Case Name:	Flahavan v. SCIF		09/01/2011
Summary:	FLAHAVAN v.STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND WILLIAM FRANCIS FLAHAVAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. On February 16, 2006, Flahavan filed a first amended class action complaint for breach of contract, breach of trust, and a violation of the UCL (Bus. Flahavan filed a motion for summary adjudication and the State Fund filed a second motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication. Flahavan filed two motions for summary adjudication and the State Fund filed a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Flahavan has waived mounting any challenge to the lower court's ruling on his UCL claim.
Note:	State Fund has no obligation to pay its policyholders interest on deposit premiums, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled in an unpublished decision.
Citation:	A128280
WCC Citation:	WCC 37972011 CA

Case Name:	Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. v. WCAB (Moody)		12/16/2005
Summary:	We conclude that they did not and that applicant's employer, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. , is not obliged to provide workers' compensation benefits with respect to the accident. Applicant was employed by Fleetwood as a design manager, and at the time of the accident had worked for Fleetwood for about 30 years. During the trip, applicant used an American Express card in his name, but which was actually a Fleetwood business card. These expenses were primarily funded through Fleetwood's group health program rather than workers' compensation, although Fleetwood apparently directly paid some of the extraordinary expenses and care upgrades. However, it is clear that the medical care was paid either by Fleetwood's company health insurance carrier, or by Fleetwood itself.
Note:	Injury sustained while on pleasure trip is not compensable under the going and coming rule.
Citation:	134 Cal. App. 4th 1316
WCC Citation:	WCC 31322005 CA

Case Name:	Flethez v. San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Association		03/02/2017
Summary:	.             S226779 .             Ct. App.4 D066959 .             San Bernardino County Super. Ct.No.CIVDS 1212542 .             In this action for a writ of mandamus, the superior court determined that San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Association (SBCERA) wrongfully denied Frank Flethez the correct starting date for his disability retirement allowance. A county%u201Fs retirement system is administered by a county retirement board, under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937. The Flethez Matter5  .           In 1990, Flethez became an employee of San Bernardino County (County). In addition to the briefs of the parties, we have received an amicus curiae brief from the Alameda County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, Kern County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, Los Angeles County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, Marin County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, Sacramento County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, San Joaquin County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, Tulare County Employees%u201F Retirement Association, and Ventura County Employees%u201F Retirement Association.
Note:
Citation:	S226779
WCC Citation:	San Bernardino County Super. Ct. No. CIVDS 12

Case Name:	Flores v. Prime Time Products		10/20/2008
Summary:	Plaintiff Adolfo Flores appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award in his unlawful discrimination and wrongful termination action against defendants Prime Time Products, Inc. , Mainland Products, Inc. , Dan Hammond, and John Hammond (together Defendants). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND*fn1 In 1996 Flores became employed by Prime Time Products, Inc.(PT) as its general manager of manufacturing operations. However, after commencement of the litigation, [Flores], under oath, identified the handbooks [e. g. , Manual] as 'implied contracts' between [Flores] and [Defendants]. The arbitrator concluded: "$15,000 is awarded [to Flores] for the retaliation and discrimination claims because damages have been substantially mitigated. "Its case heading correctly identified Flores as the plaintiff and "Prime Time Products, Inc. , et al. " as the defendants.
Note:	[Unpublished] Policy #293 was a contract of adhesion and oppressive.
Citation:	D052205
WCC Citation:	WCC 34372008 CA

Case Name:	Flores v. WCAB		04/11/1974
Summary:	FERNANDO G.FLORES, Petitioner, v.WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ART FALCON et al. , Respondents In Bank. Because the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reached a contrary conclusion in this case, we annul that decision and remand the matter to the board. The applicant, Fernando Flores, suffered an industrial injury while employed by Art Falcon. Prior to 1971, a worker who was injured while working for an uninsured employer was given the right both to seek compensation before the WCAB and to institute a civil suit for damages. 3 When a worker chose to proceed before the WCAB, Labor Code sections 4554 and 4555 fn.
Note:	The obligation of Uninsured Employers Fund is same as uninsured employer
Citation:	11 Cal.3d 171, 39 CCC 289
WCC Citation:	WCC 24111974 CA

