Case Name:	Valdez v. Himmelfarb		11/20/2006
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN No. B184281 November 20, 2006 ELIAS VALDEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. DOUGLAS HIMMELFARB ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Valdez filed a timely appeal from the judgment for defendants but no appeal was filed on behalf of Valdez or his attorneys from the sanction order. In May 2003 Valdez filed the present action for personal injury, unfair competition and declaratory relief alleging the Mission Club was a business operated by defendant Himmelfarb and others who "intentionally and without good cause . *fn6 The court reasoned defendants "conclusively established" Valdez knew no later than December 2001 defendants did not have workers' compensation insurance. But even if this was the date on which Valdez first discovered Himmelfarb was his uninsured employer the complaint was filed more than a year after this discovery.
Note:	Actions under Labor Code section 3706 are covered by the three-year statute of limitations in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Citation:	144 Cal. App. 4th 1261
WCC Citation:	WCC 31912006 CA

Case Name:	Valdez v. WCAB		05/29/2012
Summary:	VALDEZ v. WCAB ELAYNE VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WAREHOUSE DEMO SERVICES et al. Respondents. We therefore annul the decision of the WCAB and remand with directions for further proceedings that are consistent with this opinion. "*fn1 The WCAB found that the WCJ "relied on the non-MPN reports of Dr. Nario for this finding [temporary disability] and award of benefits. "'"*fn2 The WCAB concluded that reports from non-MPN physicians are inadmissible and may not be relied on to award compensation. In its second en banc opinion, the WCAB did not limit itself to holding that section 4616. 6 made Dr. Nario's report inadmissible.
Note:	California's Labor Code does not prohibit the admission of medical reports from doctors who are not a part of an employer's properly noticed and valid medical provider network.
Citation:	B237147
WCC Citation:	WCC 39002012 CA

Case Name:	Valdivia v. Del Monte Foods		12/09/2010
Summary:	ELIZABETH VALDIVIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION WISEMAN, Acting P. J. Elizabeth Valdivia, an employee of Del Monte Foods, Inc. , sued Del Monte and its plant manager, Jim Fullmer, for sexual harassment. Valdivia alleged five causes of action against Fullmer and Del Monte: sexual harassment; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; sexual battery; and negligent failure to supervise and train. If found that negligence by Del Monte in hiring or supervising Fullmer was not a factor in causing harm to Valdivia. Finally, it found that Valdivia did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Del Monte engaged in conduct against her with malice, oppression, or fraud.
Note:	A trial judge's warning that he might have to declare a mistrial in a worker's civil suit in order to hear other cases did not constitute a prejudicial error.
Citation:	F056866
WCC Citation:	WCC 36902010 CA

Case Name:	Valero v. Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees' Retirement Assoc.		05/01/2012
Summary:	VALERO v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF TULARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION JOE VALERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF TULARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OPINION FRANSON, J. Respondent Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees' Retirement Association (the Board) denied the application of appellant Joe Valero for a service-connected disability retirement. Valero was hired as an "Office Assistant II" by the County of Tulare Health and Human Services Agency (the County) in April of 1999. On July 9, 2008, the Board determined that Valero failed to meet his burden of establishing service connection, and instead granted Valero a non-service-connected disability retirement. (Dickey v. Retirement Board (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 745; County of Alameda v. Board of Retirement (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 902. )
Note:	A county office worker with a disabling psychiatric condition failed to prove his panic disorder was service-connected.
Citation:	F062601
WCC Citation:	WCC 38912012 CA

Case Name:	Van Voorhis vs. WCAB (Bethlehem Steel Corp.)		02/04/1974
Summary:	HERBERT D. VAN VOORHIS, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Respondents (Opinion by Sims, Acting P. J. , with Elkington, J. , and Bray, J. , concurring. )3 and return having made, and the matter having been regularly submitted, it is concluded that the board erred. Its decision and award must therefore be vacated, and the matter returned for reinstatement of the award granted by the referee. No mention was made of his hearing loss, and he never lost any time or wages, or received medical treatment for that complaint. In September 1971, he was told that his hearing loss might have been due to his employment.
Note:	Compensation must be measured by the applicant's earning capacity as it existed at the time he incurred his compensable disability.
Citation:	37 CA3d 81
WCC Citation:	WCC 30291974 CA

