Case Name:	Frank D. Brown v. Desert Christian Center		03/17/2011
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT F060139 March 17, 2011 FRANK D.BROWN, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v.DESERT CHRISTIAN CENTER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OPINION In this personal injury case, defendant Desert Christian Center was successful in proving its affirmative defense that the injuries alleged by plaintiff Frank D.Brown were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the workers' compensation system. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court had jurisdiction to award costs under the particular circumstances of this case. The total amount of costs claimed in the memorandum was $7,909. 88, the majority of which consisted of deposition costs. The trial court agreed that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs and granted the motion to strike the memorandum of costs.
Note:	A trial court had jurisdiction to award a defendant employer $7,910 in costs it incurred while defending against an employee's civil suit.
Citation:	F060139
WCC Citation:	WCC 37302011 CA

Case Name:	Fred T. Hines v. New United Motors Mfg.		04/30/2001
Summary:	Fred T.Hines, Applicant v.New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. , Great American Risk Management, Defendants W. C. A. B.Nos. Such an award coupled with section 4600 entitles the injured worker to reasonable changes of treating physicians. BACKGROUND Applicant sustained industrial injury to his lower back while employed as a truck conveyer worker on August 18, 1998. On June 29, 2000, Dr.Bernfeld reported that applicant requested chiropractic care and evaluation for his work-related low back injury. The WCJ found that applicant was entitled to the further medical treatment recommended by his newly selected treating physician, Dr.Bernfeld.
Note:	If existing award for treatment, employee does NOT need to follow 4061/4062 for new physician.
Citation:	66 CCC 478 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 28152001 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Comp Ins Co vs. Sierra Pine, Ltd.		08/04/2004
Summary:	FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.SIERRA PINE, LTD.et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Fremont paid Nesmith $125,000 in death benefits pursuant to a Board order, and is obligated for other amounts, such as burial expenses. Code, § 3503), was his actual dependent and would have been entitled to benefits even had they never been married. Because a subrogee stands in the shoes of the subrogor, they argued Fremont had no standing to sue to recoup the benefits. If for some reason he chose not to sue them, Fremont "likewise" could have sued defendants to recoup its payments.
Note:	Carrier has subrogation rights independent of work comp beneficiary.
Citation:	121 Cal. App. 4th 389
WCC Citation:	WCC 30182004 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		03/31/1980
Summary:	FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EMELDA ROCHA; and DOMESTIC LAUNDRY & CLEANING COMPANY, Respondents. OPINION:Petitioner Fremont Indemnity Company (Fremont) contends that respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) has erred in finding Fremont was the workers' compensation insurance carrier for respondent Domestic Laundry & Cleaning Company (Domestic) on March 1, 1977, when Domestic's employee, respondent Emelda Rocha, claims she sustained an industrial injury. Fremont avers the deposition of Henderson is important as therein Henderson testifies concerning the cancellation of Domestic's policy with Fremont. Fremont asserted (1) substantial evidence did not support the findings of coverage by Fremont on the date of injury, and (2) the WCJ failed to comply with Labor Code section 5313. Fremont asserts that the WCJ's report was not served upon Fremont or its counsel as required by WCAB Rules section 10860.
Note:	WCJ's failure to specify reasoning in decision deprives party of meaningful right to petition for recon.; WCJ's Notice of Intention was not sufficient for proper service.
Citation:	45 CCC 391
WCC Citation:	WCC 27361980 CA

Case Name:	Fremont Indemnity Co. v. WCAB		03/29/1984
Summary:	FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and HENRY H.ZEPEDA, Respondents. OPINION DANIELSON, J.Petitioner Fremont Indemnity Company petitions for review and annulment of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals [153 Cal. App. 3d 968] Board (Board) finding that the applicant sustained an injury to the right hip. Facts Applicant and respondent Henry H.Zepeda (applicant) filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging industrial injury to his back and right leg on March 18, 1976, against Service Greeting Card Company and its insurer Fremont Indemnity. Petitioner, insurance carrier Fremont Indemnity, contested injury to the right hip. Said reportshave been stricken due [153 Cal. App. 3d 969] to counsel for Fremont Indemnity Company's objection to the indicated communication and because the record was complete without them. '
Note:	Judge's two phone calls to independent medical examiner denied parties a fair trial.
Citation:	153 Cal.App.3d 965, 49 CCC 288
WCC Citation:	WCC 27971984 CA

