and so, does not raise a triable issue of fact.
Citation:	B199968
WCC Citation:	WCC 33252008 CA

Case Name:	Beloud, Inc. v. WCAB		08/19/1975
Summary:	On June 29, 1970, applicant, then and thenceforth represented by petitioner, filed a petition to reopen the 1966 case alleging new and further disability. Reconsideration will be granted for this purpose and such further proceedings as the Board may thereafter determine to be appropriate. 'Accordingly, in 66 POM 5677 the Board ordered paid to applicant additional permanent disability of 11 1/4 percent equivalent to $2,362. 50. In WCAB Case No. 66 POM 5677, the applicant's indemnity award was $2,362. 50, and the attorney's fee allowed was $400. 00. In WCAB Case No. 70 POM 17979, the applicant's indemnity award equalled $8,190. 00, and the attorney's fee allowed was $850. 00.
Note:	WCAB exceeded authority by modifying attorneys fees without attorney notice and opportunity to be heard.
Citation:	50 Cal.App.3d 729, 40 CCC 505
WCC Citation:	WCC 26621975 CA

Case Name:	Bennett v. WCAB		04/03/1986
Summary:	William Bennett, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California; State of California, Department of Justice; and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Respondents. The medical evidence showed applicant had suffered a left ventricular hypertrophy with a thickening of the left ventricular wall. Bennett also suffered from a disability affecting the peripheral vascular areas and abdominal aorta caused by the advanced development of arteriosclerosis. The evidence reflected no causal connection between the left ventricular hypertrophy and the disability in the peripheral vascular areas. In his Petition for Writ of Review, Bennett argued that his peripheral vascular disability was 'heart trouble' within the meaning of Labor Code section 3212. 7.
Note:	Peripheral vascular disability was not 'heart trouble' within meaning of this section.
Citation:	51 CCC 139
WCC Citation:	WCC 4161986 CA

Case Name:	Benson v. The Permanente Medical Group		12/13/2007
Summary:	THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, Permissibly Self-Insured; ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). Applicant, Dianne Benson, began working as a file clerk for The Permanente Medical Group in April 1992. If there was no substantial medical evidence to justify separately assigning a percentage of permanent disability to either injury, apportionment was not permitted. Thus, each separate injury requires a separate analysis of the medical evidence to determine the causative sources of disability. Indeed, a medical report that fails to offer an opinion on apportionment of each separate injury cannot be considered substantial medical evidence to justify an award of permanent disability.
Note:	The rule in Wilkinson is not consistent with the new requirement that apportionment be based on causation and, therefore, Wilkinson is no longer generally applicable.
Citation:	72 CCC 1620
WCC Citation:	WCC 32892007 CA

Case Name:	Benson vs. WCAB		02/10/2009
Summary:	On July 15, 2003, Benson was placed on temporary total disability and did not return to work thereafter. On September 26, 2005, Benson was examined by Joseph Izzo, M. D. , who was acting as an agreed medical examiner (AME). The WCJ's combined award entitled Benson to a total of $67,016. 25, payable at $185 per week for 362. 25 weeks. Benson concedes that section 4663, subdivision (c), not only governs the physician's analysis, but also the Board's own apportionment determination. Benson does not argue that Dr. Izzo's opinion is speculative and we decline to address CAAA's argument to that effect.
Note:	Courts must separately rate successive injuries to the same body part that simultaneously become permanent and stationary.
Citation:	A120462
WCC Citation:	WCC 34902009 CA

Case Name:	Bentley v. IAC		07/31/1946
Summary:	BYRON R. BENTLEY, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, CHARLES T. MARTIN et al. , Respondents. COUNSEL Byron R. Bentley, in pro. [75 Cal. App. 2d 548] R. C. McKellips, Edward A. Sarkisian and John A. Rowe, Jr. , for Respondents. A writ was issued herein for review of an award of attorney's fees by the Industrial Accident Commission. Following the injury he suffered pains in the neck and violent headaches which came on at least every 24 hours.
Note:	Atty. fees not to be fixed; Bd. evaluation protects applicant, encourages representation.
Citation:	75 Cal.App.2d 547, 11 CCC 204
WCC Citation:	WCC 27171946 CA

