Case Name:	Brassinga v. City of Mountain View		08/20/1998
Summary:	Acton and another Mountain View officer were the range masters who inspected the weapons of the Mountain View officers. Plaintiffs assert that the evidence established as a matter of law that (1) Brassinga was acting as a 'volunteer,' (2) even if Brassinga was a special employee of Mountain View, Mountain View would still be liable under Marsh and (3) Brassinga was not a special employee of Mountain View. Plaintiffs assert that this principle is applicable here to permit Brassinga to sue Acton's general employer, Mountain View, even if Brassinga was a special employee of Mountain View. Here, if Mountain View was Brassinga's special employer, the exclusive remedy provisions would necessarily bar a tort action by Brassinga against Mountain View. However, Mountain View did have the power to remove Brassinga from his role playing duties for Mountain View.
Note:	Good discussion of general employer vs. special employer, with cites.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.4th 195, 63 CCC 987
WCC Citation:	WCC 4181998 CA

Case Name:	Bray vs. WCAB		06/30/1994
Summary:	KENNETH BRAY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ITT-BARTON et al. , Respondents. OPINION CROSKEY, J. Kenneth Bray (Bray), a discharged employee, sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging industrial injury to his nerves, psyche and internal system caused by termination from his employment. Bray sought help for his emotional distress from a clinical psychologist, Sivan Caukins, Ph. D. , in March 1989. 3, ante) in determining that Bray had sustained permanent psychiatric injury of 19. 5 percent. Internist Stanley Majcher, M. D. , reporting for the defense on March 14, 1991, declared that Bray had no industrially caused problems.
Note:	Psyche injury arising solely out of termination not compensable.
Citation:	26 Cal.App.4th 530, 59 CCC 475
WCC Citation:	WCC 28281994 CA

Case Name:	Brennfleck v. WCAB		01/20/1970
Summary:	ISABELLE E. BRENNFLECK, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE, Respondents (Opinion by Bray, J. , with Pierce, P. J. , and Regan, J. , concurring. )Record Carl Brennfleck, who was employed as a truck driver by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, was injured in the scope of his employment September 29, 1966, which injury proximately caused his death on November 11. On reconsideration the board reduced the award to $17,500 and stated that Isabelle Brennfleck was not a dependent of the decedent 'nor was she his widow. '(Brennfleck v. Workmen's Comp. The parties purchased real property together, filed joint income tax returns, and were known in the community as husband and wife.
Note:	4703 applies where deceased has putative spouse and still supporting first spouse.
Citation:	3 Cal.App.3d 666, 35 CCC 7
WCC Citation:	WCC 25921970 CA

Case Name:	Brightwell v. IAC		04/19/1965
Summary:	EUNICE LENORE BRIGHTWELL, Petitioner v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SPEE D MOODY'S LUNCH SERVICE, a copartnership, and INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a corporation, Respondents. Simultaneously, they entered into an agreement for sharing the costs in a pending third party action. The signature of applicant/employee, Eunice Brightwell, was attested to by witnesses who did not see or hear her sign. Brightwell sought to rescind the agreement on the grounds that there was failure of consideration, but this attempt was unsuccessful. On March 22, 1964, Brightwell underwent surgery.
Note:	Attesting witnesses need not be present when employee signs.
Citation:	30 CCC 127 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 25891965 CA

Case Name:	Brodie v. WCAB		05/03/2007
Summary:	WCK 059913, WCK 068583, OAK 298772) STAN BRODIE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Respondents. Over the previous 30 years of his career as a firefighter, Brodie had sustained several industrial injuries to the same body parts for which he was awarded compensation based on a 44. 5 percent permanent disability rating. In Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Name of Opinion Brodie v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Unpublished Opinion Original Appeal Original Proceeding Review Granted XXX 142 Cal. App. 4th 685 Rehearing Granted Opinion No. S146979 & S147030 Date Filed: May 3, 2007 Attorneys for Appellant: Gearheart & Otis and Mark E. Gearheart for Petitioner Stan Brodie. David J. Froba for California Applicants' Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Stan Brodie.
Note:	The Fuentes formula remains the correct one to apply in apportioning compensation between causes of disability.
Citation:	40 Cal. 4th 1313, 72 CCC 565
WCC Citation:	WCC 32212007 CA

