Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Connections

Groups

Community Requests

Case Law Library



 
Case Name: Medrano v. WCAB 09/25/2008
Note: Vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) is not a wage replacement benefit, and thus it is not subject to wage-loss credit.
Citation: B202828
WCC Citation: WCC 34292008 CA
 
 
Case Name: Meeks Building Center v. WCAB (Najjar) 06/26/2012
Note: A single payment of benefits to an injured worker for attending a defense-requested medical evaluation is a reimbursement of a medical-legal expense, not a payment of temporary disability benefits.
Citation: C065944
WCC Citation: WCC 39102012 CA
 
 
Case Name: Mejia-Gutierrez v. Comcast of California III 01/28/2013
Note: A contractor was not liable as a matter of law, for injuries sustained by an employee of one of its subcontractors in a fall from a ladder.
Citation: A132933
WCC Citation: WCC 39782013 CA
 
 
Case Name: Melman v. PDF Solutions, Inc. 03/22/2013
Note: A former corporate officer with multiple sclerosis could not prove that his company terminated him on the basis of his disability as a matter of law.
Citation: H037703
WCC Citation: WCC 39962013 CA
 
 
Case Name: Mendez v. LAUSD 04/09/2013
Note: A Los Angeles Unified School District clerk who decided to file a civil action against her employer and an elementary school teacher who she says attacked her instead of filing a workers' compensation claim is not entitled to a tort claim.
Citation: B240919
WCC Citation: WCC 40002013 CA
 
 
Case Name: Mendiola v. Crestwood Behavioral Health 12/31/1969
Note: A California appellate court ruled that a health care worker was limited to a remedy through workers’ compensation for her injuries from an assault by a mentally ill patient.
Citation: C082345
WCC Citation: Super. Ct. No. 34-2013- 00147943-CU-WT-GDS
 
 
Case Name: Mendoza v. Brodeur 08/18/2006
Note: It was was premature to require the employee to come forward with evidence to show a triable issue of fact when the employer had not shifted the evidentiary burden.
Citation: 142 Cal. App. 4th 72
WCC Citation: WCC 31742006 CA
 
 
Case Name: Mendoza v. Huntington Hospital 06/03/2010
Note: [En Banc] AD Rule 30(d)(3) is invalid because it conflicts with sections 4060(c) and 4062.2 and exceeds the scope of section 5402(b).
Citation: ADJ6820138
WCC Citation: WCC 36342010 CA
 
 
Case Name: Mendoza v. United Air Lines 08/05/2009
Note: [Unpublished] Because Mendoza failed to give any notice of intent to contest the tentative ruling, she waived her right to challenge that ruling.
Citation: A122632
WCC Citation: WCC 35502009 CA
 
 
Case Name: Mercer-Fraser Co. v. IAC 01/06/1953
Note: Employer's duty for safe workplace not absolute as to liability under 4553.
Citation: 40 Cal.2d 102, 18 CCC 3
WCC Citation: WCC 24101953 CA
 
123 Results Page 6 of 13