Case Name:	Vanderheiden v. City of Alameda		06/02/2009
Summary:	The City claims Vanderheiden called a station meeting in which he put other employees "on notice" that they should leave him alone. The City insisted that Vanderheiden receive psychological counseling through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) before he could return to work. The City moved for summary judgment on grounds that (1) Vanderheiden could not prove the City "regarded him" as mentally disabled under the FEHA; (2) the City had engaged in good faith in any interactive process required of it; (3) the City had offered Vanderheiden a reasonable accommodation; and (4) Vanderheiden could not perform the essential duties of a firefighter. Although the court found it "likely" the City did regard Vanderheiden as mentally disabled, it granted summary judgment to the City because Vanderheiden had presented insufficient evidence that he could perform the essential functions of the job. Dr. Everstine originally produced no records underlying her opinion to either the City or Vanderheiden, as Vanderheiden had refused to sign a release.
Note:	[Unpublished] There are genuine issues of fact regarding plaintiff's psychological health and his ability to perform his job.
Citation:	A120169
WCC Citation:	WCC 35302009 CA

Case Name:	Vargas v. WCAB		10/15/1986
Summary:	William Vargas, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California; Tom and Bob's Auto; and Great American Insurance Company, Respondents. The parties filed stipulations with request for award, which was approved by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (board). The Tow Company also filed a petition to dismiss the petition to reopen based on the same facts. On April 12, WCJ Davidson filed an order setting aside the dismissals in all three of applicant's cases based upon the amended objection. Thus, unless Vargas timely objected to the dismissal order or filed a petition for reconsideration, the dismissal order was a final adjudication of his petition to reopen.
Note:	WCJ has no jurisdiction to permit rescission of order of dismissal absent timely objection.
Citation:	51 CCC 480
WCC Citation:	WCC 27211986 CA

Case Name:	Vargas vs. Atascadero State Hospital		04/11/2006
Summary:	Myrtle Vargas, Applicant v. Atascadero State Hospital, Legally Uninsured, State Compensation Insurance Fund (Adjusting Agent), Defendants W. C. A. B. No. GRO 0016640 WCJ Bruce M. Lang (GRO) WCAB En Banc: Chairman Miller, Commissioners O'Brien, Cuneo, Murray, Brass, Rabine (concurring), Caplane (concurring) Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (en banc) Opinion Filed April 11, 2006 Disposition: Applicant's Petition for Removal is denied. Thus, the recommended rating of 71% was based on the neck and left upper extremity disability. Applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR), and the petition to reopen proceeded to hearing on March 2, 2004. On April 15, the District Office served notice of hearing for cross-examination of the rater set for May 20, 2004. Defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), then filed a response.
Note:	SB 899 apportionment rules apply to reopened cases seeking increased permanent disability regardless of date of injury.
Citation:	71 CCC 500 (2006)
WCC Citation:	WCC 31552006 CA

Case Name:	Varisco v. Gateway Science and Engineering, Inc.		09/15/2008
Summary:	CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION Appellant Al Varisco sued respondent Gateway Science and Engineering for wrongful termination of employment and similar causes of action, all of which depended on the allegation that he had been Gateway's employee. Gateway moved for summary judgment on the ground that Varisco was not an employee, but an independent contractor. Gateway responded to Varisco's call, and on January 30, 2004, Varisco and Gateway signed a letter agreement in which Varisco agreed to provide "DSA Inspection Services to the Los Angeles Unified School District (Client)" and Gateway agreed to pay him an hourly rate. Gateway moved for summary judgment, contending that Varisco was an independent contractor, not an employee. On appeal, Varisco concedes that the causes of action are viable only if he was an employee, not an independent contractor.
Note:	All the undisputed facts add up to an independent contractor relationship.
Citation:	B200339
WCC Citation:	WCC 34242008 CA