Case Name:	Brodie v. WCAB		08/30/2006
Summary:	See Brodie v. WCAB, Welcher v. WCAB (S146979, S147030). The WCJ thus subtracted 44. 5 from 74 and awarded Brodie benefits totaling $20,867. 50 based on a 29. 5 percent permanent disability rating. Brodie injured his back, spine and right knee in 2000, and had an injury to his back and spine cumulative to September 2002. Moreover, it does not reflect a reduction for the relative value today of the $27,167. 50 that Brodie was awarded in 1987 and 1999. At oral argument, counsel for Brodie acknowledged the conceptual preferability of this approach.
Note:	Apportionment under SB 899 requires subtracting the current monetary value of prior awards from monetary value of current disability .
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 685
WCC Citation:	WCC 31762006 CA

Case Name:	Brooks v. City of Los Angeles		12/20/2017
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             MARK BROOKS, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. .             B280579 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Blithe S. Bock, Assistant City Attorney, Matthew A. Scherb, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. .             Plaintiff Mark Brooks had been employed as a police officer by defendant City of Los Angeles for over 20 years when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. .           WE CONCUR: .           RUBIN, Acting P. J.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a police officer who established that he had been permanently and totally disabled could not assert a viable claim of disability discrimination against his former employer for refusing to rehire him.
Citation:	B280579
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC582450

Case Name:	Brooks v. WCAB		04/18/2008
Summary:	Brooks earned an average of $1,102. 99 per week as a correctional officer at the time of her injury. While Brooks thereafter remained totally temporarily disabled, SCIF stopped providing TD payments after two years from the date of her injury. Brooks petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, claiming IDL is not TD because "IDL payments are made under different rules, to a limited class of employees, at different rates, and for different periods. "Brooks draws support for the proposition that a salary continuation benefit does not constitute TD from City of Oakland v. Workers. Accordingly, we conclude the WCAB appropriately decided Brooks was entitled to no more than one year of TD following the one year of IDL that she received.
Note:	Under the current statutory scheme state employees are limited to a maximum of two years of combined temporary disability indemnity.
Citation:	F053350
WCC Citation:	WCC 33462008 CA

Case Name:	Brown v. Mission Filmworks, LLC		12/06/2012
Summary:	BROWN v. MISSION FILMWORKS, LLC VIRTIC E. BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MISSION FILMWORKS, LLC, et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Michael Reino for Defendants and Respondents Mission Filmworks, LLC, and Jay Kamen. Plaintiff and appellant Virtic E. Brown appeals from a judgment, following a court trial, entered in favor of defendants and respondents Mission Filmworks, LLC, and Jay Kamen. In May 2009, Kamen formed Mission Filmworks, LLC, for the purpose of producing the Picture. Defendants and respondents Jay Kamen and Mission Filmworks, LLC, shall recover their costs on appeal.
Note:	Two friends who produced a short film together did not create an employee-employer relationship, and so the one who was ousted from the project could not assert a claim for unpaid wages.
Citation:	B239005
WCC Citation:	WCC 39572012 CA

Case Name:	Brown v. Mortensen		06/16/2011
Summary:	When Brown requested that Mortensen provide proof of the debt, Mortensen sent Brown a copy of Brown's dental chart, as well as the charts of Brown's minor children. Mortensen made these disclosures for purposes of verifying to the consumer reporting agencies that a debt was owed, despite the facts that (1) no one contended Brown owed money for dentistry performed on his children, and (2) Brown had never authorized Dr. Reinholds or Mortensen to disclose this information to any third parties, including the three consumer reporting agencies. From 2001 to 2003, Brown repeatedly but unsuccessfully demanded that Mortensen cease making unauthorized disclosures. Brown also contacted the three consumer reporting agencies and informed them the disclosures made by Mortensen were inaccurate and incomplete. Brown and his wife, individually and as guardians ad litem for their minor children, then sued Dr. Reinholds and Mortensen, alleging violations of the Confidentiality Act (Civ.
Note:	When a debt collector has illegally disclosed confidential patient medical information, that patient may sue under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, without having to worry about federal preemption issues, the California Supreme Court concluded Thursday.
Citation:	S180862
WCC Citation:	WCC 37732011 CA

