Case Name:	Graczyk v. WCAB		08/08/1986
Summary:	RICKY D. GRACZYK, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FULLERTON et al. , Respondents. The Board granted reconsideration and found (in a two-to-one decision) that applicant was not an employee of CSUF. Com. , supra, 219 Cal. App. 2d 457, and hence he could not be deprived of it retroactively by the Legislature's 1981 amendment to section 3352. To determine whether applicant had a vested right of action, we must look to the unique nature of the workers' compensation law in California. Workers' Compensation Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar 1985) § 1. 3, p. 4; see Lowman v. Stafford (1964) 226 Cal. App. 2d 31, 36 [37 Cal. Rptr.
Note:	Scholarship athletes are not employees; applies retroactively.
Citation:	184 Cal.App.3d 997, 51 CCC 408
WCC Citation:	WCC 24351986 CA

Case Name:	Gradle vs. Doppelmayer USA		02/27/2004
Summary:	RONALD MICHAEL GRADLE et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DOPPELMAYR USA, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. A mechanic asked Gradle if he wanted the lift stopped and Gradle said no. Gradle climbed into the operator shack at the terminal. Gradle yelled to the mechanic, who was 20 feet away, to take the lift to start speed and then stop it. Gradle squatted on top of the tub wall waiting for the lift to stop and slipped. Gradle testified the maintenance mechanic smelled "boozy" and appeared a little hung over the morning of the accident.
Note:	Cal-OSHA standards admissible to prove negligence per se against third party.
Citation:	116 Cal.App.4th 276
WCC Citation:	WCC 29722004 CA

Case Name:	Graham vs. WCAB		05/12/1989
Summary:	In July 1983, Graham filed an application with the Board for the adjudication of his claim for medical treatment and permanent disability benefits. Graham also filed a civil action against Dr. Peter Macs (later amended to the Estate of Macs) seeking damages for medical malpractice in Dr. Macs's treatment of Graham for the injuries he sustained in the bus accident. The Transit District then petitioned for credit, in the amount of the settlement, against the Transit District's liability for future workers' compensation payments to Graham. Graham filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board on the ground that the malpractice settlement was not subject to credit. 5 [2b] Graham counters that the conditions for invoking the statute were met in this case where counsel acknowledged in settlement discussions that Graham was entitled to workers' compensation benefits and did not include such benefits in computing the settlement.
Note:	Employer entitled to credit if the medical malpractice settlement does not consider workers' compensation benefits in arriving at the result.
Citation:	210 CA3d 499
WCC Citation:	WCC 30191989 CA

Case Name:	Granado vs. WCAB		10/04/1968
Summary:	HENRY GRANADO, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HASLETT WAREHOUSE et al. , Respondents. The board's position is that this rule should be applied to temporary disability cases. Thus we were not directly confronted with the question whether temporary disability may be apportioned as between industrial and nonindustrial injuries. There is a substantial difference between the rules governing apportionment between industrial injuries and those governing apportionment between industrial and nonindustrial injuries. We thus need not consider reports other than Dr. McIvor's, including one that the entire disability was due to the preexisting nonindustrial condition.
Note:	Temporary disability is not apportionable.
Citation:	69 Cal.2d 399
WCC Citation:	WCC 29581968 CA

Case Name:	Graphic Arts Mutual Ins. Co. v. Time Travel Internat., Inc.		02/02/2005
Summary:	GRAPHIC ARTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TIME TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Because we find that plaintiff and appellant Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company may proceed in superior court, we reverse the judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. From September 15, 1993 through September 15, 1994, appellant insured defendant and respondent Time Travel International, Inc. , for workers' compensation benefits. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the trial court has jurisdiction over its complaint for indemnity against respondent pursuant to section 5500. 5, subdivision (a). Lungren v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 294, 300; Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 120, 125. )
Note:	WCAB does not have exclusive jurisdiction in a carrier's action against an uninsured employer in a CT reimbursement claim.
Citation:	126 Cal. App. 4th 405
WCC Citation:	WCC 30762005 CA

