Case Name:	Caso v. Nimrod Productions, Inc.		05/14/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN CHRISTOPHER CASO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NIMROD PRODUCTIONS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. McNicholas & McNicholas, John P. McNicholas and Robert P. Wargo; Joshua M. Merliss for Plaintiffs and Appellants Christopher Caso and Anna Marie Caso. Caso asserted claims for negligence; Anne Marie Caso alleged loss of consortium. For purposes of this summary judgment motion only, Caso does not dispute he was an employee of Touchstone. For purposes of the consolidated summary judgment motions only, Caso did not dispute he was an employee of Touchstone.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because a special employee relationship was established between plaintiffs and defendant, plaintiffs' cause of action for personal injury is barred by workers' compensation exclusive remedy.
Citation:	B198347
WCC Citation:	WCC 33572008 CA

Case Name:	Castro Valley Unif. School Dist. v. WCAB		05/05/1999
Summary:	rehab. In its Findings and Award on the RU appeal, the WCJ found: 1) that the RU should have approved the voc. rehab. rehab. The WCAB granted reconsideration, reviewed the record, adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and recommendation.
Note:	Employer liable for maintenance allowance absent giving notice confirming lack of modified/alternate work; 139.5 cap does not apply until notice given.
Citation:	64 CCC 668
WCC Citation:	WCC 27931999 CA

Case Name:	Catalina Car Wash vs. DIR		01/08/2003
Summary:	CATALINA CAR WASH, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. On May 3, 2000, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (Division), represented by Deputy Labor Commissioner Diana Chen, conducted an inspection at Catalina Car Wash on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles. The agent's cover letter stated an invoice was enclosed for the deposit premium, and asked Catalina to "[p]lease remit payment within 10 days. "The hearing officer concluded the evidence established Catalina did not have a current workers' compensation insurance policy in effect on May 3, 2000. Page 10} In sum, since Catalina was insured at the time the stop order was issued, no basis exists for a penalty assessment, and the judgment against Catalina must be reversed.
Note:	Coverage exists as matter of law where parties intended and no penalty attaches despite lack of documentation.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 29132003 CA

Case Name:	Catalina Car Wash, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations		01/08/2003
Summary:	CATALINA CAR WASH, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. Chen asked to see proof Catalina had secured workers' compensation insurance coverage, as required by statute. The agent's cover letter stated an invoice was enclosed for the deposit premium, and asked Catalina to "[p]lease remit payment within 10 days. "The hearing officer concluded the evidence established Catalina did not have a current workers' compensation insurance policy in effect on May 3, 2000. Co. v. Department of Industrial Relations, supra, 23 Cal. App. 4th at p.
Note:	Intent to renew a work comp policy sufficient to defeat fine for lack of coverage.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 29082003 CA

Case Name:	Catholic Healthcare West v CIGA		10/05/2009
Summary:	In December 2001, Catholic Healthcare West II merged with its parent corporation, Catholic Healthcare West. Catholic Healthcare West II was the surviving nonprofit public benefit corporation and changed its name to Catholic Healthcare West. Background CIGA's cross-complaint for indemnity alleged that (1) CIGA had mistakenly believed that the claims made by or on behalf of Catholic Healthcare West were covered claims for purposes of section 1063. 1, (2) the claims were not covered claims and CIGA was not authorized to pay them, and (3) Catholic Healthcare West was legally obligated to return the $186,093. 51 paid by CIGA, but had refused to return the payment as demanded by CIGA. Hospital Corporation, then named Catholic Healthcare West Central California, merged with Catholic Healthcare West North State, another subsidiary of Catholic Healthcare West. Catholic Healthcare West II was the surviving corporation and changed its name to Catholic Healthcare West.
Note:	Any claims presented by the corporation that employed the claimant were covered claims despite the fact that the corporation changed its name to a name not listed in the insurance policy.
Citation:	F055842
WCC Citation:	WCC 35692009 CA

Case Name:	Catrell Brown v. Foster Farms Poultry		07/13/2009
Summary:	Filed 7/14/09 Brown v. Foster Farms Poultry CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE 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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CATRELL BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FOSTER FARMS POULTRY, Defendant and Respondent. Catrell Brown, in pro. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiff and appellant Catrell Brown was an employee of defendant and respondent Foster Farms Poultry. Appellant subsequently filed an Amended Complaint to Foster Poultry Farms Special Demurrers.
Note:	A worker who believed his co-workers were spitting into his drink failed to clearly state a specific cause of action in his complaint against his employer,.
Citation:	F056603
WCC Citation:	WCC 35412009 CA

Case Name:	Cavanaugh v. WCAB		10/18/1967
Summary:	GEORGE W. CAVANAUGH, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ORANGE COUNTY BUS SYSTEM et al. , Respondents. The Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board filed an order March 9, 1967, in its Santa Ana office, denying George Cavanaugh's petition for commutation. The referee's opinion on the Petition for Reconsideration found the order was served on the parties on March 9, 1967. [1] Under Labor Code, section 5903, a party may petition for reconsideration within 20 days after service of a final order. The court reasoned absent a showing of service of the order, it 'cannot presume' (p. 472) service.
Note:	No presumption of proof of service when endorsement does not contain the date of actual service.
Citation:	255 Cal.App.2d 181, 32 CCC 445
WCC Citation:	WCC 27871967 CA

