Case Name:	Early Calif. Foods v. WCAB		02/21/1991
Summary:	Early California Foods, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and Mike Ellis, Respondents Mike Ellis filed an application for adjudication of claim on December 17, 1987, claiming max earnings. Early California, by Argonaut Insurance Co. , filed an amended answer on December 23, 1988 but never contested earnings. Argonaut, Early California's comp carrier, was not allowed at trial to present any evidence on the issue of credit for overpayment of temporary disability at an incorrect rate. Early California sought Reconsideration, which was denied by the WCAB because the employer should know what its employees earnings were. You are counseled to consult the full case for an accurate citation.
Note:	Issues not raised in defendant's Answer may be deemed waived.
Citation:	56 CCC 137
WCC Citation:	WCC 3541991 CA

Case Name:	Eby v. Idustrial Accident Comm'n		11/20/2011
Summary:	KATHERINE EBY et al. , Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al. , Respondents. After the accident two hammers and a wrecking bar about three feet in length were found in the automobile of the deceased. There is nothing in the record to show whether these tools belonged to the deceased or belonged to his employer. In the instant case it does not appear that the accident happened while the deceased was on any errand in the course of his employment. The question is wholly one of whether or not the evidence supports the finding of the Commission.
Note:	Evidence supports determination that injury was not in course and scope of employment despite presence of tools in employee's car.
Citation:	75 Cal.App. 280
WCC Citation:	WCC 30442025 CA

Case Name:	Edgar v. WCAB		11/28/1966
Summary:	DUANE EDGAR, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES et al. , Respondents. Petitioner, a truck driver, sustained an admitted industrial injury to his left knee and back on July 14, 1964. On March 29, 1965, he filed a claim asserting that temporary disability continued and that he was in need of medical treatment. From that time to the date of the final hearing of the matter on March 15, 1966, he did not work. The minutes of the hearing show that petitioner was the only witness and that certain medical records were received in evidence.
Note:	Applicant has right to produce evidence to explain or rebut medical reports.
Citation:	246 Cal.App.2d 660, 31 CCC 376
WCC Citation:	WCC 25741966 CA

Case Name:	Edgar v. WCAB		11/28/1966
Summary:	DUANE EDGAR, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES et al. , Respondents. Petitioner, a truck driver, sustained an admitted industrial injury to his left knee and back on July 14, 1964. On March 29, 1965, he filed a claim asserting that temporary disability continued and that he was in need of medical treatment. From that time to the date of the final hearing of the matter on March 15, 1966, he did not work. The minutes of the hearing show that petitioner was the only witness and that certain medical records were received in evidence.
Note:	Applicant has right to produce evidence to explain or rebut medical reports.
Citation:	246 Cal.App.2d 660
WCC Citation:	WCC 25771966 CA

Case Name:	Edgar v. WCAB (CHP)		06/24/1998
Summary:	OPINION NARES, J. - Petitioner Douglas Edgar (Edgar) seeks review of a decision of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Edgar was placed on leave of absence with one year of full salary under former section 4800, fn. In July 1997, WCAB issued its opinion and decision after reconsideration, rescinding the decision of the WCJ. WCAB found that CHP, in calculating the vocational rehabilitation benefits it was required to provide to Edgar, was entitled to include the weekly sum of $246 for the weeks Edgar was both receiving full leave of absence salary under former section 4800, and participating in vocational rehabilitation. WCAB concluded that CHP paid a portion of the salary benefits to Edgar in lieu of VRMA, and thus a portion of the salary 'must be included in the amounts used to calculate the cap on vocational rehabilitation benefits. '
Note:	Full leave of absence salary for 1 yr. was not in lieu of vocational rehabilation.
Citation:	65 Cal.App.4th 1, 63 CCC 703
WCC Citation:	WCC 26731998 CA

Case Name:	Edward Carey Construction Co. v. State Fund		03/25/2011
Summary:	EDWARD CAREY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Appellant Edward Carey Construction Co. (CCC) appeals from a judgment of dismissal, entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) without leave to amend. CCC relies on Security Officers Service, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 887 (Security Officers), and its progeny, including MacGregor Yacht Corporation v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 448 (MacGregor Yacht). "First, and most importantly, State Fund ha[d] not denied Tilbury any benefits due to Tilbury under the insurance policy. SCIF's reliance on Charles J. Vacanti, M. D. , Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 800 (Vacanti), is misplaced.
Note:	A corporation may sue State Fund for a bad faith denial of benefits, despite the fact that the alleged bad faith damages arose from a claim filed by the employee/owner of the corporation.
Citation:	A128047
WCC Citation:	WCC 37372011 CA

