Case Name:	State of CA v. WCAB (Butterworth)		01/31/1980
Summary:	In these three consolidated cases the petitioner, State of California, Department of Industrial Relations (hereafter State), challenges the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (hereafter WCAB) determination that parents of deceased workers are dependents entitled to death benefits. By virtue of this section the State claims entitlement to death benefits resulting from the deaths of the stewardesses. The State contests the award to the parents, contending that the parents have failed to establish partial dependency, thus entitling the State to the benefits. Since the State has failed to prove that it is entitled to benefits, we affirm the decision of the WCAB. Initially, of course, as we have held, the Legislature placed the burden upon the State; therefore, the State must meet the burden, however difficult.
Note:	State has burden of proving the deceased employee did not leave surviving anyone entitled to dependency death benefits.
Citation:	101 Cal.App.3d 673
WCC Citation:	WCC 24641980 CA

Case Name:	State of CA v. WCAB (Ellison)		04/03/1996
Summary:	Facts Nature of Order The order in question was made in connection with a grant of reconsideration by the Board at the request of the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) and the state agency employer of the injured state worker. The state insures against its liability for compensation with SCIF pursuant to certain provisions of the Insurance Code. Code, §§ 11870, 11871, 11873; and see § 3700 ['Every employer except the state shall secure the payment of compensation . . . . ']. )The injured state worker, Shirley Ellison, was a correctional officer employed by the State Department of Corrections at the R. J. Donovan Correctional facility. Section 5814. 5 applies only to political subdivisions of the state, not the state itself.
Note:	WCAB jurisdiction to impose penalty for delay in pmt. of State's industrial disability indemnity.
Citation:	44 Cal.App.4th 128
WCC Citation:	WCC 24461996 CA

Case Name:	Steller v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.		10/14/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX d Civil No. B219935 October 14, 2010 WENDY ANN STELLER, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. , DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Wendy Ann Steller appeals from the judgment enforcing a settlement agreement between her and respondent, Sears Holdings Management Companys. The offer was made in the civil action and does not expressly mention the workers' compensation action. In June 2009 appellant filed a section 664. 6 motion for entry of a $95,000 judgment in the disability discrimination action. Respondent filed a cross-motion for entry of a judgment specifying "that the offer represents the settlement of [appellant's] .
Note:	When two parties seek to settle a civil action and a workers' compensation claim at a superior court settlement conference, the settlement must be conditioned upon the approval of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B219935
WCC Citation:	WCC 36792010 CA

Case Name:	Stephany L. Kramer v. Turner Construction Company		12/13/2010
Summary:	STEPHANY L. KRAMER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Stephany L. Kramer is an electrician who was employed by a subcontractor on a construction project managed by defendant Turner Construction Company (Turner) as the general contractor. Kramer also sued Turner for her injury upon allegations that the general contractor's acts and omissions affirmatively contributed to the accident. Turner was the general contractor on a construction project at Laguna Honda Hospital in San Francisco. Turner did not tell Rosendin where to place the gang box, nor did Turner make any suggestions about its placement.
Note:	A general contractor is not responsible for injuries sustained by a subcontractor's employee while retrieving personal protective equipment because the general contractor did not control where the container with the equipment was located, California's First District Court of Appeals.
Citation:	A128063
WCC Citation:	WCC 36912010 CA

Case Name:	Stephens v. County of Tulare		05/25/2006
Summary:	05/25/2006) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA No. S129794 May 25, 2006 JOHN STEPHENS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. COUNTY OF TULARE ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Ct. App. 5 F044123 Tulare County Super. Attorneys for Respondent: Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, Ron Rezac, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Crystal E. Sullivan, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel (Tulare) and James G. Line, Deputy County Counsel, for Tulare County Employees' Retirement Association as Amicus Curie on behalf of Defendants and Respondents. Facts John Stephens began working for the Tulare County Sheriff-Coroner as a detention specialist III in December 1994. Stephens applied for a disability retirement with the Tulare County Employees' Retirement Association (TCERA) on November 18, 1998.
Note:	Dismissal of government employee under Government Code 31725 following industrial injuries requires severance of the employment relationship.
Citation:	38 Cal. 4th 793
WCC Citation:	WCC 31582006 CA