Case Name:	Cedeno v. American Nat. Ins. Co., etc.		07/21/1997
Summary:	For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the lien claimants' assertion that they were denied due process. The lien claimants alleged that they provided services to applicant and that their liens were served upon defendants in 1991 and 1992. On May 31, 1996, applicant filed an Application for Adjudication and a mandatory settlement conference was held on August 15, 1996. However, neither Neurologic Orthopedic Associates nor the other lien claimants received notice of the mandatory settlement conference. There was insufficient time to complete all of the testimony on September 20 so the matter was continued to October 28, 1996.
Note:	Request for WCJ disqualification denied absent declaration of grounds for request, record of bias.
Citation:	62 CCC 939 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 27681997 CA

Case Name:	Cedillo vs. WCAB		02/14/2003
Summary:	A workers' compensation judge concluded as an unlicensed contractor, Mr. Cedillo was not an independent contractor; hence, Mr. Cedillo was an employee of Mr. Reyes; and Mr. Rodriguez was an employee of the homeowner, Mr. Reyes. The board held: "[A]s between Cedillo, the alleged contractor, and Reyes, (homeowner), Cedillo would be an employee under Labor Code section 2750. 5. However, because Cedillo has no claim against Reyes and does not meet the hour requirement of Labor Code section 3352(h), anymore than the applicant meets the 52 hour requirement, under Division 4, Cedillo cannot be an employee. Therefore, we are not required to revert to the definition of Cedillo, as an employee, as set forth in Labor Code section 2750. 5. [P] Therefore, Cedillo is the employer of applicant. "Mr. Cedillo reasoned as follows: Mr. Reyes was the statutory employer of Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Cedillo; this employment relationship arose from the provision of section 2750. 5; and Mr. Cedillo could not both be an employee of Mr. Reyes, the homeowner, and the employer of Mr. Rodriguez.
Note:	Employee of unlicensed contractor must meet criteria of 3352(h) before customer becomes statutory employer.
Citation:	106 Cal.App.4th 227
WCC Citation:	WCC 29172003 CA

Case Name:	Ceradyne, Inc. v. Argonaut Insurance Co.		06/02/2009
Summary:	Relevant to this case, insurance companies providing workers compensation policies are required by law to disclose and seek pre-approval from the Insurance Commissioner and WCIRB of the insurance plan being purchased. )*fn1 In this case, Argonaut Insurance Company provided a workers' compensation plan to a large corporation, Ceradyne Inc. After several years, Ceradyne filed a lawsuit against Argonaut, having concluded the insurance company was liable for mismanaging the workers' compensation claims and finances. It determined the IPA was unenforceable and void because Argonaut did not comply with section 11658, requiring submission of insurance contracts and endorsements to the Department of Insurance. Argonaut argues the IPA does not look like an "insurance policy," and therefore, the insurance commissioner did not need to review or approve it. Argonaut cites one tax law case to support its theory the IPA contract was not an insurance policy requiring review by the Insurance Commissioner.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the Insurance Program Agreement (IPA) contains a severability clause, we conclude the trial court had authority to sever the void arbitration clause, deny arbitration, and deny the stay/dismissal request.
Citation:	G039873
WCC Citation:	WCC 35292009 CA

Case Name:	Cervantes v. El Aguila Food Products		11/19/2009
Summary:	ADJ3675309 (SAL 0081669) ADJ2967795 (SAL 0101259) ADJ3517685 (SAL 0077391) ADJ1962561 (SAL 0077392) JESUS CERVANTES, Applicant, vs. EL AGUILA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. ; SAFECO INSURANCE CO. OF ILLINOIS; SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. , In Liquidation; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION; and BROADSPIRE (Servicing Facility), AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Applicant, Jesus Cervantes, sustained several industrial injuries to his low back in 1996, , and 1998, while employed by El Aguila Food Products, Inc. (El Aguila). El Aguila was insured by Safeco for two of these injuries. In the January 16, 2009 report, Dr. Dureza said: "I do feel somewhat confident that the patient would benefit from surgery . . . Accordingly, the implicit legislative purpose in establishing UR was to create an expeditious and inexpensive method to assess treating physician's medical treatment recommendations.
Note:	[En Banc] The procedures and timelines governing objections to a treating physician's recommendation for spinal surgery are contained in Labor Code sections 4610 and 4062 and in Administrative Director (AD) Rules 9788.1, 9788.11, and 9792.6(o).
Citation:	ADJ3675309
WCC Citation:	WCC 35812009 CA

Case Name:	Cervantes vs. Great American Ins. Co.		03/14/1983
Summary:	JESUS CERVANTES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Although the injury required medical care, including surgery, Great American refused to pay or extend Cervantes any benefits. Otherwise, Great American neither requested to [140 Cal. App. 3d 766] have Cervantes examined by a physician of its choice nor contacted Cervantes' treating physician. When Cervantes refused to settle, Great American then paid the award in full. Great American contends, because Cervantes alleged physical as well as mental and emotional injuries, that his suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred.
Note:	Wilful delay in payment of benefits does not remove action from exclusive remedy of comp.
Citation:	140 Cal.App.3d 763
WCC Citation:	WCC 29951983 CA

Case Name:	Chambers v. WCAB		11/14/1968
Summary:	Chambers, a machinist with a third grade education, was employed by an iron company from 1952 until early 1964. Chambers then consulted a Dr. Dickstein, who attributed the emphysema to his constant exposure to dust over a period of many years. *FN 5 Dr. Wasserman, who first diagnosed Chambers' condition, [69 Cal. 2d 562] advised him to stop smoking and he did so. Dr. Dickstein did not refer to cigarettes as a cause of emphysema or of Chambers' disability although his report shows that he was aware of the fact that Chambers had smoked for a number of years. The question is unclear since it cannot be ascertained whether the word "this" refers to Chambers' tiredness or to his emphysema.
Note:	It is the employer's burden of proof to show the employee's knowledge.
Citation:	69 Cal.2d 556
WCC Citation:	WCC 31001968 CA