Case Name:	Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Company		07/12/2011
Summary:	TERRI BROWN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and respondent Terri Brown (plaintiff) brought a class action and representative action under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (the PAGA) against her employers, defendants and appellants Ralphs Grocery Company and The Kroger Co. (defendants), for alleged violations of the Labor Code. (See Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 938, 955 [85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 817]. )I concur in the majority opinion's rejection of plaintiff Terri Brown's argument that the class action waiver in her employment contract with Ralphs Grocery Company and the Kroger Co. , Inc. , was unconscionable under Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 443 (Gentry). Brown and Ralphs/Kroger agreed to the streamlined procedures of arbitration of all covered employment claims without resort to classwide or representative litigation.
Note:	Concepcion does not apply to representative class actions filed under the Private Attorney General Act, and that employees cannot waive their right to participate in such suits.
Citation:	B222689
WCC Citation:	WCC 38122011 CA

Case Name:	Brown-Ravis, Inc. v. Superior Ct. of State of CA		01/01/2001
Summary:	It was spared that burden when Kmeth himself, through counsel, filed an application for adjudication of claim on September 17, 1971. He did not ask for an immediate hearing, but placed an 'x' next to the question: 'set later on written request. 'They further differed on whether this threshhold question, common to both proceedings, should be decided by the Board or the superior court. In the superior court a trial on the jurisdictional question of employment had been set for October 2, 1972. 5405) and that his secretary was faster in filling out the Board's form application, than he was in dictating the superior court complaint.
Note:	WCAB jurisdiction attaches at time of service when claim is served to opposing party concurrent with filing.
Citation:	38 CCC 193 (unpublished)
WCC Citation:	WCC 27842001 CA

Case Name:	Browning-Ferris Industries v. WCAB		02/14/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOBE SALTER, Respondents. Over a period of 16 years, Jobe Salter sustained numerous industrial injuries to his shoulders, elbows, knees and back while working for petitioner, Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI). He presented two new claims for industrial injuries to his shoulders, elbows, knees and back, but did not seek to reopen the prior cases. The WCJ reasoned that Salter's back injuries occurred as the result of continuous trauma he suffered throughout his career with the company. Subtracting the monetary value of prior awards does not comport with Labor Code*fn1 section 4664 as construed by our Supreme Court in Brodie.
Note:	[Unpublished] The percentage of a previous award of PD must be subtracted from a newer award of PD.
Citation:	B193443
WCC Citation:	WCC 33162008 CA

Case Name:	Bryant v. IAC		05/15/1951
Summary:	JAMES G. BRYANT, as Director of Employment, et al. , Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, Respondent. If an individual is unemployed because of lack of work, benefits are provided under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The next session of the Legislature adopted article 10 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (3 Deering's Gen. Laws, Act 8780d; Stats. Pending such final determination the Department of Employment might, as it did here, pay the applicant unemployment disability benefits. That puts the employee back where he was prior to 1945 with the temporary deducted from the permanent disability compensation allowed him.
Note:	4661 not intended to affect construction of Unemployment Ins. Act
Citation:	37 Cal.2d 215, 16 CCC 121
WCC Citation:	WCC 25421951 CA

Case Name:	Bryer v. Santa Cruz Pasta Factory		09/15/1995
Summary:	JANET BRYER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANTA CRUZ PASTA FACTORY, Defendant and Respondent. (Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, No. 124423, Robert B. Yonts, Judge. )Defendant submitted affidavits which established that defendant had purchased the pasta machine secondhand and had never 'received information of any kind' from the manufacturer of the pasta machine. Defendant's affidavits established that there were no communications between the manufacturer of the pasta machine and defendant. The only express communications defendant received regarding the pasta machine were the representations of the individual who sold the machine to defendant.
Note:	Dicussing level of necessary proof that manufacturer conveyed information to employer
Citation:	38 Cal.App.4th 1711, 60 CCC 944
WCC Citation:	WCC 24231995 CA

