Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library

Case Name: Aveni v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners 01/24/2008
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C052955 January 24, 2008 MICHAEL D. AVENI, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. The Board of Chiropractic Examiners (the Board) brought a disciplinary action against Michael Aveni, D. C. , alleging unprofessional conduct and sexual misconduct in the treatment of several female patients. *fn1 In response to the allegations, Aveni wrote a letter to the investigator for the Board, denying any inappropriate behavior. One day she invited Aveni and his wife over for lunch so a neighbor could give them massages. S. F. was hoping Aveni would hire the neighbor. Further, Carlisle would confirm C. K. did not complain about Aveni and Carlisle subsequently referred clients to Aveni, showing his trust and confidence in Aveni.
Note: An incorrect interpretation of the law arrived at by the application of an incorrect legal theory cannot invalidate an administrative determination otherwise correct in result.
Citation: C052955
WCC Citation: WCC 33062008 CA
Case Name: Avila v. WCAB 12/30/1970
Summary: LEONIDES AVILA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, B. S. BAINS et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Friedman, J. , with Pierce, P. J. , and Janes, J. , concurring. )1 Before the accident Mr. Avila, the applicant, had a permanent deformity of the right hip and leg as the result of an inflammatory disease during childhood. Nevertheless, he made a living as a farm laborer, picking and thinning fruit and ground crops and pruning trees. His hip and leg condition appears to have been stationary; at least, there is no evidence that it was progressive. [1a] Mr. Avila claims that his condition before the accident did not disable him from pursuing his occupation; thus, that this is a 'lighting up' [14 Cal. App. 3d 37] case, chargeable entirely to the job in which the accident occurred.
Note: PD when impairment of earning capacity or normal use of a member, or handicap in labor mkt.
Citation: 14 Cal.App.3d 33, 35 CCC 637
WCC Citation: WCC 25111970 CA
Case Name: Avila-Gonzalez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board 10/07/2010
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO No. A126429 October 7, 2010 ARMANDO AVILA-GONZALEZ, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. , RESPONDENTS. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Petitioner Armando Avila-Gonzalez petitions for review of an order by a divided panel of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board). In many instances, the 2005 PDRS reduces the amount of compensation a worker will receive for a permanent disability. In its opinion, the Board also stated that Dr. Taylor's November 2004 report was "not an indication of permanent disability. "If so, the Board should apply the 1997 PDRS; if not, the Board should apply the 2005 PDRS.
Note: Faced with conflicting case law about what needs to be present in a doctor's report for the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule to apply, the 1st District Court of Appeal on Thursday sided with the Genlyte decision and remanded back to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for a decision about whether a medical report written before 2005 stated that the applicant was permanently disabled.
Citation: A126429
WCC Citation: WCC 36762010 CA
Case Name: Ayala et al. v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. 09/19/2012
Summary: Maria Ayala et al v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc B235484 /19/2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR September 19, 2012 MARIA AYALA ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. ANTELOPE VALLEY NEWSPAPERS, INC. , DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Plaintiffs Maria Ayala, Rosa Duran, and Osman Nunez appeal from an order denying their motion for class certification. Code, § 1174); and (8) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 (based upon the alleged violations of the Labor Code). The complaint alleges that AVP publishes the Antelope Valley Press, a general circulation newspaper that is distributed under the auspices of AVP. In addition to the daily newspaper AVP publishes, the agreements require carriers to deliver a weekly publication, the Antelope Valley Express.
Note: A group of newspaper home delivery carriers were entitled to assert a class action against their employer based on their alleged misclassification as independent contractors.
Citation: B235484
WCC Citation: WCC 39422012 CA
Case Name: Babbitt v. Ow Jing dba National Market and Golden Eagle Insurance Co. 01/24/2007
Summary: WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. STK 0174793 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) SHARON BABBITT, Applicant, vs. OW JING dba NATIONAL MARKET; and GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. *fn 2* BACKGROUND Applicant, Sharon Babbitt, sustained admitted industrial injury to her back and neck on July 1, 1999, while employed as a stock clerk by Ow Jing, doing business as National Market, and insured by Golden Eagle Insurance Company. On June 5, 2006, applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to Expedited Hearing regarding her entitlement to medical treatment. In the instant case the additional year was in fact provided, thus there is no impediment to transfer to the MPN. An Employer Or Insurer May Satisfy Its Obligation To Provide Reasonable Medical Treatment Under Section 4600 Through An Authorized MPN.
Note: A defendant may satisfy its obligation under Labor Code section 4600 to provide reasonable medical treatment by transferring an injured worker into an MPN in conformity with applicable statutes and regulations regardless of the date of injury or the date of an award of future medical treatment.