Case Name:	Stephenson vs. Argonaut Ins. Co.		12/23/2004
Summary:	Plaintiff Fred Stephenson, the trustee of Commercial Conservancy No. 1, is now doing business as Enniss (hereinafter collectively referred to as plaintiff). Plaintiff sued its general liability insurer, two insurance brokerages, an insurance agent, plus defendant Argonaut Insurance Company, its workers' compensation carrier. But in early 1998, Clarendon withdrew its defense predicated "on the basis that Guardado was a leased worker and . Defendant rejected this tender, in part, because "the Argonaut Policy does not include a duty to defend the Action. "Ultimately, Guardado recovered a $1. 75 million default judgment against plaintiff due to plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery orders.
Note:	Employer cannot recover civil damages against its workers'
Citation:	125 Cal. App. 4th 962
WCC Citation:	WCC 30722004 CA

Case Name:	Steward v. Board of Trustees of CSU		03/21/2013
Summary:	STEWARD v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORMA STEWARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Norma Steward appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University (CSU). Steward's husband died from injuries he incurred as a result of the accident, and Steward suffered physical and emotional injuries. Procedural background Steward filed a complaint against Guseman and CSU on July 6, 2010, alleging a single cause of action for negligence. On December 5, 2011, the trial court entered a minute order granting judgment in favor of CSU.
Note:	A college dean's car accident, which resulted in the death of a pedestrian, while he was on his way to breakfast with a former colleague was not within the course and scope of his employment.
Citation:	D061558
WCC Citation:	WCC 39952013 CA

Case Name:	Stoddard vs. Western Employers Ins. Co.		04/12/1988
Summary:	JEFFREY STODDARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WESTERN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents (Opinion by Work, Acting P. J. , with Todd and Benke, JJ. , concurring. )Alleging damages from what he considered unreasonable delays in resolving his workers' compensation claims, Jeffrey Stoddard sued his employer's insurers, Western Employers Insurance Company (Western) and The Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers), for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Insurance Code section 790. 03, subdivision (h). Stoddard reported this information to Western and Hamasaka. On October 7, 1981, a coemployee at S. J. Grove & Sons grabbed Stoddard around the waist and accidentally severely twisted his back. Stoddard did obtain an attorney, but both Western and the workers' compensation carrier for S. J. Grove & Sons, Travelers, refused to extend benefits.
Note:	Refusal to pay benefits does not take matter out of exclusive remedy bargain of workers' compensation.
Citation:	200 Cal.App.3d 165
WCC Citation:	WCC 29941988 CA

Case Name:	Stoilkov v. Yin		04/09/2018
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 TWO .             ALEXANDRE STOILKOV, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             YONG CHA YIN et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             E066573 .             (Super. Ct. No. CIVRS1305829) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Stoilkov asserted N&C Trucking owned the semi in which Stoilkov was sleeping at the time of the accident and therefore had a duty toward Stoilkov akin to a property owner, in the nature of premises liability. .           The trial court explained that Stoilkov was performing a work-related task for N&C Trucking at the time of the accident because the point of having Yim and Stoilkov in the semi was so that the semi could continue moving while either Yim or Stoilkov slept in the semi. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS .           MILLER Acting P. J.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the dismissal of an injured truck driver’s tort claims against his employer and co-employee seeking damages for injuries from a motor vehicle accident.
Citation:	E066573
WCC Citation:	Super.Ct.No. CIVRS1305829

Case Name:	Stokes v. Patton State Hospital / Department of Mental Health / State of California		07/09/2007
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SBR 0311485 KIMBERLY STOKES, Applicant, vs. PATTON STATE HOSPITAL / DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH / STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant, OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER OF POMONA, Lien Claimant. Thus, the corporation, Pomona Surgery Center, Inc. , was not utilizing its corporate name but a fictitious business name. LICENSURE AND ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS The Legislature has determined that quality assurance is needed to ensure that outpatient surgical centers are safe and effective. However, there is a potential distinction between a "clinic" and an "outpatient setting" for purposes of licensure and accreditation. (e) Any health facility licensed as a general acute care hospital under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250).
Note:	To determine if a fictitious-name permit from the Medical Board is required it is necessary to distinguish between a 'clinic' that directly provides medical treatment and an 'outpatient setting' that does not.
Citation:	72 CCC 996
WCC Citation:	WCC 32342007 CA