Case Name:	Chan v. City & County of San Francisco		04/19/2011
Summary:	CHAN v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ALBERT LAP CHAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS LAMBDEN, J. Albert Lap Chan, plaintiff below, appeals from the trial court's grant of the motion for summary judgment brought by respondent, the City and County of San Francisco (City). Chan sued the City for sex discrimination and harassment under FEHA and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Heller said D. told her on September 18 that Chan was "a pervert," but would not elaborate, and told her on September 30 that Chan had touched her sexually. Also, Dere repeated her accusations about Chan to a San Francisco Police Inspector on September 30.
Note:	A former swimming instructor did not show that the City and County of San Francisco's reasons for terminating him were a pretext for sex-based discrimination, an appellate court ruled.
Citation:	A124330
WCC Citation:	WCC 37532011 CA

Case Name:	Chang v. WCAB		07/24/2007
Summary:	Filed 7/24/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COPY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT RACHEL CHANG, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Respondents. Marks for California Workers' Compensation Institute as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund. FACTS The applicant, Rachel Chang, while employed as a typist by respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund, sustained an industrial cumulative trauma injury to her back and upper extremities during a period ending in July 2004. The schedule is based on new legislation that requires the use of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th ed. )for both the "descriptions and measurements" and the "percentages of impairments" as the basis for a disability award.
Note:	The 'liberality rule,' which is found in section 3202 and obligates the court to liberally construe the workers' compensation law in favor of the injured worker, 'cannot supplant the intent of the Legislature as expressed in a particular statute.' If the Legislature's intent appears from the language and context of the relevant statutory provisions, then [the court] must effectuate that intent, 'even though the particular statutory language 'is contrary to the basic policy of the [workers' compensation law].'
Citation:	153 Cal. App. 4th 750; 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 219, 72 CC
WCC Citation:	WCC 32392007 CA

Case Name:	Chavez v City of Los Angeles		01/14/2010
Summary:	Filed 1/14/10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT CHAVEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Los Angeles County Defendants and Respondents. (Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1467, 1474; Steele v. Jensen Instrument Co. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 326, 331. )In November 1989, defendant City of Los Angeles (City) hired plaintiff Robert Chavez as a police officer in the Los Angeles Police Department (Department). (Dorman v. DWLC Corp. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 1808, 1816-1817; Valentino v. Elliott Sav-On Gas, Inc. (1988) 201 Cal. App. 3d 692, 702; Greenberg v. Pacific Tel. Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): Lisa R. Jaskol S. Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 (213) 637-3851 Beth D. Orellana Deputy City Attorney North Main Street, 700 City Hall East Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 978-8291 ==========Footnotes========== .
Note:	Code of Civil Procedure section 1033(a) gives a trial court discretion to deny attorney fees to a plaintiff who prevails on a FEHA claim but recovers an amount that could have been recovered in a limited civil case.
Citation:	S162313
WCC Citation:	WCC 35902010 CA

Case Name:	Chavez v. City of LA		07/21/2008
Summary:	On February 13, 2004 Dr. Samuel Miles, the AME psychiatrist, issued his report and diagnosed Chavez with depression not otherwise specified. The judgment in favor of the City is reversed, as is the November 28 2006 order awarding the City its costs. Chavez and the City are each to bear his and its own costs on appeal. The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment in an unpublished memorandum of decision (see Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. The City insists Chavez admitted in his deposition the City's decision was the product of disability discrimination, not retaliation for his prior lawsuits.
Note:	[Unpublished] Chavez's discrimination claim fails in light of his concession that his disability, either actual or perceived, played no role in the city's employment actions.
Citation:	B196255
WCC Citation:	WCC 34012008 CA

Case Name:	Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (DCA opinion)		02/22/2008
Summary:	Filed 2/22/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ROBERT CHAVEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. BC324514) APPEAL from a post-judgment order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Chavez, a Los Angeles Police Department officer, sued his employer, the City of Los Angeles (City), and three supervisors for violation of FEHA. According to Chavez, the City made no offer to settle except to waive its costs in full satisfaction of Chavez's claims. The City urged the trial court to exercise its discretion to deny or at least substantially reduce Chavez's fee request.
Note:	The trial court erred by basing its denial of plaintiff's request for attorney fees upon Civil Code of Procedure Section 1033.
Citation:	BC324514
WCC Citation:	WCC 35372008 CA

Case Name:	Chavira v. WCAB		10/21/1991
Summary:	ERNEST CHAVIRA, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. Facts Ernest Chavira, applicant, was employed by Johns-Manville Sales Corporation (Manville) from October 24, 1952, through May 23, 1958. Dr. Campisi concluded: 'There is a [235 Cal. App. 3d 467] mild restrictive ventilatory defect without evidence of air flow obstruction. Dr. Herman Schoen examined applicant on February 7, 1986, and obtained new chest X-rays and pulmonary function studies. Petitioner, Ernest Chavira, shall recover his appellate costs.
Note:	Asbestos claim not barred by SOL when he did not yet have disability.
Citation:	235 Cal.App.3d 463, 56 CCC 631
WCC Citation:	WCC 25351991 CA