Case Name:	Vasquez v. Del Rio Sanitarium, Inc.		03/05/2012
Summary:	Vasquez resigned her Target job when Del Rio began scheduling Vasquez for weekend work that conflicted with her schedule at Target. However, Maxwell testified at trial that the document was generated after Del Rio received notice that Vasquez filed for unemployment benefits. Gardiner told her to call Vasquez, so she called Vasquez from Del Rio on January 12, 2009. Del Rio did not distribute an employee handbook or other notice to employees stating that Del Rio required medical certification. When Del Rio learned of Vasquez's need for accommodation, Del Rio did not provide her with any paperwork requesting medical certification.
Note:	A nursing assistant was awarded $196,760 in a Fair Employment and Housing claim, based on her former employer's failure to accommodate her medical restrictions during the early stages of her pregnancy.
Citation:	B231327
WCC Citation:	WCC 38662012 CA

Case Name:	Vasquez v. Juan Jose Interiano		07/06/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE ARNULFO VASQUEZ, Plaintiffs and Appellant, v. JUAN JOSE INTERIANO, et al. , Defendant and Respondent. Law Offices of Sef Krell and Sef Krell for Defendant and Appellant Juan Jose Interiano. INTRODUCTION Mya Borgman requested Juan Jose Interiano, her landscaper, to trim some palm trees in her yard. The trial court granted Borgman's motion for summary judgment as to Vasquez's complaint and Interiano's cross-complaint and Vasquez and Interiano appeal. Vasquez further alleges that Interiano and the doe defendants "negligently and in violation of statute, carelessly failed to provide plaintiff VASQUEZ with a safe workplace. "
Note:	[Unpublished] There is a rebuttable presumption that an unlicensed worker performing work for which a license is required is an employee rather than an independent contractor.
Citation:	B202120
WCC Citation:	WCC 35392009 CA

Case Name:	Vaught v. State		12/18/2007
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA No. D050358 December 18, 2007 MARCK O. VAUGHT ET AL, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION We hold the workers' compensation exclusivity rule of Labor Code*fn1 section 3602 bars the civil action of plaintiffs Marck Vaught (Marck) and Maria Vaught (Maria) (together the Vaughts) against Marck's employer, the State of California (State), for injuries he sustained while residing on state premises. The Vaughts sued the State for negligence and failure to make the ranch house habitable for human occupation. The fact Marck was not a new employee with the State, but rather was merely changing positions in that employment, does not affect our conclusion Marck sustained injuries in the course of his employment with the State. The evidence showed the State offered Marck residence in the ranch house because of Marck's employment with the State as a park ranger, as a benefit and out of work necessity, and not because the State sought to enter into a landlord-tenant relationship with the Vaughts.
Note:	The workers' compensation exclusivity rule of Labor Code section 3602 bars the civil action of plaintiff for injuries plaintiff sustained while residing on state premises.
Citation:	157 Cal. App. 4th 1538; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605
WCC Citation:	WCC 32912007 CA

Case Name:	Vaynberg v. Chevron Products Company		03/14/2013
Summary:	VAYNBERG v. CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY MOYSEY VAYNBERG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Appellant Moysey Vaynberg worked for respondent Chevron Products Company (Chevron) through an employment agency for nine years, from August 1999 through April 2008. At Chevron's request, the trial court instructed the jury: "Chevron contends that Mr. Vaynberg was not entitled to overtime pay from Chevron because he was an employee of Value Added working at Chevron as an independent contractor, not an employee of Chevron. Chevron argued these points to the jury: "Not one witness testified in this case that Mr. Vaynberg was an employee of Chevron at any time. Mr. Vaynberg admitted to you that at all times while working on assignment at the Chevron facility he was a contractor of Chevron. "
Note:	Chevron Products Co. was not a dual employer of a computer analyst employed by a staffing agency.
Citation:	A131126
WCC Citation:	WCC 39912013 CA