Case Name:	Buchmiller v. Hines Nurseries		07/11/2008
Summary:	According to the facts alleged in the complaint, Buchmiller began employment as a shop manager for Hines in December of 1999. In support of its motion, Hines relied upon the following facts, which Buchmiller admitted were undisputed: First, that in June of 2003, after Buchmiller had returned to work with restrictions following his surgery, Hines' workers' compensation insurer commissioned a formal analysis of the requirements of Buchmiller's shop manager position. Despite these infirmities in Hines' claim that Buchmiller affirmatively "resigned" his employment, we nonetheless conclude the undisputed evidence demonstrates Hines did not terminate the employment as alleged in Buchmiller's complaint. Technically, Buchmiller did not admit the facts alleged by Hines in connection with either the physician's report or the job analysis report in his response to Hines' separate statement. Buchmiller also asserts that "[n]othing in Hines' answer suggests there was no termination," and complains that Hines failed to specifically assert that contention as an affirmative defense.
Note:	[Unpublished] Buchmiller has not raised any triable issue of fact in support of the claimed discrimination. The undisputed facts demonstrate that in the period leading up to the alleged termination of his employment, Buchmiller's physician had concluded he could not perform the duties of his shop manager position, and that Hines had no other permanent alternative or modified work to offer him.
Citation:	G038463
WCC Citation:	WCC 33972008 CA

Case Name:	Buescher v. WCAB		09/06/1968
Summary:	ROSE E. BUESCHER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION et al. , Respondents. Petitioner is the surviving widow of Henry J. Buescher, who died June 15, 1965, as a result of a heart attack. 2 Dr. Eliot Sorsky and petitioner testified for the petitioner, and Dr. William L. Adams, Jr. , testified for defendants. The pertinent finding was that Henry J. Buescher '. . . sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment proximately resulting in his death on June 15, 1965. 'But the body of the petition did not state with specificity that the petition was brought on behalf of the Retirement System.
Note:	Board had jurisdiction and duty to grant reconsideration if it disagreed with findings of referee.
Citation:	265 Cal.App.2d 520, 33 CCC 537
WCC Citation:	WCC 26511968 CA

Case Name:	Burbank Studios v. WCAB		08/11/1982
Summary:	Facts The facts pertinent to this appeal are as follows: On or about June 21, 1979, August Yount (Yount or applicant) filed an application for adjudication of claim, alleging an injury on May 11, 1979, to his right arm while employed by Burbank Studios (Burbank Studios or Employer), permissibly self-insured for workers' compensation benefits. Burbank Studios denied any injury arising out of or occurring in the course of Yount's employment. In a letter dated April 1, 1981, Burbank Studios responded in relevant part as follows: 'Petitioner The Burbank Studios herein acknowledges receipt of this Board's Order Granting Reconsideration served on March 25, 1981. In its petition for reconsideration, Burbank Studios contended that the WCJ had exceeded her jurisdiction in striking the language from the addendum. We are not suggesting that some form of conditional action could not be taken by the WCAB provided Burbank Studios had the right to accept or reject the proposal and rejection would return the parties to their previous status quo.
Note:	Board may not rewrite a C&R, limited to approval/disapproval.
Citation:	134 Cal.App.3d 929, 47 CCC 832
WCC Citation:	WCC 27461982 CA

Case Name:	Burch v. WCAB (UPS)		04/16/1998
Summary:	Steven Burch, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, United Parcel Service, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents. The WCAB granted reconsideration and examined the issue of whether the Rehab. WCAB concluded that employers are required to comply with the Code and all relevant regulations in terminating liability for rehab. WCAB noted that UPS had been denied the opportunity to present other evidence that could establish that it had, indeed, offered modified or alternative work. Applicant then filed a Petition for Writ of Review after the WCAB issued its decision.
Note:	Despite inability to produce RU-94 form proving applicant had been offered modified work, employer can produce other evidence of such offer.
Citation:	63 CCC 606
WCC Citation:	WCC 27921998 CA

Case Name:	Burnham v. WCAB		05/09/2008
Summary:	Ultimately the WCAB determined the new disability schedule applied and found Burnham had no permanent disability. Burnham appeals, contending the WCAB lacked authority to grant the City's second petition for reconsideration and erred in interpreting the statute implementing the new disability schedule. The WCJ found the new disability schedule should apply and that Burnham failed to establish any exceptions under section 4660, subdivision (d). Burnham sought reconsideration with the WCAB on August 14, 2006. Therefore, according to Burnham, the WCAB's third order was functus officio [of no further force or authority] since the jurisdiction of the WCAB was exhausted.
Note:	[Unpublished] Good cause sufficient to invoke section 5803 may consist of newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, a change in the law, or any factor or circumstance unknown at the time the original award or order was made that renders the previous findings and award inequitable.
Citation:	C055988
WCC Citation:	WCC 33542008 CA