Case Name:	Stress Care, Inc. v. WCAB		06/20/1994
Summary:	STRESS CARE, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, NELSON DYEING AND FINISHING et al. , Respondents. We conclude that, because Dr. Moradi and Stress Care are not physicians, the WCJ erred in finding that they violated Labor Code section 4628. The report was prepared on the letterhead of Stress Care, Inc. , a corporation solely owned by Dr. Moradi. A clinical psychologist at Stress Care later prepared a report regarding psychological tests given to Mr. Macias. Both reports were submitted in Mr. Macias's workers' compensation proceeding, and Stress Care filed a lien claim in the amount of $4,830.
Note:	4628 requirements/penalties do not apply if not a 'physician'.
Citation:	26 Cal.App.4th 909
WCC Citation:	WCC 3991994 CA

Case Name:	Strong v. City & County of San Francisco		10/26/2005
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SFO 0479038 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) JACK C. STRONG, Applicant, vs. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Jack C. Strong (applicant) sustained a series of industrial injuries while employed as a stationary engineer by the City and County of San Francisco (defendant). On December 8, 1999, a stipulated award issued, which found that this left knee injury caused permanent disability of 34-œ%. Applicant had another industrial injury on February 12, 1999, to his left shoulder, left knee, left ankle, and right wrist. At that time, the Legislature adopted former section 4750, whose language was substantially similar to the 1929 law, supra.
Note:	Apportionment for permanent disabilities to the same body region required only where the applicant fails to disprove overlap.
Citation:	70 CCC 1460
WCC Citation:	WCC 31292005 CA

Case Name:	Suarez v. Pacific Northstar Mechanical, Inc.		12/18/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR No. A121349 December 18, 2009 MIGUEL SUAREZ ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. PACIFIC NORTHSTAR MECHANICAL, INC. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2005, appellants Miguel Suarez and Luis Avila were working for a construction company called All Bay Contractors, Inc. (All Bay). All Bay hired respondent Pacific Northstar Mechanical, Inc. (PNM) as a subcontractor to install only the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) components of the project. Unbeknownst to Suarez, the light fixture that was hanging from the I-bolt he grabbed was the ungrounded fixture. When Suarez grabbed the I-bolt, he immediately received an electric shock, fell off the ladder, and landed on Avila, resulting in injuries to both men.
Note:	Cal-OSHA statutes created a statutory duty of care for a subcontractor to warn a general contractor about a dangerous electric hazard that caused two workers to suffer severe injuries.
Citation:	A121349
WCC Citation:	WCC 35872009 CA

Case Name:	Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission and Lois A. Patterson		05/29/1952
Summary:	2d 83; 244 P. 2d 889 May 29, 1952 SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION AND LOIS A. PATTERSON, RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for personal injuries. Schauer [39 Cal2d Page 84] The Issues Involved The Subsequent Injuries Fund of the State of California seeks review of an award of the Industrial Accident Commission. The Industrial Accident Commission is to fix and award the amount of the last mentioned special additional compensation, and to direct the State Compensation Insurance Fund to pay it out of funds appropriated for the purpose. reimburse himself" for the cost of investigations, medical examinations, etc. , out of the Subsequent Injuries Fund. May 26, 1950: Employe served on the attorney general and filed application for adjustment of claim which joined the Subsequent Injuries Fund as a defendant.
Note:	The disputed claim is covered by section 5410 and is not barred.
Citation:	39 Cal. 2d 83
WCC Citation:	WCC 33601952 CA

Case Name:	Sullivan v. City of Huron et al.		03/28/2012
Summary:	DOUGLAS P. SULLIVAN et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF HURON et al. , Defendants and Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION CORNELL, J. Appellant Douglas P. Sullivan, a Fresno County deputy sheriff, and Michael Lyons, a police officer with the City of Huron (City), both responded to an office burglar alarm. Lyons released City's K-9 police dog to search for the burglar, but the dog attacked and injured Sullivan. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The complaint alleges that Fresno County Deputy Sheriff Manuel Flores and Sullivan responded to an audible burglary alarm at an office building near the City of Huron in Fresno County. The dog left the building through the shattered glass door on the south wall and viciously attacked Sullivan, inflicting permanent injuries.
Note:	A deputy sheriff could not recover in tort for injuries inflicted by a police dog which attacked him while he was searching a burglarized building for intruders.
Citation:	F061294
WCC Citation:	WCC 38812012 CA

