Case Name:	Marin Schools Insurance Authority v. Schools Excess Liability Fund		07/11/2017
Summary:	Filed 7/11/17 Marin Schools Insurance Authority v. Schools Excess Liability Fund CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE .             MARIN SCHOOLS INSURANCE AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SCHOOLS EXCESS LIABILITY FUND, Defendant and Respondent. .             A145365 .             (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 26-62558) .             In this indemnity action, plaintiff Marin Schools Insurance Authority (MSIA) appeals the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment to defendant Schools Excess Liability Fund (SELF) and awarding fees. Current Lawsuit .           The Claim ultimately reached the excess coverage limit and when MSIA requested reimbursement from SELF, SELF refused.
Note:
Citation:	A145365
WCC Citation:	Napa County Super. Ct. No. 26-62558

Case Name:	Marine v. College of Sequoias		02/01/2012
Summary:	MARINE v. COLLEGE OF SEQUOIAS ROSALINDA MARINE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COLLEGE OF THE SEQUOIAS, Defendant and Respondent. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 415, 431; Burden v. Snowden (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 556, 562. )Collateral Estoppel Collateral estoppel, which is also known as issue preclusion, "prevents `relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings. 'The administrative decision included findings that the evidence established Castillo's continued unsatisfactory attendance and failure to improve, and Castillo's discharge was appropriate. Initially we note that we need not determine whether a community college district is a "school district" exempted from the provisions of section 1094. 6.
Note:	A college employee fired after getting into a fight with a co-worker's sister and being tried for assault with a deadly weapon could not challenge her termination, but she could pursue her claims of retaliation and discrimination based on her request for accommodation of her disabilities.
Citation:	F061765
WCC Citation:	WCC 38532012 CA

Case Name:	Marinwood Community Services v. WCAB (Ramos)		03/29/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/29/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             MARINWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, RAMOS et al. , Respondents. .             A147582 .             (WCAB No. ADJ8778127) .             Petitioner Marinwood Fire Protection District, also known as Marinwood Community Services, Inc. (Marinwood), seeks to set aside the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) holding that firefighter Pete Romo was entitled to the benefit of the rebuttable presumption under Labor Code section 3212. 11 that his cancer arose out of his employment. .           Volunteer positions with Marinwood were sought after by those who wanted to become firefighters, and the hiring process was competitive. .           The WCJ and WCAB rejected Marinwood’s interpretation and embraced Romo’s. .           We concur .           KLINE, P. J. .           RICHMAN, J.
Note:
Citation:	A147582
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ8778127

Case Name:	Market Basket v. WCAB		10/31/1978
Summary:	MARKET BASKET, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JUANITA ALLEN, Respondents. OPINION HANSON, J. Petitioner Market Basket contends that the appeals board erred in finding respondent Juanita Allen sustained psychiatric disability as the result of her admitted industrial injury while employed by Market Basket and that if substantial evidence does support such finding then the appeals board erred in not apportioning the psychiatric disability. Facts On March 21, 1975, Allen sustained an admitted injury arising out of and occurring in the course of her employment for Market Basket as a grocery checker. Market Basket obtained a psychiatric evaluation from Carl E. Graner, M. D. Market Basket then petitioned for reconsideration by the board.
Note:	Physician's report defective where no reference to preexisting psychiatric condition.
Citation:	86 Cal.App.3d 137, 43 CCC 1186
WCC Citation:	WCC 28081978 CA

Case Name:	Marquez v. Novellus Systems		02/23/2009
Summary:	Filed 2/23/09 Marquez v. Novellus Systems CA6 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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MIGUEL ANGEL MARQUEZ, et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Ct. No. CV074284) In this wrongful death action based on premises liability, defendant Novellus Systems, Inc. (Novellus) obtained summary judgment on the ground that the decedent was the employee of a contractor Novellus had hired to work on its property. In October 2004 Novellus retained ArborScience, Inc. to trim and cut trees on property owned by Novellus. Novellus provided a declaration by John Blanchette, the facilities manager at Novellus, who had hired ArborScience to do the tree-trimming work on the Novellus property.
Note:	A property owner is not liable to a dead tree trimmer's estate because it did not owe him a duty to protect him from a wood chipper.
Citation:	H033103
WCC Citation:	WCC 34982009 CA