Case Name:	Vega vs. Taco Bell; Cal Indemnity		06/09/2003
Summary:	On January 2, 2003, defendant, Taco Bell, by and through its insurer, California Indemnity Insurance Company, filed a petition for removal, or alternatively, for reconsideration, for review of the Appeals Board's December 13, 2002, order denying a prior petition for removal. Defendant now seeks the consolidated review of two additional cases to demonstrate the disparate treatment of this issue at different district offices. Under Section 5502(b), expedited hearings may be set to determine the rights of the parties on specified issues, including entitlement to medical treatment and temporary disability indemnity. (2) The employee's entitlement to, or the amount of, temporary disability indemnity payments. This also implicates an applicant's right to temporary disability indemnity, as such benefits are tied to a treating physician's medical reporting.
Note:	Board shall set expedited hearing when right to medical control under HCO in issue.
Citation:	68 CCC 921
WCC Citation:	WCC 29372003 CA

Case Name:	Veguez v. Long Beach Unified School District		03/07/2005
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B172414 March 7, 2005 BONITA VEGUEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. GOVERNING BOARD OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. OVERVIEW Bonita Veguez, a certificated employee of the Long Beach Unified School District (District), began a medical leave of absence on March 12, 2002. The District denied her request on the ground the five months statutory paid leave Veguez had received following her 1998 accident exhausted her rights under section 44977. Instead, pursuant to section 44978. 1, the District placed Veguez on a 39-month reemployment list effective March 19, 2002. Veguez acknowledges the District had the right to condition her return to work on an examination by a District- appointed physician.
Note:	'Per injury or accident' as used in Education Code section 44977 applies to second leave where subsequent injury was known and treateable in original leave.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 406
WCC Citation:	WCC 30892005 CA

Case Name:	Velez v. Kohl Building Maintenance Inc. unpublished		02/02/2021
Summary:	______________________ Defendant Kohl Building Maintenance, Inc. (Kohl) appeals from the trial court’s June 27, 2019, order awarding $141,165 in attorney fees in a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) matter to plaintiff and prevailing party Gilberto Velez. Velez filed a workers’ compensation claim, and on August 26, 2016, Kohl terminated Velez. On at least one occasion, Velez’s counsel represented to the trial court that Velez was not seeking any lost income for the time period for which Velez received workers’ compensation. Notwithstanding his conclusory claim that Velez “knew” he would not recover more than $25,000, Kohl does not actually demonstrate this was so. Thus, Kohl has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $141,165 in attorney fees to Velez.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld an award of attorney fees to an injured worker on his successful Fair Employment and Housing Act claim against his former employer.
Citation:	No. B300253
WCC Citation:	No. B300253

Case Name:	Ventura Coastal LLC v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Department of Industrial Relations)		12/01/2020
Summary:	It was upheld by the hearing officer and, on reconsideration, by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Board). Ventura appealed the citation to the Board, arguing that it did not violate the safety order or, if there was a violation, it was misclassified as serious. Ventura further argued the evidence showed the violation was unforeseeable under the Newbery defense. 2 On September 22, 2017, the Board issued its decision after reconsideration. The Board concluded the Division established a violation of the regulation by a The Newbery defense, which originated in Newbery Electric Corp. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. Instead, on October 20, 2017, 28 days after the Board filed its decision after reconsideration, Ventura filed a second petition for reconsideration with the Board.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an employer cited for a safety violation did not timely seek review of an administrative decision, but it is entitled to assert a claim of equitable tolling.
Citation:	No. F077267
WCC Citation:	No. F077267