Case Name:	Bergenstal v. WCAB		04/09/2001
Summary:	From September of 1991 to December of 1992, Doctors Bergenstal and Chaparro submitted reports regarding applicant's progress in therapy. In his January 20, 1993, letter to defendants, Doctor Bergenstal stated: 'I am the primary treating physician in this case. At the hearing of the disputed lien, Doctor Bergenstal was not represented by counsel. Although it would appear that Doctors Bergenstal and Chaparro have satisfied the supervision requirements of Business and Professions Code section 2913, no such finding has been made by the WCJ or the WCAB as the triers of fact. The matter is remanded to the WCAB for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion, to determine whether Doctor Bergenstal is entitled to compensation for the psychological treatment provided to applicant and the amount of any compensation.
Note:	Certain medical practitioners, who do not come within Labor Code section 3209.3, are authorized to provide services to an injured worker if the employer consents.
Citation:	45 Cal.App.4th 1272, 61 CCC 437
WCC Citation:	WCC 4092001 CA

Case Name:	Berkebile v. WCAB		06/20/1983
Summary:	VERA BERKEBILE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, Respondents. OPINION WOODS, P. J. Petitioner, Vera Berkebile, seeks review of the findings and annulment of an order determining that her claim for workers' compensation death benefits arising out of the death of Earl Berkebile was barred by the statute of limitations. Decedent, Earl Berkebile, the husband of petitioner and applicant, Vera Berkebile, was employed by the self-insured respondent Johns-Manville [144 Cal. App. 3d 942] Sales Corporation, formerly Johns-Manville Products Corporation, from July 13, 1934 to September 30, 1942. Earl Berkebile died on October 7, 1980. Thereafter, Vera Berkebile filed an application for workers' compensation death benefits on November 13, 1980 (case No. OAK 092588).
Note:	Widow's claim filed within 240 weeks of her first knowledge of illness was timely filed.
Citation:	144 Cal.App.3d 940, 48 CCC 438
WCC Citation:	WCC 25221983 CA

Case Name:	Betancourt v. WCAB		03/30/1971
Summary:	JESUS J. BETANCOURT, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. , Respondents; HOLLAND-AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Real Party in Interest (Opinion by Pierce, P. J. , with Regan, J. , and Bray, J. , concurring. )In this mandamus proceeding petitioner Betancourt seeks an order compelling the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board and/or its referee to comply with the provisions of rule 10832 of the board's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 1 On May 8, 1969, petitioner injured his hip while lifting lumber in the course of his employment. At this hearing two medical doctors representing the carrier, Gilbert Kucera, M. D. , an orthopedist, and Lyman Maass, M. D. , a neurosurgeon, filed reports. He does not believe that the applicant would have been able to continue working if he had not received the care. '
Note:	The Code provides for and authorizes chiropractic treatment.
Citation:	16 Cal.App.3d 408, 36 CCC 186
WCC Citation:	WCC 4111971 CA

Case Name:	Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n		07/30/1945
Summary:	No. 12902 July 30, 1945 BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY (A CORPORATION), PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION AND DANIEL E. SEAQUIST, RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for personal injuries. The ground floor was used by the company in carrying on the bond sales transactions with its employees. Prior to July 14, 1944, Seaquist had purchased some bonds under the above plan, but later had cancelled his subscription. 2d 377 [90 P. 2d 68]), and that any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the employee (Employers' etc. Corp. v. Industrial Acc. "The Bethlehem Steel Company handled the bookkeeping and clerical work involved in deducting the purchase price [70 CalApp2d Page 391] of the bonds from the payroll and the handling out of the bonds at the proper time .
Note:	Injuries compensable if employee injured while picking up bond at specified location.
Citation:	70 Cal. App. 2d 382
WCC Citation:	WCC 30481945 CA

Case Name:	Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. IAC		08/30/1951
Summary:	BETHLEHEM PACIFIC COAST STEEL CORP. (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al. , Respondents. In proceedings several years later he was given an award based on a rating of 10 1/4 per cent permanent disability. The second hearing was before a different referee and the rating was made by a different rating specialist. Chipman was injured while he and a fellow employee were unloading from a gondola car steel girders and trusses, and some miscellaneous iron. A girder, weighing about 1,875 pounds, which was being handled by a crane, caught on the edge of the car.
Note:	In reviewing award of IAC, questions not raised on application for rehearing won't be considered.
Citation:	106 Cal.App.2d 373, 16 CCC 210
WCC Citation:	WCC 26571951 CA