Case Name:	Marquez v. WCAB		07/28/1995
Summary:	Richard Marquez Painting et al. , Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Robert Moore, Respondents. Injury 1 (FRE 125670) On February 22, 1990, the 28-year-old Moore was working for Richard Marquez Painting (Marquez) when he picked up a one hundred pound sand pot. 'Marquez was insured by Transamerica Insurance Company (Transamerica). Procedural Facts On or about August 19, 1993, Moore filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim for his February 22, 1990, Marquez injury (FRE 125670). Marquez was not Moore's employer at the time of the August 28, 1991, Kious injury, and was not a co-defendant' in FRE 112615.
Note:	Lien not allowed for overpaid disability benefits against subsequent employer comp. payments.
Citation:	60 CCC 711
WCC Citation:	WCC 25061995 CA

Case Name:	Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Sup. Crt.		06/29/1989
Summary:	The Agency utilizes a self-insured workers' compensation program and retains Marsh & McLennan, Inc. , as its independent claims administrator. Truck, a workers' compensation carrier, hired Baker, a private investigator, to evaluate the extent of the plaintiff's work-related back injury. [7a] Mrs. Silvestri bases her claim against Marsh & McLennan on Unruh, relying extensively on Dill v. Claims Admin. The trial court in the instant case similarly sustained Marsh & McLennan's demurrer to Mrs. Silvestri's cause of action under section 790. 03. Three) that denied Marsh & McLennan's petition for writ relief reversed its position 10 months later in Schlick, supra, 196 Cal. App. 3d 974.
Note:	No private cause of action against a TPA; other legislative remedies apply.
Citation:	49 Cal.3d 1, 54 CCC 265
WCC Citation:	WCC 23791989 CA

Case Name:	Marsh v. WCAB (Bostitch)		06/28/2005
Summary:	Stanley Marsh (Marsh) petitions this court to review the lawfulness of an opinion of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In November 2001, Marsh timely petitioned the WCAB to reopen his disability claim by alleging the industrial injury caused new and further disability. Marsh contends the WCAB exceeded its powers by remanding the matter to the WCJ to determine whether SB 899 applied under the express terms of the legislation. Marsh's claim that a WCJ's decision is final before the WCAB has issued its decision on reconsideration clearly contravenes the statutory scheme permitting WCAB reconsideration. Meanwhile, we conclude that a WCAB determination is "final" for purposes of considering apportionment under SB 899 once the WCAB has issued a final judgment and the appellate process has been exhausted.
Note:	Apportionment under SB 899 applies to cases pending reconsideration.
Citation:	130 Cal.App.4th 906
WCC Citation:	WCC 31052005 CA

Case Name:	Martin v. General Dynamics		03/10/2009
Summary:	Filed 3/10/09 Martin v. General Dynamics CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE 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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO BERENICHE MARTIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND*fn1 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Dynamics company, is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling and servicing high-end aircraft. In October 2004, Gulfstream settled appellant"s workers" compensation claim by payment of $100,000 in exchange for a compromise and release. The Arbitrator"s decision is the exclusive remedy for Covered Claims and is final and binding on the Company and Employee. "
Note:	Arbitrator did not exceed his authority in finding no wrongful termination after workers' compensation settlement.
Citation:	B205706
WCC Citation:	WCC 35042009 CA

Case Name:	Martinez v. Combs		05/20/2010
Summary:	MIGUEL MARTINEZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CORKY N. COMBS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Anastassiou & Associates, Jane E. Bednar and Effie F. Anastassiou for Defendant and Respondent Apio, Inc. Western Growers Law Group, Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss and Terrence R. O'Connor for Defendants and Respondents Corky N. Combs and Larry D. Combs dba Combs Distribution Co. , and Juan Ruiz. Plaintiffs are seasonal agricultural workers whom Munoz employed during the 2000 strawberry season: Antonio Perez Cortes, Catarino Cortez, Otilio Cortez, Asuncion Cruz, Hilda Martinez and Miguel Martinez. The remaining defendants are two of the produce merchants through whom Munoz sold strawberries: Apio, Inc. (Apio), and Combs Distribution Co. , together with its principals, Corky and Larry Combs, and its field representative Juan Ruiz (collectively Combs). Combs sent defendant Juan Ruiz, who performed similar services for many entities and whom Combs eventually hired as an employee in June 2000.
Note:	Two produce merchants did not have an employer-employee relationship with seasonal agricultural workers, according to a California Supreme Court decision requiring a detailed interpretation of Labor Code 1194.
Citation:	S121552
WCC Citation:	WCC 36272010 CA

