Case Name:	Saldana v. Globe-Weis Systems Co.		09/10/1991
Summary:	YOLANDA SALDANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GLOBE-WEIS SYSTEMS CO. , Defendant and Respondent. Statement of the Case Plaintiff Yolanda Saldana (Saldana) appeals from summary judgment granted in favor of defendant Globe-Weis Systems Co. (Globe-Weis) from a complaint alleging damages in personal injury and premises liability. Saldana filed a complaint against Globe-Weis alleging negligence and premises liability pursuant to Labor Code section 4558, subdivision (b). fn. On appeal, Saldana contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the motion for summary judgment. It is undisputed that unless Saldana comes within section 4558, her exclusive remedy is under the workers' compensation law.
Note:	Discussing maintenance, removal, and replacement of guard, and term 'known.'
Citation:	233 Cal.App.3d 1505
WCC Citation:	WCC 24201991 CA

Case Name:	Salit v. WCAB		11/17/2011
Summary:	SALIT v. WCAB LARRY SALIT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. , Respondents. In a medical report dated April 2004, Sean Leoni, M. D. , diagnosed petitioner with fibromyalgia, TMJ, tension headaches, gatroesophageal reflux, and IBS. In October 2007, qualified medical evaluator (QME) and orthopedist Jeffrey A. Berman, M. D. , conducted an agreed-upon orthopedic medical examination for City. He explained that there are no objective factors of disability related to fibromyalgia, and that it is a subjective syndrome. He further noted that Dr. Leoni had diagnosed IBS and that petitioner complained of gas, bloating, diarrhea, and occasional constipation.
Note:	A judge based a decision denying compensation for a former police officer's irritable bowel syndrome upon insufficient evidence, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B225515
WCC Citation:	WCC 38292011 CA

Case Name:	Sameyah v. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association		11/19/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE No. B222290 November 19, 2010 KAREN SAMEYAH, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCATION, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. By her petition, Sameyah sought an order compelling the Board of Retirement (Board) of the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA) to reverse its decision denying her application for service-connected survivor death benefits. In January 2004, Sameyah's husband died of Burkitt's lymphoma, after serving for seven years as a deputy sheriff with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Pellerin v. Kern County Employees' Retirement Association, supra, 145 Cal. App. 4th at p.
Note:	A county retirement board successfully rebutted a presumption that a deputy sheriff's lymphoma arose out of and in the course of employment, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B222290
WCC Citation:	WCC 36852010 CA

Case Name:	San Bernardino Comm. Hospital v. WCAB		09/03/1999
Summary:	SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and VICKIE McKERNAN, Respondents. Applicant was employed as a respiratory therapist by respondent San Bernardino Community Hospital (Employer). 2 Apparently Applicant failed to appear for trial on February 18, 1998, and the matter was continued until April 22. 3 After the hearing, the WCR found that Applicant was disabled and that her disability arose out of her employment. Temporary disability and medical treatment were ordered, with issues regarding permanent disability reserved due to the WCR's dissatisfaction with the record.
Note:	Applicant unfairly didn't disclose doctor's report or witness at MSC; Board's power to develop record can't circumvent 5502(d)(3).
Citation:	74 Cal.App.4th 928
WCC Citation:	WCC 25491999 CA

Case Name:	San Diego v. WCAB		08/02/2007
Summary:	Filed 8/2/07 San Diego v. WCAB (Brooks) CA4/1 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). The City of San Diego (the City) petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying a petition for reconsideration of an award of permanent disability benefits to James W. Brooks in the amount of $30,940. In January 2001, Brooks filed an application for adjudication of his workers' compensation claim with the WCAB. The WCAB denied the petition, agreeing with the analysis in the WCJ's report and recommendation to the WCAB regarding the petition for reconsideration. Without considering the merits, the WCAB panel remanded the matter to the WCJ to apply a new decision by an en banc panel of the WCAB.
Note:	[Unpublished] The 2005 schedule applies when pre-Jan. 1st, 2005 doctor's report does not indicate the existence of permanent disability.
Citation:	D049878
WCC Citation:	WCC 32462007 CA