Case Name:	Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc.		12/20/2012
Summary:	VENTURA v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED SYLVIA VENTURA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED et al. , Defendants and Appellants. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION ARMSTRONG, J. ABM Industries Incorporated, ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. , and American Building Maintenance Company appeal from the judgment entered against them and in favor of respondent Sylvia Ventura, on Ventura's complaint. When Ventura spoke of Manzano's relationship with Esther Mendoza, the human resources director suggested that Ventura was jealous. There was also evidence that after he knew the details of Manzano's attack on Ventura, Martinez told Ventura that Manzano had had similar problems before. American Building Maintenance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. , which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABM Industries Incorporated.
Note:	An employer must plead and prove that the Workers' Compensation Act applies to a lawsuit that indicates an employment relationship exists in order to invoke exclusive remedy.
Citation:	B231817
WCC Citation:	WCC 39652012 CA

Case Name:	Vera v. WCAB		08/30/2007
Summary:	Daniel Vera petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying his petition for reconsideration of a decision awarding him permanent disability benefits in the amount of $18,823. 75. It also noted that in a June 2004 report, the treating physician stated that Vera " 'remains TTD [i. e. , temporarily totally disabled],' " and that Vera underwent surgery for his shoulder in August 2004. Vera argued that his employer "[was] required subsequently to provide" the notice required by section 4061, and thus the old schedule applies. Vera filed a petition for writ of review in this court, arguing that the old schedule governs his claim for permanent disability benefits, and that the WCAB therefore erred in denying his petition for reconsideration. Our decision is consistent with the en banc decision of the WCAB in Pendergrass v. Duggan Plumbing (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cas.
Note:	The WCAB properly denied the petition for reconsideration because the schedule for rating permanent disabilities that went into effect on January 1, 2005, applies to the instant case.
Citation:	72 CCC 1115
WCC Citation:	WCC 32482007 CA

Case Name:	Verga v. WCAB		01/23/2008
Summary:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the WCAB) concluded that Rosemary Verga was not entitled to compensation for psychiatric injury while employed by United Airlines. However, the WCAB found "the true fact remains that [Verga] was not actually subject to harassment or persecution, she instead brought upon herself the disdain of her co-workers" because Verga was "a difficult person to get along with"; she was impolite, unpleasant, and co-workers "never knew when [she] might get upset. "Various employees testified that they had never seen Verga mistreated by Allen, who did as much as he could to support her, even though Verga had mistreated them. Hence, Verga failed to establish an "actual event of employment" was the predominant cause of her injury within the meaning of section 3208. 3. After Verga filed a petition for reconsideration, the WCJ submitted to the WCAB a report and recommendation clarifying the basis for the WCJ's decision. Verga contends that it does matter whether the events of her employment occurred as she recalls or as found by the WCAB.
Note:	In light of the legislative intent in enacting section 3208.3, subdivision (b)(1), the disdainful reactions of co-workers to the claimant's abusive conduct were neither actual events of employment nor the predominant cause of her psychological injuries within the meaning of the statute.
Citation:	C055711
WCC Citation:	WCC 33042008 CA

Case Name:	Victor Valley Transit Authority v. WCAB		09/26/2000
Summary:	VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JAMES SOPHY, Respondents. [83 Cal. App. 4th 1070] COUNSEL Hallett & McCormick and Bruce S. Emerick for Petitioner Victor Valley Transit Authority. FACTS OF THE CASE Victor Valley Transit Authority ('VVTA') is a joint powers agency created pursuant to Government Code section 6500 et seq. The members of VVTA are the County of San Bernardino and the Cities of Victorville, Adelanto, Hesperia, and Apple Valley. The joint powers agreement names the authority the 'Victor Valley Transit Services Authority. '
Note:	No WCAB jurisdiction over 'contribution' issues in joint venture; not appropriate for arbitration.
Citation:	83 Cal.App.4th 1068
WCC Citation:	WCC 25402000 CA

