Case Name:	American Safety Casualty Ins. Co. v. Mothershead		05/12/2009
Summary:	Respondent American Safety Casualty Insurance Company (American Safety) filed an action to recover workers' compensation benefits it had paid to Reynoso. Prior to trial, appellants served Code of Civil Procedure section 9981 offers to compromise on both Reynoso and American Safety. The sole issue on appeal is the validity of appellants' offers to compromise made to Reynoso and American Safety. Briskin, Latzanich & Pene, Katherine B. Pene for Plaintiff and Respondent American Safety Casualty Insurance Company and for Intervener and Respondent Salvador Reynoso. The offer was served February 11, 2005 and read, "To Plaintiff, American Safety Casualty Insurance Company and its attorneys of record: [¶] Defendants/Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendants Terease Mothershead and John Mothershead offer to compromise in the above-entitled action filed by Plaintiff, American Safety Casualty Insurance Company, pursuant to Section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, in exchange for a waiver of costs.
Note:	[Unpublished] Two plaintiffs who did not accept pretrial settlement offers are not liable for a defendant's expert witness fees, because the offers were unclear and conditional.
Citation:	B206494
WCC Citation:	WCC 35212009 CA

Case Name:	Amerigas Propane, LP v. Landstar Ranger, Inc.		05/18/2010
Summary:	Introduction Defendant and cross-complainant Amerigas Propane, L. P. (Amerigas) appeals summary judgment entered on Amerigas's cross-complaint, in favor of cross-defendant Landstar Ranger, Inc. (Landstar). This action arises from Amerigas contracting with motor carrier, Landstar Ranger, Inc. (Landstar), for the transportation of 30 Amerigas propane tanks. King leased to Landstar a tractor and "drop-deck" trailer, referred to as a flatbed trailer, he had recently obtained for hauling loads for Landstar. Amerigas seeks to recover, based on comparative fault, a portion of what Amerigas paid to settle the Kings's underlying lawsuit. Amerigas alleges it is entitled to equitable indemnity from Landstar for a portion of the settlement proceeds, based on Landstar being partially at fault for King's injuries.
Note:	A trial court should not have granted a defendant's motion for summary judgment because a factual question existed about whether an injured trucker was an employee, and whether a company owed him a duty as an independent contractor.
Citation:	E048536
WCC Citation:	WCC 36232010 CA

Case Name:	Amico vs. WCAB		12/02/1974
Summary:	SAM AMICO, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, LEUNING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Sims, Acting P. J. , with Elkington, J. , and Bray, J. , concurring. )'As a general rule, the board "must accept as true the intended meaning of [evidence] both uncontradicted and unimpeached. "A second report made after a review of medical reports and files, without reexamination of petitioner, on May 15, 1973, states: "The history I obtained from Mr. Amico indicates that he was never symptom-free following this original laminectomy. These X-rays were later referred to by Dr. Cappeller as follows: "Lumbar Spine dated 3-30-72 -- There are five lumbar bodies. There was also presumably an injury to the right knee, and he developed a hernia in the right inguinal region.
Note:	Prior rating or award does not necessarily evidence prior level of disability.
Citation:
WCC Citation:	WCC 30271974 CA

Case Name:	An Independent Home Support Service, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego, State Compensation Insurance Fund		12/21/2006
Summary:	Filed 12/21/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN INDEPENDENT HOME SUPPORT SERVICE, INC. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Real Party in Interest. AIHSS obtained workers' compensation insurance from State Fund on behalf of the two office workers. State Fund denied the appeal, finding that the domestic workers were considered employees of AIHSS for workers' compensation purposes. We conclude that compliance with the requirements of section 1812. 5095 does exempt AIHSS from maintaining workers' compensation insurance for its domestic workers. We conclude that the plain language of section 1812. 5095 demonstrates that it was intended to apply to workers' compensation insurance, not, as State Fund asserts and the court found, only unemployment insurance.
Note:	A referral agency that provides domestic workers to individuals and entities is deemed not to be the employers, for the purposes of workers' compensation, of the domestic workers they refer.
Citation:	145 Cal. App. 4th 1418
WCC Citation:	WCC 32002006 CA

Case Name:	Andersen v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		04/19/2007
Summary:	Filed 4/19/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX d Civil No. B191064 (W. C. A. B. No. GOL 0093796) JOHN ANDERSEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF SANTA BARBARA et al. , Respondents. Proceeding to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. No appearance for Respondents Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and JT2 Integrated Resources. He also argued that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) improperly applied the apportionment provisions of Senate Bill No. 899 (2003-2004 Reg. Statutory Interpretation We independently interpret workers' compensation statutes to ascertain the intent of the Legislature and effectuate the purpose of the workers' compensation scheme.
Note:	Employer violated section 132a by requiring claimant to use his earned vacation time rather than sick leave to attend medical appointments to care for his industrial injuries.
Citation:	149 Cal. App. 4th 1369, 72 CCC 389
WCC Citation:	WCC 32172007 CA