Case Name:	Chevron, Inc. v. WCAB		01/25/1999
Summary:	On May 18, 1995, the Board issued an opinion and order denying reconsideration, and Chevron sought review in the Court of Appeal. Except in certain situations not applicable here, the death benefit is a dependent's exclusive remedy against the employer for the employee's work-related death. A total dependent relies on the now-deceased employee for substantially all of his or her support. (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 674, 677 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 825, 854 P. 2d 117]; ARCO, supra, 31 Cal. 3d at p. Chevron did not raise this argument prior to its briefing in this court and promptly abandoned it at oral argument.
Note:	No limitation on type of income for partial dependent's death benefits; for such benefits use date of injury not of death.
Citation:	19 Cal.4th 1182, 64 CCC 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 25761999 CA

Case Name:	Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		10/08/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR No. A127580 October 8, 2010 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER OAKLAND, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, RESPONDENT; SUZANNE MCKNIGHT, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Case No. SFO 0469788). INTRODUCTION Petitioner Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland (Hospital) has filed this writ petition seeking review of a discovery order made in a proceeding before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Although the Program is run by the Hospital, it is not a medical program and it provides no health care or medical treatment. "*fn4 By order dated May 19, 2007, the workers' compensation judge referred this discovery request to a special master.
Note:	The 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board discovery order against a children's hospital should be annulled, because the order sought information that could be used to identify its patients.
Citation:	A127580
WCC Citation:	WCC 36782010 CA

Case Name:	Chin v. Namvar		09/11/2008
Summary:	Namvar believed that Chin was trustful and would tell Namvar if his license was revoked. Namvar would not have hired Chin on the shopping center project if he knew that Chin was no longer a licensed contractor. At that time, Chin began providing painting services to Namvar on several projects and Namvar paid KPC Painting for that work. There was no dispute that Chin was a licensed painting contractor doing business as KPC Painting when he first began work for Namvar in 1996, and no dispute that Namvar, at the time he first hired Chin, discussed with Chin that the latter was licensed. Namvar would not have awarded Chin the contract to paint the shopping center if he knew that Chin was no longer licensed.
Note:	Under section 2750.5 the presumption of employee status can be rebutted only as to persons who hold a valid contractor's license; the presumption cannot be rebutted as to persons who do not hold a valid contractor's license.
Citation:	B198986
WCC Citation:	WCC 34192008 CA

Case Name:	Chmielewski v. Target Corp.		05/14/2008
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Pakamas Chmielewski (plaintiff) took an unpaid medical leave of absence from her job at defendant and respondent Target Corporation (Target). When plaintiff's medical leave exceeded 120 days, Target filled plaintiff's position with Mata on a permanent basis, as promised. Consequently, when Mitchell informed plaintiff on March 11, 2005, that she would be performing a level 1 position, plaintiff believed Target "demoted" her. Nevertheless, plaintiff did not fill out any "Target Promotional Opportunity Applications," the document Target used to consider existing employees for promotion to open positions. Soon thereafter, she claims that Target retaliated against her when it issued four disciplinary write-ups, the first disciplinary action taken against her in 17 years with Target.
Note:	[Unpublished] In light of Target's substantial evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, plaintiff's evidence of pretext was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning either discrimination or retaliation under the FEHA.
Citation:	B199456
WCC Citation:	WCC 33562008 CA

Case Name:	CHP v. WCAB (Griffin)		11/19/2010
Summary:	The WCAB found Griffin had timely filed a petition to reopen, which included the heart by amendment. Relying on Dr. Blau's reports, the WCAB further found, even without application of the presumption, Griffin had established his heart condition developed during, and was caused by, his CHP employment. The WCAB issued an opinion and order denying reconsideration, reiterating their conclusions in the earlier decision on reconsideration. In its writ petition, CHP argued its position only under section 5410, making no mention of the fact that the WCAB expressly rested its original decision on reconsideration on section 5803. This "misnomer did not affect the jurisdiction of the [WCAB] nor did it prejudice [CHP]. "
Note:	A Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel decision to reopen a claim was valid because the commissioners found "good cause" to reopen the award under Labor Code 5803, the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	C062712
WCC Citation:	WCC 36842010 CA

Case Name:	Chrishard Medical Group v. WCAB		07/12/1988
Summary:	Chrishard Medical Group, et. OPINION: We issued a writ of review in this Workers' Compensation case to determine whether an order denying the lien claims of petitioners Chrishard Medical Services, Cranford L. Scott, and Courtney Medical Services, should be upheld. Courtney Medical Services filed a lien claim for $ 669. 50. Chrishard Medical Group filed a lien claim in the amount of $ 480. In the addendum Irwin and Johns-Manville state that Chrishard Medical Group had submitted a lien claim for an Otologic/Ophthamalic Evaluation,' Dr. Scott had submitted a lien claim for an Internal Medical Evaluation,' and Courtney Medical Services had submitted a lien claim for laboratory tests purportedly performed in the evaluations by Scott and Chrishard Medical Group. The order denying the lien claims of Chrishard Medical Group, Cranford Scott, M. D. , and Courtney Medical Services is annulled.
Note:	Failure to serve lien claimant with C&R that disallows lien results in anullment of order denying lien.
Citation:	53 CCC 306
WCC Citation:	WCC 27521988 CA