Case Name:	San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission		01/21/2009
Summary:	[U] San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, No. A119953 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 01/21/2009) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE No. A119953 January 21, 2009 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Eddie L. Bartley, an employee of plaintiff San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), injured his knee while working at one of the train stations. He filed a complaint with the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (Commission) alleging that BART denied reasonable accommodation for his physical disability and discriminated against him on the basis of the disability. After the Commission found that BART denied Bartley reasonable accommodation, BART filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the Commission decision. After investigation, the Commission filed an accusation against BART under the California Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. ).
Note:	The Bay Area Rapid Transit District violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act by failing to accommodate a maintenance worker who could not perform a small portion of his duties.
Citation:	A119953
WCC Citation:	WCC 34812009 CA

Case Name:	San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. WCAB (Cordozo)		11/16/2010
Summary:	SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. APPEALS BD. Cal. App. 4th 1 (2010) SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LINDA CARDOZO, Respondents. San Francisco Unified School District (District) filed a petition for writ of review arguing that the ALJ should only have considered the total of the industrial causes and disregarded the nonindustrial causes when calculating the percentage of the psychiatric injury attributable to good faith personnel actions. *fn3 BACKGROUND Cardozo, an elementary school bilingual teacher for District for 20 years, submitted a claim for workers' compensation benefits, claiming temporary disability from June 10, 2006, to August 21, 2007. The parties selected Dr. Allan Kipperman as the agreed medical examiner and Cardozo first saw him in August 2007.
Note:	A workers' compensation judge must consider nonindustrial factors while deciding whether good faith personnel actions were the substantial cause of a psychiatric injury, the 1st District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	A128365
WCC Citation:	WCC 38202010 CA

Case Name:	San Mateo County v WCAB		10/17/1990
Summary:	San Mateo County Transit District, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Virginia Hobbs, Respondents Civil No. A047785 Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, CCC 378 October 17, 1990 DISPOSITION: Proceeding on petition for writ of review. The denial of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) of petitioner San Mateo County Transit District's (hereafter petitioner) 'petition to bar applicant's right to medical treatment and disability payments and to compel medical examination' is supported by substantial evidence. (Kerley v. Workmen's Comp. (San Mateo County Transit District v. Workers' Comp. Nov. 17, 1986; San Mateo County Transit District v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Penalties proper because employer didn't establish doubt as to its liability; multiple penalties because multiple acts of delay.
Citation:	55 CCC 378
WCC Citation:	WCC 26471990 CA

Case Name:	Sanchez v. Brooke		03/08/2012
Summary:	LYDIA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DARRELL G. BROOKE et al. , as Trustees, etc. , Defendants and Appellants. The trustees (defendants Darrell G. Brooke and Darryl Denning) asserted as an affirmative defense the comparative negligence of Sanchez and her employer (Glendale Adventist Health, also known as Western Health Resources (Western or employer)). *fn2 The jury found that Sanchez suffered total damages of $903,000, which included $300,000 in noneconomic damages and $603,000 in economic damages. Although Sanchez challenges the finding of employer negligence, neither party disputes the mathematical computation of the $150,000 noneconomic damages award. Could what should they have done in supervising, for example, Lydia Sanchez, and telling Lydia Sanchez, here's what you should or shouldn't do?
Note:	An in-home health care worker who was badly burned attempting to rescue her ward from a burning building could not recover the full amount billed for her care since her medical provider accepted a discounted amount from her employer.
Citation:	B224835
WCC Citation:	WCC 38702012 CA

Case Name:	Sanchez v. City of Los Banos		04/16/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JOSE REFUGIO BANUELOS SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS BANOS, Defendant and Respondent. He was injured and taken from the scene by ambulance; he did not discover at that time that the other truck was owned by the City of Los Banos and driven by a city employee. Physical and Mental Incapacity In Draper v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 502, plaintiff was seriously injured when she was struck by a car while in a crosswalk. (Draper v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 52 Cal. 3d at p. 509, italics added. )He asserts he could not travel to Los Banos to present a claim, but does not explain why he could not have mailed a claim to the city.
Note:	[Unpublished] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief from the claim presentation requirement, based on its conclusion that appellant did not establish that his failure to present a timely claim was due to physical or mental incapacity or to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Citation:	F052641
WCC Citation:	WCC 33442008 CA