Case Name:	Anderson v. Catholic Healthcare West		04/11/2013
Summary:	ANDERSON v. CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST JANET ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, Defendant and Respondent. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 115 MARGULIES, Acting P. J. Janet Anderson appeals from a judgment after a court trial in favor of her former employer, Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) doing business as Mercy Medical Center (Mercy). The subject of alternative positions in the OR was discussed with Anderson, including an open position as a circulating nurse. Anderson discussed the latex allergy with her supervisor at the outpatient surgery center who then designated one of the rooms as a latex-free area for Anderson to perform many of her duties. Due to fears of latex exposure, Anderson turned down a number of positions in the healthcare field.
Note:	A hospital made reasonable efforts to accommodate a nurse with a severe latex allergy and its decision to fire her when a suitable modified duty position could not be found did not violate the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	A127934
WCC Citation:	WCC 40022013 CA

Case Name:	Anderson v. Denham Contracting		03/30/2009
Summary:	Filed 3/30/09 Anderson v. Denham Contracting CA1/2 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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE D. CRAIG ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DENHAM CONTRACTING, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. His workers' compensation claim and personal injury claims against other subcontractors have been resolved, but he now appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his negligence complaint against an additional subcontractor on the job, defendant Denham Contracting, Inc. (Denham). Plaintiff filed a complaint for negligence*fn1 against Denham, alleging that Denham was responsible for safety conditions at the location where plaintiff fell and/or [was] responsible for creating the hole and unsafe condition which caused plaintiff to fall and be injured. According to the trial court, The work performed on the roof by Denham was to build a parapet wall around the perimeter of the building.
Note:	[Unpublished] A subcontractor did not owe a project foreman a duty of care to prevent him from falling through a hole in the roof.
Citation:	A119834
WCC Citation:	WCC 35092009 CA

Case Name:	Anderson v. Union Oil Co.		07/17/1975
Summary:	GEORGE L. ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Beach, J. , with Fleming, Acting P. J. , and Compton, J. , concurring. )OPINION BEACH, J. Respondent's employee appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent Union Oil Company in a class action for declaratory relief. The provisions for sick pay allowance are contained in the articles of agreement between respondent Union Oil and the appellant's labor union. Appellant received his full salary during the period of illness; $3,420 under the workmen's compensation statute and $2,095. 58 from respondent Union Oil Company pursuant to the company funded sick pay plan. Whether, under the Union Oil plan, sick pay is the equivalent of 'earnings' and a 'benefit' as defined by Labor Code sections 3751 and 3752. .
Note:	Employer can provide in a voluntary benefit plan for credit against work comp. liabilities.
Citation:	49 Cal.App.3d 968, 40 CCC 970
WCC Citation:	WCC 24601975 CA

Case Name:	Andrade v. City of Milpitas		01/04/2013
Summary:	ANDRADE v. CITY OF MILPITAS YVONNE ANDRADE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF MILPITAS, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Yvonne Andrade brought an action against defendant City of Milpitas (City) for failure to accommodate her disability. Though a physical therapist recommended in October 2008 that Andrade work part-time, Andrade never requested permission from the City to work less than 40 hours per week. In order for Andrade to be paid instead of having to take leave without pay, the City permitted Andrade to call her supervisor the day she was too ill to work and use vacation time. Andrade never provided a doctor's recommendation to the City that she should work from home due to her medical condition.
Note:	A municipal employer who allowed an employee to miss more than one out of every 10 days of work over a two-year period because of her fibromyalgia and made arrangements for her to work from home, made sufficient accommodation for the worker's disabilities.
Citation:	H037124
WCC Citation:	WCC 39702013 CA

Case Name:	Angelotti v. Walt Disney Company et al.		02/24/2011
Summary:	ANGELOTTI v. WALT DISNEY COMPANY ANTHONY ANGELOTTI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The court also concluded that The Walt Disney Company (Disney Company) and other defendants owed Angelotti no duty of care. Factual Background Second Mate entered into an agreement with Walt Disney Pictures in which Second Mate agreed to produce and Walt Disney Pictures agreed to finance two movies. Walt Disney Pictures is a subsidiary of Disney Company. Disney Company, Walt Disney Pictures, Buena Vista Productions, Jerry Bruckheimer, Inc. , Golden Oak Ranch Properties, Elliot, Quick, and Rose (collectively Disney defendants) together with Stephan Sports and Stephan filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication in November 2008.
Note:	Exclusive remedy barred a stuntman from suing a film production company because substantial evidence showed that it was his special employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B219946
WCC Citation:	WCC 37182011 CA