Case Name:	Christian v. WCAB.		05/12/1997
Summary:	KAY CHRISTIAN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MORRIS, POLICH & PURDY et al. , Respondents. That Christian may have given the insurance carrier more than one notice that penalties would be sought for each biweekly payment is irrelevant. Here, after each refused payment, Christian notified respondents of her objection to the refusal and intent to seek a separate penalty for each refused payment. Christian has elected to rely on her petition for writ of review and answer to the SCIF petition for review in this court. SCIF disputes the statement of the Court of Appeal that Christian notified it of her intent to seek penalties after each withheld payment.
Note:	Multiple penalties apply if delay or refusal attributable to seperate and distinct acts only.
Citation:	15 Cal.4th 505
WCC Citation:	WCC 28681997 CA

Case Name:	Chu v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, et al.		07/20/2010
Summary:	ANGELINE CHU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTS The General Employment History In 1988, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kaiser) hired Angeline Chu to work as a registered nurse at Kaiser's West Los Angeles Hospital (Kaiser WLA). In accord with the CBA between Kaiser and UNAC, Gatewood decided to initiate a "Level IV Corrective Action" for Chu. Based on these facts, Kaiser argued that Chu could not show, among other elements, any causal nexus between acts by Kaiser and any loss by Chu. In other words, if Kaiser properly initiated the Level IV process which Chu did not complete, then Kaiser did nothing wrong and did not cause Chu any wrongful harm.
Note:	A former nurse's Fair Employment and Housing Act suit failed to establish triable issues of fact, according to an unpublished decision from the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	B216827
WCC Citation:	WCC 36502010 CA

Case Name:	Church Mutual Ins. Co. v. Newport Dunes Resort and Marina		11/29/2012
Summary:	CO. v. NEWPORT DUNES RESORT AND MARINA CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NEWPORT DUNES RESORT and MARINA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Church Mutual Insurance Company (Church Mutual), the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Gillentine's employer, sued Newport Dunes Resort and Marina, a California general partnership doing business as Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort, Newport Dunes Marina, LLC, and Dunes Resort, LLC (collectively, Newport Dunes). Church Mutual then filed a complaint against Newport Dunes, alleging premises liability, negligence, and failure to warn. Newport Dunes filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred all of Church Mutual's claims. Judgment was entered in favor of Newport Dunes, and Church Mutual timely appealed.
Note:	A church pastor who became paralyzed after striking his head on the floor of a lagoon assumed the risk of such injury by diving into the lagoon, and so the lagoon's owner had an absolute defense to a tort claim by the church's workers' compensation insurance carrier based on the pastor's mishap.
Citation:	G046346
WCC Citation:	WCC 39602012 CA

Case Name:	Cifuentes v. Costco Wholesale Corp.		07/10/2012
Summary:	CIFUENTES v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION CARLOS CIFUENTES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant Carlos Cifuentes was a part-time employee who worked in the food court at respondent Costco Wholesale Corporation's store in Goleta. After meeting with Cifuentes, DeBrum prepared a counseling notice suspending Cifuentes for three days pending investigation of the incident. On that day, Cifuentes called Mario Padillo, Costco personnel specialist, and complained about unfair treatment. Cifuentes proceeded to trial on his contract claims against Costco and obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $301,378.
Note:	A retail worker attempting to sue his employer for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence for having allegedly fired him in retaliation for reporting a fellow employee's violation of the company's sexual harassment policy could not proceed with his claims because of workers' compensation exclusivity.
Citation:	B231684
WCC Citation:	WCC 39122012 CA

Case Name:	CIGA v. WCAB (American Motorists Ins. Co.)		04/07/2005
Summary:	CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Respondent; AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Real Party in Interest. CIGA's petition for reconsideration was denied by the WCAB, which adopted the WCJ's report on reconsideration as its own without further comment. CIGA petitioned this court for a writ of review on the ground that the reimbursement ordered by the WCAB is precluded by section 1063. 1, subdivisions (c)(5) and (c)(9). (c) & (e)), such proceedings would not lie against CIGA due to Insurance Code section 1063. 1, subdivision (c)(4) [now subd. We remand with instructions to respondent WCAB to vacate its order and issue a new order denying AMIC's lien claim.
Note:	CIGA is not required to reimburse solvent carriers in a CT claim for a portion of temporary disability and medical benefits.
Citation:	128 Cal. App. 4th 307; 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 845
WCC Citation:	WCC 30922005 CA

Case Name:	CIGA v. WCAB (Argonaut Ins. Co.)		04/18/2005
Summary:	We conclude that this distinction is of no legal significance and that the WCAB erred when it directed CIGA to reimburse real party in interest Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut), a solvent insurance carrier. CIGA petitioned this court for a writ of review on the ground that the reimbursement ordered by the WCAB is precluded by section 1063. 1, subdivisions (c)(5) and (c)(9)(ii). We remand with instructions to respondent WCAB to vacate its order and issue a new order denying Argonaut's reimbursement claim. CIGA also argued that the WCAB had no jurisdiction to issue an award against it because it was not properly joined as a party defendant and that the statute of limitations barred the claim. CIGA's petition for review to this court included an argument that the WCAB lacked jurisdiction over disputes involving reimbursement claims against it by other insurers.
Note:	There is no legal distinction between a claim for 'contribution, indemnity, or subrogation' and claims that are characterized as 'joint and several' for purposes of CIGA liability under Insurance Code section 1063.1.
Citation:	128 Cal. App. 4th 569
WCC Citation:	WCC 30962005 CA