Case Name:	Martinez v. Taco Bell Corp.		04/05/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             REYNA MARTINEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             TACO BELL CORP. , Defendant and Respondent. .             G052170 .             (Super. INTRODUCTION .           Reyna Martinez sued her former employer Taco Bell Corp. (Taco Bell) for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. FACTS3  .           In 2002, Taco Bell hired Martinez as a lab technician. .           At oral argument, Martinez argued that Taco Bell regarded her as disabled as evidenced by their granting her leaves from work and benefits.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a worker could not proceed with her disability discrimination claims against her former employer, since she failed to prove she had a mental disability or that she was fired because of it.
Citation:	G052170
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00640924

Case Name:	Martinez v. WCAB		11/15/2000
Summary:	Although Martinez [84 Cal. App. 4th 1081] had timely requested VR, the WCAB concluded benefits were barred by the statute of limitations. Martinez maintains that jurisdiction for VR benefits continues once properly established, absent an intervening contrary order by the WCAB. After a petition for reconsideration by Hughes was denied by the WCAB and the decision became final, Martinez requested VR by letter to Hughes dated June 4, 1998. In a letter dated November 24, 1998, Career Works indicated authorization had been given to recontact Martinez regarding VR. Martinez petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration.
Note:	Resumption of VR valid where 'initial' request for VR was timely, services placed on hold but not terminated.
Citation:	84 Cal.App.4th 1079
WCC Citation:	WCC 27912000 CA

Case Name:	Martinez v. WCAB		11/15/2000
Summary:	Although Martinez [84 Cal. App. 4th 1081] had timely requested VR, the WCAB concluded benefits were barred by the statute of limitations. Martinez maintains that jurisdiction for VR benefits continues once properly established, absent an intervening contrary order by the WCAB. After a petition for reconsideration by Hughes was denied by the WCAB and the decision became final, Martinez requested VR by letter to Hughes dated June 4, 1998. In a letter dated November 24, 1998, Career Works indicated authorization had been given to recontact Martinez regarding VR. Martinez petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration.
Note:	Jurisdiction for VR benefits continues once properly established.
Citation:	84 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 65 CCC 1253
WCC Citation:	WCC 3622000 CA

Case Name:	Martinez vs. CA Building System		02/22/2005
Summary:	OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow time to study the record and applicable law. Because of the important legal issue presented concerning the meaning and application of Senate Bill (SB) 899 (Stats. We define "final" as a decision where appellate rights have been exhausted prior to April 19, 2004. Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury on October 19, 2000, when he fell approximately fifteen to twenty feet from a roof. Among other issues, the presumption of correctness of the primary treating physician under section 4062. 9 was raised.
Note:	Repeal of PTP presumption in 4062.9 applies regardless of date of injury.
Citation:	70 CCC XXX (2005)
WCC Citation:	WCC 30822005 CA

Case Name:	Martinez vs. Jack Neal & Son, Inc.		07/27/2004
Summary:	In the WCJ's decision, it was found that applicant, Jose L. Martinez ("applicant"), sustained industrial injury to his low back and psyche on August 13, 1999, while employed as a heavy equipment operator by Jack Neal & Son, Inc. On October 4, 2000, Dr. McCarthy's office faxed Fremont a request to authorize the surgery, together with supporting documentation. On October 31, 2000, applicant was evaluated by Donald L. Trauner, M. D. , as Fremont's qualified medical evaluator ("QME") in orthopedics. On November 14, 2000, Dr. Trauner issued a report agreeing with Dr. McCarthy that "decompression of [applicant's] offending disc would be in order. "On December 6, 2000, applicant's counsel wrote Fremont to again request authorization for the surgery recommended by Dr. McCarthy.
Note:	CIGA not liable for 5814 penalties of insolvent carrier.
Citation:	69 CCC 775; En Banc
WCC Citation:	WCC 30172004 CA

