Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

Case Law Library



 
Case Name: Arriaga vs. County of Alameda 04/25/1995
Summary: LINDA ARRIAGA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. (Superior Court of Alameda County, No. 710500-3, James R. Lambden, Judge. )* Linda Arriaga appeals from a judgment dismissing her action for personal injury against respondents County of Alameda (County) and State of California (State). [Arriaga] was assigned by Cal Trans to clean greasy walls of a ventilation duct deep inside the building over the Posey Tube connecting the city of Alameda to Oakland. In each of those cases the person injured was, unlike Arriaga, a county jail inmate at the time of the injury.
Note: Person convicted of crime but not incarcerated, who performs community service in lieu of paying a fine, is an employee.
Citation: 9 Cal.4th 1055
WCC Citation: WCC 28761995 CA
 
 
Case Name: Arteaga v. Brink's Inc. 05/28/2008
Summary: Ruiz also spoke to Arteaga, letting him know that there was an ongoing investigation into the March 1, 2004 variance. At his deposition, Arteaga said he began experiencing these symptoms "[p]robably a year before, two years before" he reported them. But Arteaga concluded that the policy did not apply to him because he was not to blame for his injuries. The physician indicated that Arteaga could return to work without any restrictions and completed a workers' compensation form to that effect. From March 17, 2004 -- when Arteaga first mentioned his symptoms -- to March 23, 2004 -- the day of his termination, Arteaga did not display any difficulty in performing his duties.
Note: Where the employee relies solely on temporal proximity in response to the employer's evidence of a nonretaliatory reason for termination, he or she does not create a triable issue as to pretext, and summary judgment for the employer is proper.
Citation: B194082
WCC Citation: WCC 33742008 CA
 
 
Case Name: Ashdown vs. Ameron Int'l Corp. 08/17/2000
Summary: ELLEN ASHDOWN, Individually and as Executor, etc. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. This action was brought against respondent Ameron International Corporation (Ameron) by his estate, by and through the decedent's surviving spouse and executor Ellen Ashdown (Ashdown) and his children Kristy Smith and Ian Smith, alleging wrongful death and survival rights of action for negligence, strict liability and loss of consortium caused by his exposure to asbestos during his employment as a pipe inspector for respondent's predecessor company. On April 9, 1997, appellants filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint naming Ameron as a defendant, alleging they had failed to name Ameron as a defendant initially because they had only 'recently learned of facts indicating liability of Ameron . Respondent subsequently moved for summary judgment on these grounds, and noticed a hearing to be held on Friday, July 3, 1998. We conclude on the basis of the undisputed evidence that the trial court's grant of summary judgment was correct, and therefore affirm.
Note: Dual Capacity and Fraudulent Concealment doctrines narrowly construed v. exclusive remedy.
Citation: 83 Cal.App.4th 868, 65 CCC 1026
WCC Citation: WCC 24172000 CA
 
 
Case Name: Ashley v. WCAB 08/01/1995
Summary: AUDLEY ASHLEY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, PRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. Facts and Procedural History Applicant Audley Ashley, born June 8, 1948, was employed in various clerical capacities with different employers, and developed severe carpal tunnel symptoms in both hands and extremities. While on a banking errand for her employer, the San Luis Obispo YMCA, applicant's vehicle was hit by another car. This employer did not advise applicant of her compensation rights, either, and in addition was uninsured for workers' compensation. The purpose of this section is to overrule the decision in Jensen v. WCAB, 136 Cal. App. 3d 1042 [186 Cal. Rptr.
Note: Employer need not compensate a worker for a disability from a preexisting perm. disability.
Citation: 37 Cal.App.4th 320, 60 CCC 683
WCC Citation: WCC 24751995 CA
 
 
Case Name: Astudillo v. Duggleby 09/26/2007
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE JOSE ASTUDILLO et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. KURT DUGGLEBY, Defendant and Appellant. FACTS AND PROCEDURE While working at his landscape job, Jose Astudillo was struck by a car driven by Kurt Duggleby. As part of the settlement, Zurich assigned to Duggleby its $92,787. 56 lien on any judgment Astudillo might obtain against Duggleby. The trial court entered a judgment that recited the jury's verdict, but which stated because Duggleby held the Zurich's lien, Astudillo would have to recover a verdict in excess of $92,787. 56 before Duggleby was obliged to pay anything on the judgment. The judgment then permitted Duggleby to assert the Zurich lien to offset any remaining balance that would otherwise have been owed to Astudillo.
Note: [Unpublished] It is participation in creating the common fund, or the fund from which a lien may be satisfied, that is relevant to the application of section 3856. Nominal participation is not sufficient and 'the question of whether a party is an active participant in litigation is one of fact for the trial court to decide.
Citation: G038287, 05CC08248
WCC Citation: WCC 32612007 CA
 