Case Name:	CIGA v. WCAB (Carls)		06/04/2008
Summary:	CIGA also challenges the Board's finding that CIGA was estopped to assert the statute of limitations due to its delay in determining that the 1997 injury was a covered claim. As a defense to the claim, CIGA raised the one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 5405, subdivision (a). The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation, and incorporated them into its order denying reconsideration. On January 25, 2007, the WCJ entered a compensation award for the 1997 injury, and after the WCAB denied CIGA's petition for reconsideration of that order, CIGA timely filed its petition for review by this court. To carry its burden, CIGA was required to overcome a rebuttable presumption that Carls was ignorant of his compensation rights.
Note:	Claimant's awareness of his right to compensation for a past injury did not necessarily inform him of his potential right to compensation for the subsequent injury.
Citation:	B199404
WCC Citation:	WCC 33792008 CA

Case Name:	CIGA v. WCAB (Oracle)		02/06/2012
Summary:	We affirm the ruling that Pinnacle is not excluded from pursuing the claims against CIGA for two reasons. CIGA sought reconsideration, again contending that a claim asserted by an assignee is not a covered claim. The WCAB opined that CIGA had failed to prove that legal title to the medical providers' claims had been transferred to Pinnacle, and therefore there was no assignment but only a delegation of the task of collection to Pinnacle. Though "liability claim" is not defined by the CIGA statutes, "covered claim" is defined as an obligation of an insolvent insurer. One issue was whether the employee could have made a third party claim against CIGA if the insurer had been a CIGA member.
Note:	A collections service agency acting as a lien representative for three medical service providers can pursue claims against the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) under Insurance Code Sec. 1063.1(c)(9).
Citation:	B231491
WCC Citation:	WCC 38542012 CA

Case Name:	CIGA v. WCAB (White)		02/27/2006
Summary:	CIGA was created by legislation to establish a fund from which insureds could obtain financial and legal assistance in the event their insurers became insolvent. CIGA's role in guaranteeing workers' compensation claims is therefore limited: [¶] " ' " 'CIGA is not, and was not created to act as, an ordinary insurance company. EDD also contends that CIGA should be estopped from now arguing that Viveros was effectively overruled by Karaiskos because essentially CIGA took a contrary position in its petition for review in Karaiskos. Second, the precise arguments CIGA made in Karaiskos are not germane here as CIGA did not argue that Karaiskos should be decided in its favor because it was different than Viveros. CIGA claimed there was "other insurance," covering the injury, that is, federal Social Security disability insurance and state unemployment compensation insurance.
Note:	State Employment Development Department lien is not a 'covered claim' that CIGA is required to pay.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 4th 1528
WCC Citation:	WCC 31442006 CA

Case Name:	CIGA v. WCAB; SCIF		07/18/2007
Summary:	Nonetheless, CIGA paid for all the non-permanent disability indemnity benefits, for both injuries, in the sum of $43,505. 53. CIGA seeks full reimbursement of that amount from SCIF. CIGA sought reimbursement from SCIF for the entire sum of the temporary workers' compensation benefits it had paid. CIGA contended that SCIF, a solvent insurer, should reimburse it for the entire $43,505. 53 paid by CIGA because SCIF bears joint and several liability for all of the temporary workers' compensation expenses CIGA incurred. As we shall explain, we annul Board's decision with directions to enter a new and different decision requiring SCIF to reimburse CIGA $43,505. 53 - the entire sum of the temporary benefits paid by CIGA. SCIF argued that CIGA was responsible for the remaining 75 percent of the temporary benefits because CIGA was responsible for the benefits attributable to the specific injury he sustained while SNIC, now insolvent, was on the risk.
Note:	'Cases interpreting [Ins. Code, Section 1063.1, subd. (c)(9)(i)] have established that where an insured has overlapping insurance policies and one insurer becomes insolvent, the other insurer, even if only a secondary or excess insurer, is responsible for paying the claim. In other words, CIGA is an insurer of last resort and does not assume responsibility for claims where there is any other insurance available.'
Citation:	72 CCC 910
WCC Citation:	WCC 32372007 CA

Case Name:	CIGA vs. WCAB; EDD		03/30/2004
Summary:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) ruled against CIGA, reasoning that reimbursement of the EDD's lien is a payment to the particular disabled worker's account, not to the EDD. After the hearing, the Board ruled the EDD was entitled to reimbursement from CIGA. The logical, inescapable conclusion is that the EDD lien is an obligation to the State and is not a covered claim that CIGA is obligated to pay. Based on these internal procedures, the EDD argued and the Board agreed that "CIGA's duty to reimburse EDD liens . As written, Insurance Code section 1063. 1 does not authorize CIGA to reimburse the EDD for UCD benefits the EDD paid to Karaiskos.
Note:	EDD lien is not a 'covered claim' for purposes of CIGA liability.
Citation:	117 Cal.App.4th 350
WCC Citation:	WCC 29792004 CA

Case Name:	Cisneros v. WCAB		12/19/1995
Summary:	JOSE CISNEROS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DANCING STAR RANCH et al. , Respondents. Facts On February 15, 1993, applicant Jose Cisneros injured his spine and back while working as a farm laborer for defendant Dancing Star Ranch, insured by the State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Rehabilitation Unit will determine if vocational rehabilitation services were sufficient or if you are entitled to further services. 'He argued that 'WCAB Rule 10017 only requires that the applicant have a 'change of mind' regarding participating in vocational rehabilitation. 'The administrative director shall prescribe by rule and regulation the form and manner by which an employee may decline participation.
Note:	Where applicant was required to decline rehab. to get benefits of C&R, rehab. may be reopened.
Citation:	41 Cal.App.4th 759, 60 CCC 1144
WCC Citation:	WCC 27421995 CA