Case Name:	Vierra v. WCAB		08/31/2007
Summary:	Petitioner Fred Vierra seeks relief from an order denying reconsideration of a decision by respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), upholding an administrative law judge's finding that a written attorney fee agreement Vierra entered into with his attorney was not binding. On October 24, 2005, Vierra entered into a written "Agreement for Attorneys Fees" (the agreement) retaining Attorney Tom Johnson of Anderson & Johnson, LLP, to represent him in the WCAB proceedings. On July 20, 2006, the WCJ issued an order stating that the attorney fee agreement between Johnson and Vierra was not binding on Vierra. On August 3, 2006, Vierra petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration of the WCJ's order, contending the fee arrangement was appropriate and should have been allowed. The WCAB denied reconsideration reasoning that, since there was an available source of funds from which to petition for fees, Vierra was not yet aggrieved by the WCJ's order.
Note:	Because the WCAB unquestionably has the ultimate authority over attorney compensation (see Reich, supra, 99 Cal.App.3d at p. 234), the WCJ's order that a fee agreement is not binding is free from error.
Citation:	154 Cal. App. 4th 1142; 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423
WCC Citation:	WCC 32502007 CA

Case Name:	Vilkitis v. WCAB		06/18/2009
Summary:	Filed 6/18/09 Vilkitis v. WCAB CA2/6 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). Dr. Vilkitis would receive $68,057. 50 if the awards are rated separately, but $100,165 plus a life pension if they are rated together. After we denied his petition, Dr. Vilkitis petitioned our Supreme Court for review. Dr. Vilkitis filed separate applications for workers' compensation benefits for each of these injuries. As in Benson, Dr. Vilkitis sustained both a specific industrial injury and an industrial CT. (See Benson, supra, at p.
Note:	[Unpublished] Current sections 4663 and 4664 require physicians to consider each industrial injury sustained, and apportion the injured worker's disability for cause.
Citation:	B209235
WCC Citation:	WCC 35342009 CA

Case Name:	Villa v. WCAB		05/24/1984
Summary:	ERNESTO VILLA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MISSION LINEN SUPPLY, Respondents. Zonni, Ginocchio & Taylor, Clair S. Huffman, Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe and Alvin R. Barrett for Respondents. OPINION STONE, P. J. Petitioner Ernesto Villa seeks review of the July 1, 1983, order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denying reconsideration of the workers' compensation judge's finding that applicant sustained no industrial injury to his eyes. [1] Villa's petition for writ of review was filed in this court on August 16, 1983, 46 days after the Board's order denying reconsideration. 1 provides that a petition for writ of review 'must be made within 45 days after a petition for reconsideration is denied. '
Note:	45 day time limit for filing petition for writ of review is extended when order served by mail.
Citation:	156 Cal.App.3d 1076
WCC Citation:	WCC 27791984 CA

Case Name:	Vine vs. Bear Valley Ski Co.		05/11/2004
Summary:	CHARLENE VINE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BEAR VALLEY SKI COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. BACKGROUND Charlene Vine suffered a broken back, resulting in paraplegia, when she fell while attempting a snowboard jump at an employee party hosted by her employer, Bear Valley Ski Company (Bear Valley) after the end of the public ski season. Bear Valley contends that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court failed to give an instruction that Bear Valley never proposed. Bear Valley also challenges the court's failure to give a proposed instruction on what Bear Valley terms the "obvious hazard doctrine. "The dissent accuses Bear Valley of faulting the court for not giving an instruction Bear Valley never proposed.
Note:	Employee cannot escape assumption of risk doctrine for injury not covered by work comp.
Citation:	118 Cal.App.4th 577
WCC Citation:	WCC 29852004 CA

Case Name:	Virginia Surety Co. v. WCAB (Echelard)		08/22/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JASON ECHELARD, Respondents. -ooOoo- Before Ardaiz, P. J. , Cornell, J. , and Kane, J. Virginia Surety Company (Virginia Surety) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) contending the WCAB applied the incorrect Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities (PDRS -- *fn1). California Quality Interiors's insurer for workers' compensation purposes, Virginia Surety, admitted the accident arose out of and in the course of Echelard's employment causing injury to his thoracic spine, right wrist, and right elbow. Virginia Surety petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration contending Echelard's disability should have been rated under the 2005 PDRS because there was no medical determination before 2005 finding Echelard permanent and stationary. Virginia Surety, however, offers no legal support for its proposition that a pre-2005 medical report may only be considered within its four corners.
Note:	Under the WCAB's reasoning and Dr. Thomas's medical reporting, we agree the record supports an indication of permanent disability permitting the use of the 1997 PDRS. Accordingly, we will not disturb the WCAB's decision.
Citation:	F055253
WCC Citation:	WCC 34142008 CA