Case Name:	Sullivan's Stone Factory v. SCIF		05/20/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SULLIVAN'S STONE FACTORY, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Sullivan's Stone Factory, Inc. (Sullivan) acquired all of the assets of Cortima Co. (Cortima) at a tax lien sale. knew that Cortima had a high Experience Modification rating, because SCIF was providing worker's compensation insurance to Cortima . "Plaintiff had already acquired Cortima's assets at the time it applied for and obtained workers' compensation insurance from [SCIF]. However, as we also held in part III. C, ante, Sullivan did adequately allege that SCIF violated Insurance Code sections 330 through 339.
Note:	[Unpublished] Under a long line of case law, a defendant can be liable for failing to disclose information that is a matter of public record, provided the defendant's access to that information is superior to the plaintiff's access. Also, had information been disclosed to Plaintiff, it could have avoided being subject to prior owner's claims history by opting to self-insure or by promptly firing any of its employees who used to work for prior owner. It can't be said, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff could not have relied on the nondisclosure of publicly accessible information.
Citation:	E045493
WCC Citation:	WCC 35252009 CA

Case Name:	Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. WCAB		07/03/1980
Summary:	SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and HAROLD A. SOMMER, Respondents. The important thing is that he not be given the false notion that he will be doing himself harm by doing physical activity. He should be reassured that the more he ignores the pain, the more quickly it will diminish and be less of a problem. 'According to Sommer, the operation of heaving construction equipment requires use of the arms and upper torso and this exacerbates his symptoms. In the proceedings directly under review, Sully-Miller sought reopening of Sommer's case in order to reduce the permanent disability award.
Note:	Case reopened after surveillance film showed empoyee doing work.
Citation:	107 Cal.App.3d 916
WCC Citation:	WCC 25961980 CA

Case Name:	Summers v. Newman		07/08/1999
Summary:	RICK B. SUMMERS et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HERBERT F. NEWMAN et al. , Defendants; A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. , Intervener and Respondent. Facts In September 1992, while driving a truck in the course of his employment for A. Teichert & Son, Inc. (Teichert), Rick B. Summers was severely injured in a head-on collision with another truck. Teichert intervened in the action seeking reimbursement for the workers' compensation benefits it had provided to Summers. 2 and to give the employee an opportunity to recover personal injury damages in excess of the reimbursable compensation costs. Third, the employee receives any balance remaining from the settlement proceeds after payment of litigation costs and reimbursable compensation costs.
Note:	Employer and/or carrier must deduct attorney's fees from prop. share of third party settlement.
Citation:	20 Cal.4th 1021
WCC Citation:	WCC 24511999 CA

Case Name:	Sumner v. WCAB		06/02/1983
Summary:	BONNIE L. SUMNER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, PFIZER, INC. , et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Grodin, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )In the 13 years since Johnson was decided, the WCAB has failed to comply with our directive. Facts Petitioner and applicant Bonnie L. Sumner (hereinafter applicant) is the widow of Charles G. Sumner (employee) who died of a respiratory disease on March 23, 1980, at the age of 64. An order approving the compromise and release, as required by WCAB rules (Cal. Paragraph 11 of WCAB form 15 -- which must be used in a compromise and release agreement (Cal.
Note:	A worker may compromise death benefits of his survivors.
Citation:	33 Cal.3d 965
WCC Citation:	WCC 25591983 CA

Case Name:	Sun Indem. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n		01/07/1926
Summary:	TYLER, P. J. Certiorari to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission in allowing compensation for injuries to one W. R. Doolittle, who, on the evening of February 18, 1925, was injured in an automobile accident. Round, proprietors of a general store at Costa Mesa, California, of whom petitioner is the insurance carrier, to manage their meat department. His hours of labor were from 7 A. M. to 6 or 6:15 in the evening. Part of his duties consisted in the buying of meats and in this connection he was vested with certain discretion. He was thrown through the windshield and suffered multiple lacerations of both hands, which injuries were of a serious nature.
Note:	Evidence supports finding that employee was injured in course and scope of employment.
Citation:	76 Cal.App. 165
WCC Citation:	WCC 30432026 CA

Case Name:	Sunderland v. Lockheed Martin		06/09/2005
Summary:	KRISTI SUNDERLAND et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS SUPPORT COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add Mazloom's employer, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Support Company (LMASSC), as a defendant. On the date of the collision, LMASSC, a Lockheed Martin Corporation subsidiary, employed Mazloom as a field service representative. Headquartered in Marietta, Georgia, LMASSC provides after-market technical field support to government and military customers which own and operate aircraft manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendant Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Support Company.
Note:	The commercial traveler rule may not be incorporated into the respondeat superior doctrine.
Citation:	130 Cal.App.4th 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 31032005 CA