Case Name:	Cisneros v. WCAB		12/19/1995
Summary:	JOSE CISNEROS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DANCING STAR RANCH et al. , Respondents. Facts On February 15, 1993, applicant Jose Cisneros injured his spine and back while working as a farm laborer for defendant Dancing Star Ranch, insured by the State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Rehabilitation Unit will determine if vocational rehabilitation services were sufficient or if you are entitled to further services. 'He argued that 'WCAB Rule 10017 only requires that the applicant have a 'change of mind' regarding participating in vocational rehabilitation. 'The administrative director shall prescribe by rule and regulation the form and manner by which an employee may decline participation.
Note:	No 'Thomas Finding' required when C&R does not release claims for rehab. benefits.
Citation:	41 Cal.App.4th 759
WCC Citation:	WCC 25281995 CA

Case Name:	Citizens of Humanity v. Applied Underwriters		12/31/1969
Summary:	Filed 11/22/17  CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             CITIZENS OF HUMANITY et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, .             v. .             APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Appellants. .             B276601 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Defendants and appellants Applied Underwriters, Inc. (Applied Underwriters), California Insurance Company (CIC), Continental Indemnity Company (CNI), Applied Risk Services, Inc. , Joan Sheppard, Westin Fredrick Penfield, and Michael Scott Wichman (collectively, defendants) appeal from an order denying their petition to compel arbitration of a dispute with plaintiffs and respondents Citizens of Humanity, LLC and CM Laundry, LLC (collectively, plaintiffs). .           The RPA also contains a choice of law provision that states: .           “16. )4 .           Defendants next contend the RPA falls outside the scope of section 25-2602. 01(f) and cite South Jersey Sanitation Co. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assur.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that Applied Underwriters was not entitled to compel arbitration with two disgruntled customers who had purchased its EquityComp insurance program.
Citation:	B276601
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC571913

Case Name:	City and County of San Francisco v. WCAB (Medrano)		12/28/1973
Summary:	CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MERIEL L. MEDRANO et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Molinari, P. J. , with Sims and Elkington, JJ. , concurring. )[36 Cal. App. 3d 413] COUNSEL Thomas M. O'Connor, City Attorney, Raymond E. Agosti and Donald J. Garibaldi, Deputy City Attorneys, for Petitioner. An award in the sum of $1,000 was made by respondent board in favor of Mrs. Cyr for such expenses. The board should have properly awarded the burial expenses to the widow subject to a lien in favor of Mrs. Cyr. (See Lyons v. Hoover, supra, 41 Cal. 2d 145, 149; City etc. of S. F. v. Workmen's Comp.
Note:	Non-heir payment of burial costs only entitled to a lien against heir's death benefit.
Citation:	36 Cal.App.3d 412, 39 CCC 52
WCC Citation:	WCC 24711973 CA

Case Name:	City and County of San Francisco v. WCAB (Ogilvie III)		07/29/2011
Summary:	Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Dyana M. Lechuga, Deputy City Attorney, Peter Scherr, Deputy City Attorney, Danny Yeh Chou, Deputy City Attorney, Counsel for City and County of San Francisco. Marks, Counsel for Amicus Curiae California Workers' Compensation Institute on behalf of City and County of San Francisco. Marks, Counsel for Amicus Curiae American Insurance Association on behalf of City and County of San Francisco. Finnegan, Marks, Theofel & Desmond, Ellen Sims Langille, Counsel for Amicus Curiae California Chamber of Commerce on behalf of City and County of San Francisco. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Injury Ogilvie worked for the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) as a Muni bus driver for 17 years.
Note:	The California 1st District Court of Appeal's decision on Friday to reverse the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's ruling in the Ogilvie case offers three methods for applicants to prove that their rating under the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule is inaccurate.
Citation:	A126427
WCC Citation:	WCC 37892011 CA

Case Name:	City of California City v. WCAB		07/24/1979
Summary:	CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BOBBY FINKLEA, Respondents. [95 Cal. App. 3d 330] COUNSEL Wayne K. Lemieux, City Attorney, Helm, Budinger & Lemieux, and Jerome M. Budinger for Petitioner. OPINION FRANSON, J. Petitioner, City of California City (hereinafter the City) has sought to have a decision of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter the Board) vacated. However, the City refused to pay respondent his full salary pursuant to Labor Code section 4850. He demanded his full salary ($1,650 per month) from the City pursuant to section 4850 but the City did not respond.
Note:
Citation:	95 Cal.App.3d 329, 44 CCC 694
WCC Citation:	WCC 26891979 CA

Case Name:	City of Costa Mesa v. McKenzie		02/22/1973
Summary:	CITY OF COSTA MESA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ARTHUR R. McKENZIE, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Tamura, J. , with Kerrigan, Acting P. J. , and Gabbert, J. , concurring. )This is an action for declaratory relief by the City of Costa Mesa against defendant McKenzie, a retired city employee, for a judicial declaration respecting the city's obligation to pay a disability retirement allowance under city Ordinance No. 64-45. The facts are as follows: Nine years after its incorporation in 1953 as a general law city, Costa Mesa through its city council created an actuarially sound retirement plan for city employees pursuant to Government Code sections 45341-45345. fn. Defendant recommended to the city manager that Costa Mesa adopt a disability plan to bring about the payment of such benefits to its employees. The city determined that he was totally disabled and that the disability was incurred in the line of duty.
Note:	Work comp. benefits are not deducted from disability benefits.
Citation:	30 Cal.App.3d 763
WCC Citation:	WCC 24531973 CA