Case Name:	Virginia Surety, Inc. v. WCAB		01/31/2008
Summary:	Virginia Surety, Inc. petitions for a writ of review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) affirming an award to respondent Larry Wragg. Virginia Surety contends the award was improperly calculated using the 1997 schedule for rating permanent disabilities, instead of the schedule that went into effect on January 1, 2005. Virginia Surety petitioned for reconsideration on the ground the WCJ should have adopted a permanent disability rating under the 2005 schedule. Virginia Surety petitioned this court for writ of review. Virginia Surety petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of review.
Note:	[Unpublished] The 1997 schedule applies in the present case, based on the statutory reading of section 4660, subdivision (d)(2) as established under Genlyte Group, LLC, etc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., B198100, Jan. 3, 2008.
Citation:	B197490
WCC Citation:	WCC 33112008 CA

Case Name:	Visalia School District v. WCAB (Hernandez)		12/07/1995
Summary:	Visalia School District, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Lupe Hernandez, Respondents. Respondent/applicant Lupe Hernandez telephoned the claims administrator of petitioner/employer Visalia School District and requested vocational rehabilitation benefits. Rehabilitation. 'Dr. Wells also stated:Mr. Hernandez does not meet the criteria of being a Qualified Injured Worker under DIA guidelines. If employment in the maintenance and janitorial field in an appropriate setting could be found, this would be ideal.
Note:	Written request for rehab. benefits not required; phone call to employer's claims administrator suffices.
Citation:	60 CCC 1158
WCC Citation:	WCC 28021995 CA

Case Name:	Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental		04/22/2008
Summary:	Filed 4/22/08 Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental 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). Plaintiff Douglas Von Arx (Plaintiff) was injured in a workplace accident involving a trenching attachment (trencher) for a ride-upon trenching machine, manufactured by defendant Charles Machine Works, Inc. (Charles), and rented to his employer by Max Equipment Rental, LLC (Max). The rental contract stated that the customer acknowledged examining the equipment upon delivery, and usage of it would constitute acknowledgment that the equipment was in good mechanical condition at the time. Max is in the business of renting construction equipment, and rented this trencher to Western on August 18, 2003. Plaintiff had conducted safety meetings about using the equipment and had checked the equipment for loose bolts or nuts and would normally tighten them.
Note:	[Unpublished] Insufficient evidence to justify the necessary, reasonable or logical inferences of causation from employer's actions or inactions,' so nonsuit ruling was proper.
Citation:	D048759
WCC Citation:	WCC 33472008 CA

Case Name:	Voortman v. Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Assn.		04/05/2012
Summary:	Arthur Voortman v. Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Association No. F062610 (Cal. App. Dist. 5 04/05/2012) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT F062610 April 5, 2012 ARTHUR VOORTMAN, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. STANISLAUS COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. The judgment set aside a decision of appellant Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Association (hereafter, the association) that denied respondent's application for disability retirement. In light of these considerations, on October 23, 2007, respondent applied for service retirement (i. e. , "regular" retirement based on age and length of service) and attempted to apply simultaneously for service-connected disability retirement. The trial court found that there was no prohibition on simultaneous filing of applications for service retirement and disability retirement. *fn3 A county employee covered by a CERL retirement plan is a member of the association and, upon reaching retirement age, may apply for service retirement based on the employee's age and length of service.
Note:	A former police chief was not entitled to have the administrative denial of his disability retirement application set aside based on the two-year delay in its processing because he had elected to take service retirement while his disability retirement application remained pending.
Citation:	F062610
WCC Citation:	WCC 38832012 CA