 
Case Name: Atascadero USD v. WCAB (Geredes) 05/28/2002
Summary: ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; CARRIE GEREDES, Respondents. COUNSEL Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, Kim A. Enriquez, George A. Krikes for Petitioner Atascadero Unified School District. She saw a psychiatrist who diagnosed major depression and found her temporarily totally disabled from October 18 through December 1999. The WCJ found that no compensable psychiatric injury occurred because the gossip concerned a personal matter unrelated to Geredes' employment. We annul the award and remand to the WCAB with directions to withdraw its order granting reconsideration and issue a new order denying Geredes' petition for reconsideration.
Note: Gossip insufficient to support claim for psychiatric injury.
Citation: 98 Cal.App.4th 880
WCC Citation: WCC 28552002 CA
 
 
Case Name: Atlantic Richfield Co. v. WCAB 05/20/1982
Summary: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CARMAN ARVIZU et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Richardson, J. , with Mosk, Kaus and Broussard, JJ. , and Hastings, J. , concurring. First, in cases in which the surviving spouse is employed, how should partial dependency be determined and death benefits computed?[31 Cal. 3d 720] The Legislature elected not to reinstate the presumption of total dependency, and in 1979 it amended section 3501, removing subdivision (a). Several different approaches have been suggested for determining the appropriate amount of the award to a partial dependent. 'The marital community is something more than the sum of the economic interests of individuals who make it up.
Note: For partial dependency, widow must establish annual amount of support from husband's earnings.
Citation: 31 Cal.3d 715, 47 CCC 500
WCC Citation: WCC 25811982 CA
 
 
Case Name: Aubry v. WCAB 07/28/1997
Summary: LLOYD W. AUBRY, JR. , as Director, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, EDGAR AMORES et al. , Respondents. If the award is not paid by the employer, the award, upon application by the person entitled thereto, shall be paid by UEF. Proper service of the required documents on an employer is essential to the Board's personal jurisdiction of the employer. Comp. Cases 254, establishes that the employer must be served with a copy of the application for adjudication of claim. An application for adjudication was only filed with the Board at any time there was a dispute, i. e. , when trial was required on an issue.
Note: Service of claim form is proper notice to employer for injuries in years 1990-93.
Citation: 56 Cal.App.4th 1032, 62 CCC 870
WCC Citation: WCC 24371997 CA
 
 
Case Name: Audiss v. City of Rohnert Park 04/02/2007
Summary: Wendy Audiss, Applicant v. City of Rohnert Park, Redwood Empire Insurance Fund, Defendants W. C. A. B. No. SRO 0137956--WCAB Panel: Deputy Commissioner Hannigan, Commissioners Caplane, Murray (concurring, but not signing) Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Panel Decision) Opinion Filed April 2, 2007 Opinion By: Deputy Commissioner Dennis J. Hannigan OPINION: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Defendant, City of Rohnert Park, permissibly self-insured, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award, issued January 8, 2007, in which a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) awarded applicant, Wendy Audiss, 3% permanent disability and further medical treatment pursuant to the parties' Stipulations with Request for Award. Statement of Facts Applicant sustained an admitted industrial cumulative injury to her right wrist over the period ending October 26, 2005, while employed by the City of Rohnert Park as a Recreation Supervisor. She received medical treatment through the Occupational Health Clinic at Kaiser Permanente in Rohnert Park. AWARD AWARD IS MADE is favor of WENDY AUDISS, and against CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, permissibly self-insured, as follows: A. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Deputy Commissioner Dennis J. Hannigan I concur, Commissioner Ronnie G. Caplane Commissioner Janice Jamison Murray (concurring, but not signing) ===========Footnotes=========== .
Note: Defendant is entitled to the benefit of Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A), as agreed upon by the parties in their Stipulated Award.
Citation: SRO 0137956
WCC Citation: WCC 34392007 CA
 
 
Case Name: Avalon Bay Foods v. WCAB 08/20/1998
Summary: Avalon Bay Foods v. Workers' Comp. AVALON BAY FOODS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ROBERT MOORE, Respondents. For that reason, they are subject to the 60-day time limit for payment applicable to other medical treatment benefits. I In February 1995, petitioner Robert Moore, while employed as a food production worker for Avalon Bay Foods, suffered injury to his left leg ultimately resulting in amputation below the knee. The workers' compensation judge ruled that ITT Hartford unreasonably delayed payment of the medical treatment transportation benefit.
Note: No penalty if reimbursable medical expense paid within 60 days of receipt.
Citation: 18 Cal.4th 1165, 63 CCC 902
WCC Citation: WCC 3951998 CA
 
1705 Results Page 9 of 171