Case Name:	Marvel v. Superior Ready Mix Concrete		03/13/2008
Summary:	Filed 3/13/08 Marvel v. Superior Ready Mix Concrete CA4/1 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). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DAVID K. MARVEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE, Defendant and Respondent. David K. Marvel appeals a judgment in favor of his former employer, Superior Ready Mix Concrete, L. P. (Superior), in this action by him against it for invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress and defamation. Thereafter, Geyman filed written opposition to the sanctions motion, as did Marvel, and Marvel filed written opposition to the summary judgment motion. Thereafter, Superior apparently withdrew the sanctions motion and the court entered judgment in Superior's favor in November 2006.
Note:	[Unpublished] Rule 3-700(C)(1)(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically allows an attorney to seek to withdraw where the client insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by [a] good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
Citation:	D050114
WCC Citation:	WCC 33262008 CA

Case Name:	Mason v. Case		09/13/1963
Summary:	TED MASON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JACK CASE et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Kattenhorn discussed the job with Mason and showed him the location of a sectional ladder which Mason could use in the course of his work. Mason was present when Moore received his instructions and knew that Moore was simply told to 'give him a hand. 'Mason testified that he assumed Moore was holding the ladder, Moore had not held the ladder when Mason had climbed it previously, and Mason had not instructed him to do so. He points out that if the ladder was placed on spilled oil and filings, it was Mason who directed its placement at that point, Mason who selected the ladder without overhangs from the two sections available to him, Mason who could have directed Moore to hold the base of the ladder.
Note:	2801 may apply where employer failed to secure compensation or employment is outside of work comp.
Citation:	220 Cal.App.2d 170, 28 CCC 293
WCC Citation:	WCC 3891963 CA

Case Name:	Mason vs. Lake Dolores Group		04/09/2004
Summary:	JAMES MASON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LAKE DOLORES GROUP, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION KING, J. - INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant, James Mason (Mason), was rendered a paraplegic after he rode down a water slide and crashed into the dam at the end of the slide. The accident occurred at a water park owned and operated by Mason's employer, defendant and respondent, Lake Dolores Group, LLC (LDG). Mason said he went down the Doo Wop Super Drop because "[i]t was the fastest and it was my favorite. "The park's employee manual stated, "'Neither Lake Dolores nor the insurance carrier will be liable for the payment of Worker's Compensation benefits for injuries that occur during an employee's voluntary participation in any off-duty recreation, social or athletic activity sponsored by the Lake Dolores Resort. "
Note:	Injury that occurs after reporting to work but before 'clocking in' is not AOE/COE.
Citation:	117 Cal.App.4th 822
WCC Citation:	WCC 29832004 CA

Case Name:	Massey v. WCAB		07/12/1993
Summary:	1 On April 21, 1988, the decedent's widow, Paulette Thompson, applied for death benefits on behalf of herself, her son, Martin Massey (Massey), who was born on December 15, 1967, and her two older daughters, born in January 1963 and July 1964, respectively. Massey and his two sisters were all alleged to be the dependent stepchildren of the decedent. The WCJ agreed with that argument and awarded death benefits to Massey only. On petition for reconsideration, filed by the employer's insurer, State Compensation Insurance Fund, the WCJ's award was vacated by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 57, 62 [216 Cal. Rptr. 115, 702 P. 2d 197]; Antonucci v. W. C. A. B. (U. S. Steel) (1990) 133 Pa. Commw.
Note:	Death benefits apply regardless of whether child is a minor or an adult.
Citation:	5 Cal.4th 674, 58 CCC 367
WCC Citation:	WCC 25241993 CA

Case Name:	Matea v. WCAB, The Home Depot (modified 12/12/2006)		11/21/2006
Summary:	H029661 (WCAB No. SJO 228156) INTRODUCTION Petitioner Aaron Matea sustained an admitted industrial injury when a rack of lumber fell on his left leg. Matea has filed a timely petition for writ of review, contending that the Board erred when it reversed the WCJ's findings. BACKGROUND Facts Eighteen-year-old Matea began working for The Home Depot in July 2001. The Home Depot further claimed that the issue as to the applicability of section 3208. 3 was raised in its pre-trial statement. [] In asserting that his injury was 'sudden and extraordinary' in this case, [Matea] misinterprets the [Wal-Mart] Court's language in footnote 9.
Note:	Lumber falling from a rack in a store crushing the injured worker's leg was a 'sudden and extraordinary' event that caused compensable emotional injury under LC 3208.3 even though employment was less than 6 months.
Citation:	144 Cal. App. 4th 1435
WCC Citation:	WCC 31942006 CA