Case Name:	Flowmaster, Inc. v. Superior Court		06/23/1993
Summary:	FLOWMASTER, INC. , Petitioner, v.THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, Respondent; DONALD VON DOHLEN, Real Party in Interest. (Superior Court of Sonoma County, No.197871, Arnold D.Rosenfield, Judge. )(Award Metals, Inc.v.Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1128, 1132 [279 Cal. Rptr. Bell v.Industrial Vangas, Inc. , supra, 30 Cal. 3d at p.277; Watters Associates v.Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal. App. 3d 1341, 1346 [278 Cal. Rptr. Behrens v.Fayette Manufacturing Co. , supra, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1567, 1574-1575; Watters Associates v.Superior Court, supra, 227 Cal. App. 3d at p.
Note:	Explaining liability of employer when itmanufactures its own presses.
Citation:	16 Cal.App.4th 1019, 58 CCC 333
WCC Citation:	WCC 24221993 CA

Case Name:	Foodmaker, Inc. v. WCAB		10/06/1998
Summary:	On June 12, 1996, the Rehabilitation Unit found in favor of Ortega-Ruiz and ordered Foodmaker to commence vocational rehabilitation. On July 9, 1997, Judge Gentile issued findings of fact and an opinion on decision, ruling in favor of Ortega-Ruiz. expressly confers benefits on illegal immigrants: The act defines employee as every person in the service of an employer . On August 29, 1997, the Board issued an opinion and order, adopting Judge Gentile s recommendation in a 2-1 vote. An award of workers compensation benefits should be annulled if the Board has acted in excess of its powers.
Note:	No voc. rehab. where more costly for illegal immigrant than legal under Equal Protection.
Citation:	78 Cal.Rptr.2d 767, 63 CCC 1222
WCC Citation:	WCC 24611998 CA

Case Name:	Ford Construction Co. v. WCAB (Newell)		09/17/2010
Summary:	While he attempted to place a large ripper shank into the tool pocket of a Caterpillar bulldozer, the ripper shank fell, killing Dennis Newell, an employee of petitioner Ford Construction Company, Inc.(Ford). Ford filed a petition for reconsideration with respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), which the WCAB denied. Nelson concluded Ford violated Safety Order 4999, subdivision (b)(1) because the load was not attached by an effective means and properly rigged. The administrative law judge dismissed the citations against Ford for the serious violations, finding them unsupported by the evidence. In the present case, the WCAB reviewed the evidence and concluded it supported a finding of serious and willful misconduct by Ford.
Note:	Substantial evidence showed that an employer did not commit serious and willful misconduct that resulted in a worker's death, the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	C061176
WCC Citation:	WCC 36702010 CA

Case Name:	Ford v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory		01/27/1997
Summary:	Charles Ford, Applicant v.Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Defendant.W. C. A. B.No.WCK 13904 Workers Compensation Appeals Board CCC 153 January 27, 1997 DISPOSITION: The Findings and Award dated May 3, 1996 are amended, in part, and affirmed, in part. Thereafter, defendant attempted to schedule a medical examination by another orthopedist, under purported authority of Labor Code section 4050. She therefore 'interpret[ed] applicant's filing of the application as being done constructively on the part of the defendant. 'The Board decision left open the possibility that further evaluation might be proper under Labor Code section 5703. 5(a). AMENDED AWARD AWARD IS MADE in favor of CHARLES FORD against LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORY as follows: (a) Permanent disability indemnity in accordance with Finding of Fact number 5, less attorney's fees in accordance with Finding of Fact number 9, (b) Future medical treatment in accordance with Finding of Fact number 6, (c) Increased compensation (10% penalty) in accordance with Finding of Fact number 7.
Note:	No 'constructive' filing of applic. for adjudication by employee for employer liability for atty. fees.
Citation:	62 CCC 153
WCC Citation:	WCC 25641997 CA

Case Name:	Ford v. WCAB (Hernandez)		10/06/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             PEARSON FORD et al. , Petitioners, .             v..             WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; .             LEOPOLDO HERNANDEZ, Real Party in Interest. .             D070915 .             (WCAB No.ADJ4081602) .             Petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Code, § 5952; Garza v.WCAB (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 312, 317; LeVesque v.WCAB (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 627, 637. ).           The WCJ's determination Hernandez met the second requirement is also vigorously disputed by Pearson Ford. .           As the WCAB points out the AMA Guides are not meant to be a "rigid and standardized protocol .
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a worker convicted of comp fraud was still entitled to collect benefits for a legitimate injury.
Citation:	D070915
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ4081602