Case Name:	Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles		10/26/2005
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. MON 0307506 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) VIRGINIA SANCHEZ, Applicant, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured; and TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). BACKGROUND Virginia Sanchez (applicant) sustained an industrial injury to her left foot on December 18, 2002, while employed as a deputy sheriff by the County of Los Angeles (defendant). The apportionment of pre-existing permanent disability has been a fixture of California workers' compensation law since its inception. In any event, verification is not required when the defendant is the state, a county, a city or other specified public entity. We recognize that, often, the applicant may satisfy this burden by establishing the factors of disability underlying the prior permanent disability award.
Note:	Apportionment for permanent disabilities to the same body region required only where the applicant fails to disprove overlap.
Citation:	70 CCC 1440
WCC Citation:	WCC 31302005 CA

Case Name:	Sanchez v. WCAB		12/31/2009
Summary:	Baldemar Sanchez petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Rules of Court, rule 8. 495. ) Sanchez contends the WCAB erred in concluding that his employer's conduct was negligent, thus avoiding serious and willful misconduct penalties (§ 4553), by failing to properly train and supervise a co-employee in operating a piece of heavy machinery. Unfortunately, between 1:00 and 1:30 p. m. , Haines brought the eight-ton compactor too close to the fuel tank and violated the space where Sanchez was working. Haines realized he had come into contact with Sanchez and panicked, mistakenly causing the eight-ton compactor to move forward rather than backwards. Sanchez sustained injuries to his pelvis, hips, abdomen, bilateral knees, right thigh, and groin from being crushed by the eight-ton compactor.
Note:	Substantial evidence showed that the employer's conduct was negligent, which does not amount to serious and willful misconduct.
Citation:	F058246
WCC Citation:	WCC 35892009 CA

Case Name:	Sanchez v. WCAB		01/23/1990
Summary:	LAWRENCE SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, DELTA LINES, INC. , et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Anderson, P. J. , with Poche and Perley, JJ. , concurring. )The WCJ further held that section 5405. 5 was not applicable to injuries sustained before its effective date of January 1, 1983. The Board then held that applicant's claim for rehabilitation in case OAK 92934 was barred by the five-year limitation in section 5410. On review, we address applicant's right to request rehabilitation benefits only in connection with his injury of December 1, 1978 (OAK 92934). Austin v. Pacific Bell (1988) 53 Cal. Comp. Cases 535, was decided concurrently with Sanchez.
Note:	Applicants' requests for vocational rehab. denied due to 1 year statute of limitations.
Citation:	217 Cal.App.3d 346
WCC Citation:	WCC 25091990 CA

Case Name:	Sandhagen vs. Cox & Cox Construction, SCIF		11/16/2004
Summary:	See Sandhagen vs. Cox & Cox Construction, SCIF (II) (02/07/2005). The May 14, 2004 report reflects it was served by mail on SCIF at its address of record. SCIF has now exceeded the outside time limit of 14 days set forth in Labor Code Section 4610(g)(1). It stated, in relevant part: "I am performing Utilization Review for [SCIF] . . . [in] the case of your patient: Brice Sandhagen. In addition, SCIF submitted in evidence Chapter 8 of the ACOEM guidelines (pages 165-193), entitled: "Neck and Upper Back Complaints. "
Note:	UR deadlines are mandatory - failure to meet deadline precludes use of UR procedure for med treatment dispute in question.
Citation:	69 CCC 1452; En Banc
WCC Citation:	WCC 30652004 CA

Case Name:	Sandhagen vs. Cox & Cox Construction; SCIF (II)		02/07/2005
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. RDG 0115958 BRICE SANDHAGEN, Applicant, vs. COX & COX CONSTRUCTION, INC. ; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). A "final" order has been defined as one "which determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case. "(Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal. Comp. Cases 410, 413]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered to be "final" orders. Nevertheless, there is nothing in section 4610 that requires an employer to use the utilization review process in every case.
Note:	Utilization review is not a condition precedent to a defendant's use of a QME/AME under section 4062(a).
Citation:	69 CCC 1452 (2005) (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 30792005 CA

Case Name:	Sandvik v. Bozung		04/09/2013
Summary:	Bozung asked Sandvik to draft an employment contract to memorialize their agreement under which Sandvik would work on the Jackson Street property. Sandvik worked for Bozung from June 2007 through November 2008 when it became clear to Sandvik that Bozung was in arrears in paying him and that he could no longer afford to work for her. Initially, Bozung paid Sandvik regularly, but as the project progressed, Bozung paid him less frequently. Bozung testified that the terms of the partnership with Sandvik changed significantly in July 2008 when Sandvik realized that he did not want to be liable for the mortgage on the Upper Terrace property. The evidence also showed that Bozung paid Sandvik wages of $75 an hour on the Jackson Street project pursuant to the employment contract; that Sandvik drafted the contract per Bozung's request, and Bozung made several revisions to the agreement before it was finalized; that Bozung applied for the permit to perform the remodel on the Jackson Street project and designated herself as the owner-builder; and that Sandvik testified that Bozung "pull[ed] her own permits" because she knew that Sandvik was unlicensed.
Note:	A worker who performed labor on behalf of a property owner at two locations was an employee and not an independent contractor.
Citation:	A131667
WCC Citation:	WCC 40012013 CA