Case Name:	Betson v. Rite Aid Corp		11/27/2012
Summary:	BETSON v. RITE AID CORPORATION DOREEN BETSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. The jury found that Rite Aid did not inform anyone other than Betson that she had committed fraud, had stolen from Rite Aid, or had engaged in theft. She alleged that Rite Aid "falsely informed Betson that she was being terminated for stealing, knew that Betson would be forced to inform others of why Rite Aid claimed that she had been fired and in fact Betson told others what Rite Aid said to her. Betson claims she satisfied this requirement through the testimony of John Acosta, a Rite Aid district manager, in another case, Martinez v. Rite Aid (LASC Case No. BC401746). Rite Aid answered the first amended complaint as "Thrifty Payless, Inc. dba `Rite Aid' (erroneously sued herein as `Rite Aid Corporation') .
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that evidence of a supervisor's hostile treatment of an injured retail worker precluded summary judgment on the worker's claims of discrimination and retaliation for her disability and for taking medical leave.
Citation:	B235747
WCC Citation:	WCC 39522012 CA

Case Name:	Betsworth vs. WCAB		06/30/1994
Summary:	At this point (though the record is not exactly clear) Betsworth became upset and addressed Referee Flynn as "Madam Referee. "The applicant's attorney would later testify that Betsworth then said she "basically could not get a fair hearing on [the venue] issue. (In various declarations prior to the later contempt hearing, Betsworth denied ever using the words "fair hearing. ")As the attorneys were heading out the doorway Betsworth said, "this [is] another case that should be referred to the L. A. Referee Flynn then filed her formal accusation of contempt against Betsworth, but only after Betsworth had filed a petition requesting Referee Flynn's removal.
Note:	Discussion of contempt before WCJ.
Citation:	26 Cal.App.4th 586
WCC Citation:	WCC 29301994 CA

Case Name:	Beverly Hills Multispecialty Med. Grp. v. WCAB		07/07/1994
Summary:	BEVERLY HILLS MULTISPECIALTY GROUP, INC. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER et al. , Respondents. [26 Cal. App. 4th 792] OPINION CROSKEY, J. Petitioner, Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group, Inc. (BHMG), sought writs of review in 10 cases in which respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) affirmed orders denying BHMG's lien claims for medical treatment and medical-legal costs. Some of Mr. Jordan's testimony, while Mr. Lispi was outside the hearing room, concerned treatment that Mr. Jordan obtained at BHMG. After Mr. Lispi was allowed to return to the hearing room, he made two objections, both of which were sustained. He stated that BHMG's bills in the 10 cases totalled $157,906. 50 and that the total defense cost was $62,047. 49.
Note:	Lien claimants entitled to due process in work comp proceedings; failure to serve defense med. reports/notice of fraud allegations denies fair trial, is reversible per se.
Citation:	26 Cal.App.4th 789, 59 CCC 461
WCC Citation:	WCC 3961994 CA

Case Name:	Beverly Hilton Hotel, Hilton Hotels Corp. v. WCAB (Boganim)		08/26/2009
Summary:	Filed 8/26/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE BEVERLY HILTON HOTEL, HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and SAMSON BOGANIM, Respondents. A trial de novo was held at the local appeals board, and the Determination of the Rehabilitation Unit was upheld. After granting reconsideration, the Board, on October 7, 2008, affirmed the January 31, 2008, Findings and Award of the WCJ. is a statutory system enacted pursuant to a constitutional grant of power to the Legislature to establish a workers' compensation system. The system evolved from a voluntary program to one in which the employer had a statutory obligation to provide benefits to qualified workers.
Note:	Because the WCAB's decision was not a final determination of claimant's right to vocational rehabilitation benefits and because section 139.5 has been repealed, he is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits.
Citation:	B212205
WCC Citation:	WCC 35572009 CA

Case Name:	Bhandari v. 7-Eleven		01/09/2018
Summary:	Procedural History   Bhandari’s parents, plaintiffs and appellants Rajendra Bhandari and Deu Bhandari (plaintiffs), acting on behalf of Bhandari’s estate, sued defendants for negligence in October 2012. In a first amended complaint, plaintiffs allege D&D knew Bhandari was the principal witness in the criminal case against Frazier and that Bhandari was to testify against Frazier on the day he was killed. Bhandari also told Davinder he did not feel well and asked to go home, at which point Davinder “relieved Bhandari from his shift. ” Davinder said neither Bhandari nor anyone else ever told him Bhandari felt threatened or fearful for his safety. Davinder said he did not know what case Bhandari was talking about, nor did he know Bhandari had been in court to testify. He said Bhandari did not ask to go home; Bhandari left because he had finished the project he came in to complete.
Note:	The owners of a 7-Eleven could not have foreseen their employee getting shot dead outside the store on the day he was scheduled to testify against an accused robber
Citation:	B275219
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VC062208