Citation: STK 0174793
WCC Citation: WCC 32082007 CA
Case Name: Badillo v. Abc Industries, Inc. et al. 03/16/2012
Summary: Leticia Marin Badillo v. Abc Industries, Inc. et al. No. B227714 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 03/16/2012) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE March 16, 2012 LETICIA MARIN BADILLO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. ABC INDUSTRIES, INC. Plaintiff alleges she was employed for eight years as a janitor, assigned to work at the Century Plaza Towers facilities. On January 26, 2004, defendant's district manager, Eliseo Gutierrez, terminated plaintiff's employment for excessive absenteeism with approval from Mr. Bassin. On March 22, 2006, plaintiff was suspended pending Mr. Martinez's investigation of whether she had falsified her sign-in log sheets. Defendants, ABM Industries Incorporated, ABM Janitorial Services -- Southwest Inc. , are to recover their costs on appeal from plaintiff, Leticia Marin Badillo.
Note: A janitor who was hired and fired by the same company on three different occasions was time-barred from asserting her claims of harassment, retaliation, disability discrimination, wrongful termination and violation of the Family Rights Act.
Citation: B227714
WCC Citation: WCC 38752012 CA
Case Name: Bagatti v. Dept. of Rehab 04/02/2002
Summary: MARILYN BAGATTI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff, Marilyn Bagatti, is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was a resident of Sacramento County, California. The reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. Plaintiff Has Pleaded a Valid Cause of Action for Damages Caused by an Unlawful Employment Practice Under the FEHA. Plaintiff first contends she has adequately pleaded that she suffers from a physical disability within the meaning of the FEHA.
Note: FEHA suit is not barred by exclusive remedy doctrine.
Citation: 97 Cal.App.4th 344
WCC Citation: WCC 28462002 CA
Case Name: Baglione v. Hertz Car Sales 04/06/2007
Summary: WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SJO 0251644 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) JOSEPH BAGLIONE, Applicant, vs. HERTZ CAR SALES; AIG; and CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES (Adjusting Agent), Defendant. Defendant, being newly aggrieved, seeks reconsideration of the en banc decision issued by the Appeals Board on January 24, 2007. (E. g. , People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 367, 382-383; In re Raphael P. (2002) 97 Cal. App. 4th 716, 722. )Accordingly, we are free to reconsider our prior en banc decision and to reach a different conclusion. However, this change of Appeals Board members does not affect our ability to reconsider that en banc decision.
Note: For the 1997 Schedule to apply under section 4660(d), the existence of permanent disability must be indicated in either a pre-2005 comprehensive medical-legal report or a pre-2005 report from a treating physician.
Citation: 72 CCC 444
WCC Citation: WCC 32142007 CA
Case Name: Baglione v. Hertz Car Sales and AIG 01/24/2007
Summary: See Baglione v. Hertz Car Sales (04/06/07) WCC Citation: WCC 32142007 CA. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SJO 0251644 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) JOSEPH BAGLIONE, Applicant, vs. HERTZ CAR SALES, and AIG, Adjusted by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, Defendant(s). )*fn 4* In Aldi v. Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 783 (Board en banc), writ den. To properly construe this provision, it is only necessary to apply a longstanding rule of statutory construction: the last antecedent rule. AWARD AWARD IS MADE in favor of JOSEPH BAGLIONE, against HERTZ CAR SALES and AIG, adjusted by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, of: (a) Further medical treatment reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury to the low back.
Note: The PDRS that was in effect at the time of the comprehensive medical-legal report is applicable.
Citation: 72 CCC 86
WCC Citation: WCC 32072007 CA
Case Name: Bailey v. Reliance Ins. Co. 03/28/2000
Summary: STEPHEN S. BAILEY et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION CURRY, J. - Appellants Stephen S. and Jeannette Bailey settled a personal injury action with the driver of a car who injured Mr. Bailey and the driver's employer. Under the terms of the settlement, Mrs. Bailey was to receive $200,000 for loss of consortium, and Mr. Bailey was to receive nothing for his personal injury claim. If, as is often the case, Mr. Bailey requires additional medical treatment or rehabilitation services, he may seek additional benefits from Reliance. To the contrary, those defendants owed an independent obligation to Reliance to reimburse it for amounts paid on behalf of Mr. Bailey.
Note: Employer's settlement of past benefits in 3rd party case does not defeat credit against future benefits.
Citation: 79 Cal.App.4th 449, 65 CCC 375
WCC Citation: WCC 23872000 CA
1706 Results Page 10 of 171