Case Name:	Sandy v. Exxon Mobil Corp.		03/27/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO RONALD SANDY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. Moreover, Exxon retained a measure of control over Albay's conduct at the refinery, and the way Exxon exercised that control affirmatively contributed to plaintiff's injuries. The instruction would have told the jury: "You may consider customs or practice in the community in deciding whether Exxon Mobil Corporation or Merle Sandy acted reasonably. Customs and practice do not necessarily determine what a reasonable person would have done in Exxon Mobil Corporation's or Merle Sandy's situation. References hereinafter to "plaintiff" or "Sandy" will be understood as designating Merle Sandy.
Note:	[Unpublished] There is substantial evidence to establish liability against Defendant.
Citation:	A114238
WCC Citation:	WCC 33352008 CA

Case Name:	Santa Rosa Junior College v. WCAB		11/12/1985
Summary:	SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA S. F. No. 24758 November 12, 1985 SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND JOANNE SMYTH, RESPONDENTS Mullen & Filippi, James T. Ponzio and Karen M. Land for Petitioner. Santa Rosa Junior College (college) challenges a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (board) awarding death benefits to JoAnne Smyth, widow of a community college instructor who was killed in an automobile accident on his way home from the campus. His home was located in Ukiah, about 60 miles from the Santa Rosa campus. For several years before the accident, he stayed overnight in Santa Rosa once every two or three weeks and worked at home on some week nights. Edmund Buckley, associate dean of instruction at the college, testified that the administration neither encouraged nor discouraged working at home.
Note:	Home is not second jobsite unless employee must work at home as condition of employment.
Citation:	40 Cal. 3d 345
WCC Citation:	WCC 30351985 CA

Case Name:	Sapp v. GEICO		06/01/2011
Summary:	Sapp signed an employment application and specifically initialed a provision which stated the following: "I understand that the GEICO Companies are at will employers . According to Sapp, however, during her interview process GEICO told her they were looking for "long-term," "career" employees. After Sapp starting making complaints to her, Warford was distant and dismissive and often appeared irritated with Sapp. When she came to work the next day, Warford told Sapp that Warford was glad to see Sapp back, did not want Sapp to quit, and wanted to make sure Sapp received her profit sharing. E. Defamatory Statements Sapp's former coworkers consistently testified that they were informed by GEICO management that Sapp was "no longer with [GEICO]" and that no reason was given, although Rhea may have associated the separation with the review.
Note:	Exclusive remedy barred a claims supervisor's suit against GEICO for intentional infliction of emotional distress, according to an unpublished decision from the 4th District Court of Appeal.
Citation:	D056603
WCC Citation:	WCC 37682011 CA

Case Name:	Sarabi v. WCAB		05/31/2007
Summary:	Sarabi was then evaluated by an agreed medical examiner (AME), Dr. Henry L. Edington, who reported on August 17, 2004, that Sarabi had a TTD and needed right shoulder surgery. Prior to the supplemental report, Narsi had been voluntarily providing Sarabi with TTD benefits since December 26, 2000, but, after receiving the report, it informed Sarabi on November 14, 2005, that "[p]ayments are ending 11/03/05 because Dr. Edington has declared that you are permanent and stationary as of 08/17/05. "The WCJ stated there was jurisdiction to issue the award even if the additional TTD arose on August 17, 2005, because Sarabi had filed a timely petition to reopen. Here, Sarabi filed the pertinent petition to reopen on November 15, 2002, less than five years from the date of his injury. *fn2* It appears this "overpayment" is for payments Narsi made to Sarabi from August 17, 2005 (the date Narsi alleges Sarabi became permanent and stationary) and November 3, 2005 (the date Narsi terminated payments).
Note:	The court finds TTD benefits may be awarded after five years if a 'new and further' disability arose within that time.
Citation:	151 Cal. App. 4th 920
WCC Citation:	WCC 32282007 CA