Case Name:	Sunwest Masonry & Concrete Inc. v. Zamora - unpublished		02/01/2021
Summary:	* * * After suffering injuries on the job, followed by a stroke two months later, construction worker Jose Zamora filed a workers compensation claim against his former employer, Sunwest Masonry & Concrete, Inc. (Sunwest). Zamora then sued Sunwest for wrongful termination, and Sunwest and a third party for negligence. Zamora eventually settled his workers compensation claim and the wrongful termination action; he then voluntarily dismissed Sunwest from the negligence action with prejudice. About a week later, Zamora failed to show up for a job, and Sunwest stopped calling him in to work. According to Smaili, Zamora had no further need to maintain the negligence action against Sunwest after he successfully settled his workers compensation claim.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld a decision to strike an employer’s malicious prosecution claim against a former employee and his attorney for having pursued an allegedly meritless negligence action.
Citation:	No. G058685
WCC Citation:	No. G058685

Case Name:	Supervalu v. Wexford Underwriting Managers		06/03/2009
Summary:	Filed 6/3/09 Supervalu v. Wexford Underwriting Managers CA2/2 (Editor's note: This decision was originally unpublished, but was granted published status on June 22, 2009. )IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SUPERVALU, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEXFORD UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The issue presented is the interpretation of the word "occurrence" in the excess workers' compensation policies provided to appellant Supervalu, Inc. doing business as Albertson's Inc. (Supervalu) by respondents TIG Insurance Company (TIG), Continental Casualty Company (Continental) and Wexford Underwriting Managers, Inc. (Wexford) (collectively respondents). As to Continental and Wexford, Supervalu also alleged causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith. In an evidentiary vacuum, Supervalu states that the policies impose "an important duty on Wexford to transmit notice from [Supervalu] to the excess carrier.
Note:	[Unpublished] Policy language is not inconsistent with the apportionment of benefits envisioned by the provisions of the Labor Code.
Citation:	B206501
WCC Citation:	WCC 35312009 CA

Case Name:	Sutter Memorial Hospital v. WCAB		11/10/2008
Summary:	[U] Sutter Memorial Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No. C058699 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 11/10/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C058699 November 10, 2008 SUTTER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND GREEN & AZEVEDO, RESPONDENTS. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Petitioner Sutter Memorial Hospital (Sutter) seeks reversal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denying reconsideration and restitution of attorney fees paid to respondent Green & Azevedo for its legal representation of the applicant Lucy Chaidez. The WCAB earlier reduced the applicant's permanent disability from 100 percent to 41 percent and ordered her to pay restitution to Sutter. In this proceeding, Sutter argues that the WCAB exceeded its powers in refusing to order Green & Azevedo to return $69,135 in attorney fees. In this case, the WCAB ordered the applicant to pay Sutter restitution in the sum of $60,092. 45 based on her misrepresentations to Dr. Kornblatt and the WCAB.
Note:	An employer is not entitled to restitution against attorneys who won $69,000 in attorney fees while unknowingly representing a fraudulent client.
Citation:	C058699
WCC Citation:	WCC 34602008 CA

Case Name:	Sutton v. WCAB		09/21/2007
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION THE COURT*fn1 Petitioner William R. Sutton asks this court to annul a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) in which the WCAB remanded the matter for further development of the medical record to determine whether Sutton is entitled to medical treatment arising out of a 1985 stipulated award providing that future medical care "may be" required. At some point thereafter, the Employer contested its liability to provide medical treatment, and Sutton responded by petitioning the WCAB for penalties and attorney fees against the Employer for failing to provide medical treatment. The Employer petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending Sutton never received an award for future medical care because the 1985 stipulation provided that additional medical care " `may be' " provided and then only " `upon reasonable demand. 'The WCAB found the precautionary award limited to the body areas specifically listed and upon Sutton making "a demand in advance of his need for treatment. "Although the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's findings ordering the Employer to provide six months of medical treatment, the WCAB has not yet issued a final determination whether medical evidence demonstrates Sutton requires continued medical treatment due to the 1983 injury and stipulated award.
Note:	[Unpublished] The ACOEM Guidelines presumptively establish reasonable medical treatment, regardless of the date of injury.
Citation:	F053104
WCC Citation:	WCC 32582007 CA