Case Name:	City of Fresno v. 21st District Agricultural Assn.		02/28/2018
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             CITY OF FRESNO, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             21ST DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. .             F073957 .             (Super. Ct. No. 14CECG02830) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. The City of Fresno (City) entered into a written contract with the 21st District Agricultural Association, Big Fresno Fair (District) whereby the City agreed to provide onsite police protection and law enforcement services to the Big Fresno Fair (contract). .           _____________________ HILL, P. J. .           WE CONCUR: .           _____________________ GOMES, J.
Note:
Citation:	F073957
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 14CECG02830

Case Name:	City of Fresno v. WCAB		09/25/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CITY OF FRESNO, Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LILLIE WILSON, Respondents. The City of Fresno (City) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) contending the WCAB applied the incorrect permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS). BACKGROUND Lillie Wilson injured herself lifting a case of bottled water while working for the City on June 25, 2003. The City admitted the accident caused injury to Wilson's lower back, but disputed whether she also injured her spine, lower extremities, right hip, and psyche. Sufficient evidence therefore existed for the WCAB to find a pre-2005 "indication of permanent disability" warranting the use of the 1997 PDRS.
Note:	[Unpublished] Sufficient evidence existed for the WCAB to find a pre-2005 'indication of permanent disability' warranting the use of the 1997 PDRS.
Citation:	F055670
WCC Citation:	WCC 34302008 CA

Case Name:	City of Fresno v. WCAB (O'Brien)		08/26/2011
Summary:	COUNTY OF FRESNO v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD COUNTY OF FRESNO et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PATRICK O'BRIEN, Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION THE COURT* The County of Fresno (Fresno)*fn1 petitions for a writ of review from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). While the WCAB applied a somewhat different analysis here, the Supreme Court has since clarified that neither application of the COLA is correct. BACKGROUND Patrick O'Brien was employed by Fresno as a deputy sheriff when, on April 25, 2003, he was struck by a drunk driver and ejected from his vehicle. *fn3 On June 30, 2010, the WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting and incorporating the WCJ's reasoning as its own.
Note:	The 5th District Court of Appeal remanded a cost-of-living adjustment case back to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, in light of the state Supreme Court's recent ruling on the issue.
Citation:	F060628
WCC Citation:	WCC 37962011 CA

Case Name:	City of Jackson v. WCAB (Rice)		04/26/2017
Summary:	Filed 4/26/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             CITY OF JACKSON, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CHRISTOPHER RICE, Respondents. .             C078706 .             (WCAB No. ADJ8701916) .             ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of review. .             Lenahan, Lee, Slater & Pearse and Charles S. Templeton for Petitioner. .             Mastagni Holstedt, Eric D. Ledger and Edward W. Lester for Respondent Christopher Rice. .           We concur: .           /s/ Hoch, J.
Note:
Citation:	C078706
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ8701916

Case Name:	City of La Mesa v. California Joint Powers Ins. Authority		07/18/2005
Summary:	CITY OF LA MESA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent. [131 Cal. App. 4th 68] OPINION JONES, P. J. - City of La Mesa (City) appeals a summary judgment in favor of California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (JPIA) in its action to recover the balance of City's "equity account" held by JPIA. City disputes the enforceability of Article 24(a) of the joint powers agreement, which provides that members' deposits shall not be returned upon withdrawal. 1 BACKGROUND Joint Powers Authority Agreement Since 1949, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act has permitted two or more municipalities to form a joint powers authority which they agree will exercise any power that each municipality has power to exercise individually. JPIA was originally called the Southern California Joint Powers Insurance Authority.
Note:	Government Code section 6512.2, which authorizes contractual limitations onthe return of any surplus deposits, applies retroactively.
Citation:	131 Cal.App.4th 66
WCC Citation:	WCC 31432005 CA

Case Name:	City of LA v. IAC (Fraide)		08/27/1965
Summary:	COUNSEL Roger Arnebergh, City Attorney, Bourke Jones and Edwin F. Shinn, Assistant City Attorneys, and J. David Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, for Petitioner. Since February 1948 the city has paid Fraide a disability pension from the City of Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Fund. Article XVII of the City of Los Angeles Charter establishes a system of pensions for city firemen and policemen. In that case the commission had granted the city a credit for the disability [63 Cal. 2d 245] pensions paid. 375 [199 P. 508]; Stan v. California Golf Club (1943) 8 Cal. Comp. Cases 209 [wages]; Brooks v. City of Los Angeles 61 L. A. [I. A. C. ] 227-108 [wages required by ordinance]. )
Note:	Employer entitled to no more than a partial credit against its workmen's compensation liability commensurate with the proportion of its tax payments to the fund.
Citation:	63 Cal.2d 242, 30 CCC 243
WCC Citation:	WCC 24501965 CA

Case Name:	City of LA vs. IAC (Clark)		04/19/1963
Summary:	CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, WILLIAM A. CLARK et al. , Respondents. COUNSEL Roger Arnebergh, City Attorney, Bourke Jones, Edwin F. Shinn, Assistant City Attorneys, and J. David Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, for Petitioner. The charges were for X-rays, examination and report and are not contested by Clark or the city. He was not brought in as a witness by means of the subpoena issued at the instance of the city. To be sure, the city owed him no more than the customary witness fee, but he was not claiming that the city owed him anything.
Note:	Physician testimony at hearing is a medical-legal expense above witness fee.
Citation:	215 Cal.App.2d 310, 28 CCC 94
WCC Citation:	WCC 3691963 CA