Case Name:	Elayne Valdez v. Warehouse Demo Services		04/20/2011
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. ADJ7048296 ELAYNE VALDEZ, Applicant, vs. OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) WAREHOUSE DEMO SERVICES; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, Adjusted by ESIS, Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant Elayne Valdez filed a claim for industrial injury to her back, right hip, neck, right ankle, right foot, right lower extremity, lumbar spine and both knees, while employed as a demonstrator for Warehouse Demo Services on October 7, 2009. While the WCJ deferred the issue of MPN, he nevertheless rejected defendants argument that reports of non-MPN doctors are inadmissible. An MPN is established by an employer or insurer subject to the approval of the administrative director (AD). 8, 9762. 1 through 9762. 3. ) The statutory and regulatory scheme also imposes several other obligations upon both the insurer/employer and the injured worker.
Note:	California workers' compensation judges may not admit as evidence reports from doctors who are not a part of the employer's medical provider network if that MPN was validly established and properly noticed.
Citation:	ADJ7048296
WCC Citation:	WCC 37512011 CA

Case Name:	Eliapo v. SCI California Funeral Services		07/17/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ESTHER ELIAPO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SCI CALIFORNIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION On September 9, 2002, plaintiff Esther Eliapo drove across town on an errand for her employer, defendant Oak Hill Improvement Company (Oak Hill). G. The Motion to Tax Costs The trial court awarded costs to Oak Hill and the related entity, SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. , both of which were represented by one attorney and were treated as a single defendant during trial. Rules of Court, rule 3. 1700(a)(1)), and since the caption on the memorandum of costs filed in this case lists only SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. , Oak Hill is not entitled to costs. SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. , is a related entity.
Note:	[Unpublished] Since plaintiff obtained no recovery in this case, the trial court had discretion to award expert fees as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure section 998.
Citation:	H031761
WCC Citation:	WCC 35442009 CA

Case Name:	Elijahjuan et al. v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County		10/17/2012
Summary:	Hireem Elijahjuan et al. v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. B234794 /17/2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT HIREEM ELIJAHJUAN ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, RESPONDENT; MIKE CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES, LTD. , ET AL. , REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. In contrast, here the court stayed litigation on the alleged violations of the Unfair Business Practices Act. "An appellate court has discretion to treat a purported appeal from a non-appealable order as a petition for writ of mandate. "(Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 83, 97; Truly Nolen of America v. Superior Court (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 487, 498. )If the trial court were to conclude that the arbitration provision is not unconscionable, then I would order the trial court to reinstate the order compelling arbitration.
Note:	A trial court judge erred in directing a dispute between four workers and their employer based on their alleged misclassification as independent contractors to arbitration, since the terms of the agreement that some of the workers had signed only compelled arbitration for disputes regarding the application or interpretation of that agreement.
Citation:	B234794
WCC Citation:	WCC 39432012 CA

Case Name:	Elliot v. WCAB		02/25/2010
Summary:	After this matter became fully briefed, the WCAB issued its en banc decision in Cervantes v. El Aguila Food Products, Inc. (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 1336 (Cervantes), explicitly denouncing the Brasher holding relied on by the WCAB in this case. The WCAB agreed with respondents, granted reconsideration and rescinded the workers' compensation judge's order directing respondents to authorize the spinal surgery. Pointedly, the Cervantes court acknowledges that in the present case, the WCAB panel had followed the repudiated Brasher holding which the entire board, including the panelists deciding Elliott's case, now rejects. Unlike en banc decisions of the WCAB, significant panel decisions are not binding precedent in workers' compensation proceedings. However, the WCAB does deem them to be of "significant interest and importance to the workers' compensation community. "
Note:	The spinal surgery second opinion process commences after utilization review has denied the requested spinal surgery.
Citation:	A125585
WCC Citation:	WCC 36022010 CA