Case Name:	Sweeney v. WCAB		07/24/1968
Summary:	ROBERT D. SWEENEY, SR. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, FREDRICKSON & WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. , Respondents. The record herein includes seven reports made by Dr. Feldman at various times to and including July 28, 1965. On February 13, 1964, petitioner was examined by Dr. Loopesko, at the request of the insurance carrier. On July 16, 1965, Dr. Feldman performed a lumbar laminectomy on petitioner, from 'L-4 to S-1,' removing a herniated disc. The other medical reports indicated that the disability was less severe and that the applicant was not so narrowly limited occupationally.
Note:	Matter remanded after WCAB relied on improper physician's report.
Citation:	264 Cal.App.2d 296
WCC Citation:	WCC 25631968 CA

Case Name:	T and T Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Curtis Ray Hillman		06/01/2012
Summary:	T and T Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Curtis Ray Hillman, Deceased, No. C067171 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 06/01/2012) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT C067171 June 1, 2012 T AND T CONSTRUCTION, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND CURTIS RAY HILLMAN, DECEASED, ETC. , RESPONDENTS. Hillman's counsel filed a petition for serious and willful misconduct with the Board on August 20, 2009. We are not bound by the conclusions of the Board on questions of law, such as the interpretation of a statute. Petitioner's name appears throughout the record in many variations, including T&T Construction, TT Construction, and T and T Construction. We have elected to use the name as it appears on the order denying reconsideration, T and T Construction.
Note:	The act of filing a petition for workers' compensation benefits based on the alleged serious and willful misconduct of an employer is sufficient to 'commence' proceedings for purposes of the statute of limitations.
Citation:	C067171
WCC Citation:	WCC 39032012 CA

Case Name:	Tabaie v. Stockton Unified School Dist.		11/20/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- BIJAN TABAIE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. That Bijan Tabaie was an employee of the Stockton Unified School District. That the Stockton Unified School District knew or thought Bijan Tabaie had a physical condition that limited a major life activity; "4. That Bijan Tabaie's physical condition was a motivating reason for the discharge, or [¶] [t]hat the Stockton Unified School District's belief that Bijan Tabaie had a physical condition was a motivating reason for the discharge. That the Stockton Unified School District's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Bijan Tabaie's harm. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Special instruction wrongly required the jury to decide issues of law and to engage in a burden-shifting analysis that is not to be performed by a jury at trial.
Citation:	C056222
WCC Citation:	WCC 35802009 CA

Case Name:	Tanimura v. Antle		11/21/2007
Summary:	Tanimura & Antle and its insurer petitioned this court for writ of review, and we granted the petition. Nor does he show that before 2005, Tanimura & Antle was required to provide notice under Labor Code section 4061, subdivision (a). The agreed medical examiner found Lopez to be permanent and stationary on January 13, 2006, and Tanimura & Antle made its last temporary disability payment on March 8, 2006. Filed 12/18/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TANIMURA & ANTLE, et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and AVELINO LOPEZ, Respondents. Trial Court: Santa Clara County W. C. A. B. No. SAL 108539 Attorneys for Petitioners: Daniel H. Hunt Tanimura & Antle et al. Matovich & McLean Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Michael A.
Note:	It is the date of proof of permanent disability, not the date of injury that determines whether a disability rating falls under the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) or the prior 1997 schedule.
Citation:	157 Cal. App. 4th 1489; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 127
WCC Citation:	WCC 32802007 CA

Case Name:	Tapia et al., v. Dresden et al.		08/30/2010
Summary:	Filed 8/30/10 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District (Sacramento) C061925 (Superior Ct. No. 34200800024335CUPOGDS) Jorge Tapia et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Karl Dresden et al. , Defendants and Respondents. First, they asserted that because Jorges cause of action was precluded by the workers compensation exclusivity rule, Glorias cause of action was likewise precluded. The court concluded that the employee of an independent contractor may not sue the owner or hirer for injuries on the job. Also, while the Ungas did not have workers compensation coverage, workers compensation benefits were nonetheless available to Jorge. DISCUSSION I Standard Of Review The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint by raising questions of law.
Note:	Exclusive remedy did not bar an injured worker's suit against a property owner because the general contractor on the job did not have a valid license or workers' compensation coverage, California's 3rd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	C061925
WCC Citation:	WCC 36612010 CA