Case Name:	French Valley Aviation, Inc. v. Superior Court of Riverside County		10/17/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO No.E046169 October 17, 2008 FRENCH VALLEY AVIATION, INC. , PETITIONER, v.THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, RESPONDENT; AIR PETRO CORP. , REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. The opinion of the court was delivered by: McKINSTER Acting P.J. McKaye himself answered interrogatories indicating ATW was his employer, although in a deposition he stated that both entities were employers. The Supreme Court noted as an additional factor that the worker believed his employment relationship was with the maintenance company. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to set aside its order denying FVA's motion for summary judgment and to issue a new order granting the motion.
Note:	[Unpublished] Under Labor Code section 3864 real party in interest is barred from seeking contribution or indemnity from employer.
Citation:	E046169
WCC Citation:	WCC 34362008 CA

Case Name:	Fresno Unif. School Dist. v. WCAB		11/22/2000
Summary:	* ] FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DANIEL HUMPHREY, Respondents. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW Respondent Daniel Humphrey was employed as a custodian for petitioner Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) between September 15, 1982, and August 20, 1997. FUSD filed a timely petition for reconsideration with the WCAB on December 9, 1999. Although FUSD argues that all three apply in this instance, the WCJ and WCAB found that none do. (Dills v.Redwoods Assocs. , Ltd.(1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 888, 890, fn. 1. ) DISPOSITION The judgment (order) of the WCAB is affirmed.
Note:	Unrelated noncompensable injury means a disabling event which, had it been work-related, would be compensable under the worker's compensation laws; Apportionment requires pre-existing labor disability.
Citation:	84 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 65 CCC 1232
WCC Citation:	WCC 4042000 CA

Case Name:	Fruehauf Corp. v. WCAB		07/13/1967
Summary:	FRUEHAUF CORPORATION et al. , Petitioners, v.WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and THOMAS C.STANSBURY, Respondents. OPINION MOSK, J.Petitioners, Fruehauf Corporation and its insurance carrier, seek review of a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter board) awarding compensation to Thomas C.Stansbury, an employee who suffered an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of his employment by Fruehauf. Stansbury was employed by Fruehauf from July 21, 1962 to July 5, 1964, as an assembler. It persisted while he was at home and when he was in bed at night, as well as at work. He did not work for Fruehauf after July 2, 1964.
Note:	Statute of limitations begins on date of last exposure for cumulative injuries.
Citation:	68 Cal.2d 569, 33 CCC 300
WCC Citation:	WCC 25301967 CA

Case Name:	Fuentes v. WCAB		02/02/1976
Summary:	JOHN FUENTES, Petitioner, v.WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, PACIFIC STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al. , Respondents In Bank. However, in 1971 the Legislature amended section 4658, establishing a different method for computing the number of weekly benefits to be awarded. From this figure is subtracted the dollar value (§ 6,422. 50) of the 24. 25 percent of the noncompensable, nonindustrial disability. [16 Cal. 3d 6] [1a] We have concluded that formula A is the proper one, and accordingly affirm the decision of the Board. As we have previously noted, the purpose of that statute is to encourage employers to hire physically handicapped persons.
Note:	4658 is limited by 4750 only where employee had preexisiting disability.
Citation:	16 Cal.3d 1, 41 CCC 42
WCC Citation:	WCC 25101976 CA

Case Name:	Fuller v. County of Los Angeles		01/22/2013
Summary:	FULLER v.COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DOUGLAS FULLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115.PERLUSS, P.J.Douglas Fuller, a former firefighter trainee with the Los Angeles County Fire Department, appeals the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County of Los Angeles and County employees Dave Saran and Pitt Gilmore (collectively the County defendants) on Fuller's claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation and related torts. Under County Civil Service Rules, either termination was sufficient by itself to disqualify Fuller from employment with the County Fire Department. On March 17, 2007 the Board of Supervisors denied the claims on the merits, informing Fuller its investigation of the matter "fail[ed] to indicate any liability on the part of the County of Los Angeles. "Fuller's Lawsuit On April 25, 2007 Fuller filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court asserting claims for (1) violation of his federal civil rights (42 U. S. C.§ 1983) (against County only); (2) interference with prospective economic advantage (against County and Saran); (3) retaliatory conduct in violation of Los Angeles County Code section 5. 02. 060 and Labor Code section 1102. 5 (against County, Saran and Gilmore); and intentional infliction of emotional distress (against County, Saran and Gilmore).
Note:	A California appellate court has rejected a former firefighter trainee's claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation and related torts based on the conduct of the fire department and its officials after he boiled his foot during a training exercise.
Citation:	B228815
WCC Citation:	WCC 39742013 CA