Case Name:	Burns v. WCAB		03/25/1987
Summary:	JAMES BURNS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents. On March 10, 1984, applicant was granted a disability retirement under the CERL as a result of the industrial injury. He receives approximately $1,600 per month from the CERL disability pension and a similar amount from the PERS service pension. In his opinion on decision, he explained that he based his decision on Labor Code section 4853 and Gorman v. Workers' Comp. Applicant contends that County may not disallow VRTD because the injured worker is receiving a PERS service pension.
Note:	Sheriff not limited to VRTD while simultaneously receiving pension from prior employer.
Citation:	190 CAL.APP.3D 759, 52 CCC 111
WCC Citation:	WCC 26881987 CA

Case Name:	Bussard vs. Minimed		01/23/2003
Summary:	BARBARA BUSSARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MINIMED, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Page 2} OPINION RUBIN, J. - Appellant Barbara Bussard appeals from summary judgment for respondent Minimed, Inc. After review, we hold the "going-and-coming" exception to the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to an employee while she is driving home after becoming sick at work from exposure to pesticide fumes. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On March 22, 2000, respondent Minimed hired a pest control company to spray pesticide overnight to eliminate fleas at respondent's facility. Around 7:00 a. m. the next day, Minimed clerical employee Irma Hernandez arrived for work. While in route, she rear ended appellant Barbara Bussard, who was stopped at a red light.
Note:	Employer liable to third party from accident by employee sent home due to illness incurred at work.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 798, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 675
WCC Citation:	WCC 29142003 CA

Case Name:	Butler v. Direct TV		10/08/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ROBERT BUTLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIRECT TV, Defendant and Respondent. Appellant Robert Butler (Butler) sued respondent DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV) for disability discrimination. On June 14, 2005, Butler informed Veazie that his doctor was going to release him to work part-time. DIRECTV was not required to provide Butler with a part-time position, and Butler could not work full-time. After Butler spoke to Veazie, Veazie asked Rodriguez if Butler could be accommodated.
Note:	[Unpublished] DIRECTV was not required to provide Butler with a part-time position, and Butler could not work full-time. As a result, a reasonable accommodation was not available and DIRECTV cannot be held liable for failing to engage in an interactive process.
Citation:	B201173
WCC Citation:	WCC 34342008 CA

Case Name:	C.C. Myers v. WCAB (Lockwood)		01/27/2012
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT C. C. MYERS, INC. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BRUCE LOCKWOOD, Respondents. In this matter, respondent Bruce Lockwood (Claimant) was injured while working for petitioner C. C. Myers, Inc. (Employer) when a co-worker drove an excavator over Claimants foot. He also received an award of permanent disability benefits in the amount of $170 per week, for a total of $58,862. 50. However, the Board rejected the WCJs rationale and concluded instead that the misconduct was the failure to provide a spotter alone. (Labor Code, § 5904; Cedillo v. W. C. A. B. (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 450, 456; U. S. Auto Stores v. W. C. A. B. (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 469, 476-477. )
Note:
Citation:	C067528
WCC Citation:	WCC 38502012 CA

Case Name:	C.J.L. Construction, Inc. v. Universal Plumbing		08/27/1993
Summary:	C. J. L. CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL PLUMBING, Cross-defendant and Respondent. Pleadings Philip Navarette (plaintiff) filed an action against Universal Plumbing (UP), C. J. L. Construction, Inc. (CJL), and Louisville Ladder. On August 11, 1992, UP brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to CJL's first amended cross-complaint. The properly pleaded material allegations in the declaratory relief cause of action in the amended cross-complaint must be accepted as true. [2] In appeals from a demurrer dismissal of a declaratory relief action, appellate courts normally apply the abuse of discretion standard.
Note:	Third-party defendant may not compel employer's participation as a cross-defendant in certain instances.
Citation:	18 Cal.App.4th 376, 58 CCC 543
WCC Citation:	WCC 24011993 CA