Case Name:	Gravelin v. Satterfield		11/15/2011
Summary:	GARY GRAVELIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PAUL SATTERFIELD et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Gary Gravelin, a hired worker, was injured while installing a satellite dish on the roof of a residence. Dish Network outsourced the job to Linkus Enterprises, Inc. , which sent plaintiff Gary Gravelin to perform the installation job. Plaintiff Gravelin testified that the roof extension looked like it was constructed of roofing plywood. Raymond Coolidge did not talk with plaintiff Gravelin when Gravelin arrived to install the satellite dish.
Note:	A trio of homeowners are not liable for a satellite dish installation worker's slip and fall from their roof because they did not owe him a duty.
Citation:	A131333
WCC Citation:	WCC 38262011 CA

Case Name:	Green v. State of California		08/23/2007
Summary:	Ct. No. RCV060816 DWIGHT D. GREEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant. Plaintiff began working for the State of California in 1974. In 1987, plaintiff worked as a stationary engineer for the Department of Corrections at the California Institute for Men in Chino (the Institute). In this case, for example, if because of his hepatitis C plaintiff Dwight Green was unable to perform the essential duties of a stationary engineer at a state prison, defendant State of California did not violate FEHA by terminating him because of his disability. (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 998, 1012-1014; Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd.
Note:	The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that plaintiffs prove they are 'qualified individuals' under the statute, i.e., that they have the ability to perform a job's essential duties before they can prevail in a lawsuit for discrimination...the FEHA requires employees to prove that they are qualified individuals under the statute just as the federal ADA requires.
Citation:	42 Cal. 4th 254
WCC Citation:	WCC 32422007 CA

Case Name:	Green v. WCAB (City of Compton)		03/30/2005
Summary:	City answered that any delay was part of continuous conduct, and, thus, the WCAB correctly awarded a single increase of compensation. Green Petitions for Reconsideration Green petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration. In addition, none of the reporting physicians prior to the agreed medical examiners indicated Green required vocational rehabilitation. On November 3, 2003, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and decision, and denied Green reconsideration. Weiss and Fauget, and then again by the Stipulation, the WCAB should have awarded multiple increases in compensation.
Note:	LC 5814 as amended by SB 899 applies retroactively to cases still open as of effective date.
Citation:	127 Cal.App.4th 1426
WCC Citation:	WCC 30902005 CA

Case Name:	Greene v. Countrywide Home Loans		10/29/2007
Summary:	Ct. No. 042760) (Ventura County) Plaintiff, Mercedes Greene, appeals a summary judgment in favor of defendants, Frank Duda, Anne Babb and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide), her former employer, in her wrongful termination, sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge and disability discrimination action. Duda reported receiving this package to Countrywide and made a complaint against Greene because "two of the emails contained death threats. "Countrywide concluded that Greene violated its workplace violence policy and a rule prohibiting employees from using its email system to send "threatening messages. "Greene claimed that in 2002 there were a series of incidents showing a pattern of harassment against her by Duda and Countrywide. She did not consider Greene's gender or any complaint Greene had made against Countrywide in deciding to terminate her employment.
Note:	[Unpublished] The plaintiff did not meet her burden to overcome the defendant-employer's evidence which shows it did not engage in harassment or discrimination and it had legitimate reasons for terminating the plaintiff-employee.
Citation:	B192329
WCC Citation:	WCC 32732007 CA

Case Name:	Greener v. WCAB		12/27/1993
Summary:	GLENN GREENER et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. Noting that the dismissal order was not appealable since it was not signed by the court (Code Civ. The workers' compensation law nowhere states that the Board is not subject to suit in the superior court. (See generally, Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 280 [109 P. 2d 942, 132 A. L. R. 715]; 2 Witkin, Cal. It appears to so concede elsewhere where it argues that the award of fees for legal services in workers' compensation proceedings is a subject 'within the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of the WCAB. '
Note:	5955 relates to subject matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction; No law says Board is not subject to suit in superior court.
Citation:	6 Cal.4th 1028, 58 CCC 793
WCC Citation:	WCC 27441993 CA