Case Name:	CA Attorneys v. Schwarzenegger		03/19/2010
Summary:	(CASE I) That petition alleges that "CASE is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of legal professionals in State Bargaining Unit 2 . Approximately 3240 members are attorneys, administrative law judges, and hearing officers who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The independently elected constitutional officers and other elected state-wide officials referenced above were not parties to these matters. On the merits, the court agreed with CASE that section 11873 prohibits the Governor from furloughing SCIF employees. COUNSEL Law Offices of Brooks Ellison and Patrick J. Whalen for Plaintiff and Respondent California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment.
Note:	The trial court's conclusion that section 11873, subdivision (c) limits the Governor's authority to impose furloughs on SCIF employees is consistent with the language of the statute, the larger statutory scheme, and the legislative history of the SCIF authorizing legislation.
Citation:	A125292
WCC Citation:	WCC 36102010 CA

Case Name:	CA Comp. & Fire Co. v. IAC (Leventon)		06/12/1961
Summary:	Record Leventon, a timber-faller, sustained an industrial injury on July 29, 1957, which resulted in immediate total paraplegia. Leventon was paid $40 per week for temporary disability by petitioners through October 5, 1959, and $35 per week thereafter until March 22, 1960. On January 27, 1960, hearings were had upon the date at which temporary disability ceased and permanent disability began. The petitioners immediately began to withhold payments to Leventon in order to accumulate $1,000 for payment of the attorney's lien. On May 11, 1960, Leventon's attorney petitioned for partial commutation and for determination of attorney's fees under Labor Code, section 4904. 1.
Note:	Liens must be paid without disturbing scheduled disability payments.
Citation:	193 Cal.App.2d 6, 26 CCC 105
WCC Citation:	WCC 25581961 CA

Case Name:	CA Comp. Ins. Co. v. IAC		07/26/1948
Summary:	'Petitioner is the insurance carrier for the Canterbury Hotel, that company having been found to have been the employer of decedent. There is no doubt that if the employer-employee relationship existed, the accident was industrial, and that it caused the death of Laurio. The trial referee recommended a finding that decedent was an independent contractor, but the panel of the commission found that the employer-employee relationship existed. [1] 'The evidence on the issue in question is not entirely satisfactory, and the question presented is a very close one. He was told that the nursery could not handle the work but would be glad to recommend a competent man.
Note:	Weak evidence of AWW does not make AWW
Citation:	86 Cal.App.2d 861, 13 CCC 181
WCC Citation:	WCC 23941948 CA

Case Name:	CA Comp. Ins. Co. v. IAC (Moore)		11/17/1954
Summary:	OPINION FOX, J. Petitioner seeks a review and annulment of an award by respondent commission of maximum temporary partial disability benefits. This activity took the form of contacts with several prospective employers and scanning of newspaper ads for offers of work. On March 17, 1954, respondent commission issued a Findings and Award, the pertinent part of which reads as follows: '3. [2] The theory underlying such legislation is, succinctly stated, that industry should bear, in large measure, the burden of industrial accidents. (Johnson v. Cluett Peabody Co. , 2 I. A. C. 10, 13; Jordan v. Decorative Co. 230 N. Y. 522 [130 N. E. 634, 635]; 1 Campbell, Workmen's Compensation, ?
Note:	Unemployment benefits subtracted from wage loss.
Citation:	128 Cal.App.2d 797, 19 CCC 287
WCC Citation:	WCC 25001954 CA

Case Name:	CA Comp. Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Raines)		08/01/1997
Summary:	Applicant suffered industrial injuries on January 27, 1995, and was admitted to the San Bernadino County Hospital and treated until his release four months after the accident. Prior to his release from the hospital an employee of defendant California Compensation Insurance Co. contacted the hospital's collections office to negotiate a pending bill. Under this deal, Defendant paid $654,556. 22 within the agreed time limit a timely fashion, representing 80% of the initial total bill. This principle will help to ensure there has been a true meeting of the minds,' and will avoid unnecessary confusion and litigation. You are counseled to consult the full case for an accurate citation.
Note:	Any agreement to be enforced in workers' compensation proceedings should be reduced to writing.
Citation:	62 CCC 1264
WCC Citation:	WCC 25881997 CA