Case Name:	Carpenter v. Universal City Studios L.L.L.P.		01/10/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS L. L. L. P. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Universal's Production Service Representative Bonita Chan explained that Universal and Universal Studios, Inc. are related entities, and UNT is a department within "Universal. Various of the Universal companies share the same address at Universal City Plaza. Silverstein explained that Dragnet "was a Universal show using Universal equipment on the Universal lot. "It's Universal Studios Television, but it's Universal  I work for Universal Studios Productions Services.
Note:	[Unpublished] The evidence supports the jury's special verdict that Defendant was Plaintiff's special employer with the result the trial court did not err in denying Carpenter's three motions. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Citation:	B186031
WCC Citation:	WCC 32982008 CA

Case Name:	Carpenter v. WCAB		04/11/1986
Summary:	The change-of-address form was dated August 23, 1983, but bears a WCAB stamp showing receipt by the Board at 1025 a. m. on August 31, 1983. The Board also found 'applicant's attorney has agreed to receive service of process from the Sacramento office [of the WCAB] in that manner [by mail slot]. 'Petitioner's counsel, as an attorney, is presumed to know that service by 'mail slot' is not authorized by statute or by WCAB regulations. Petitioner is therefore bound by his attorney's agreement to accept service of process at his WCAB 'mail slot. 'n3 It is undisputed that delivery by 'mail slot' does not constitute 'personal service' within the meaning of the Labor Code and WCAB regulations.
Note:	Time limit for filing petition for reconsideration runs from date of actual receipt when WCAB serves findings to attorney at unauthorized address.
Citation:	51 CCC 175
WCC Citation:	WCC 27781986 CA

Case Name:	Carr v. Washington Mut. Bank		04/22/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LARESSIA M. CARR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- Laressia M. Carr sued Washington Mutual Bank (Bank), her employer, claiming that she suffered posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as the result of a take-over robbery of Bank's branch where she worked as a teller. After learning from Nawrocki that Bank would not lower her hours, Carr became extremely stressed and starting having more symptoms. Carr also testified that she still considered herself a Bank employee, and Bank does not dispute her status. Bank argues that Carr failed to prove she was entitled to front pay because Carr is, and considers herself to be, an employee of Bank, and there is no evidence that the reinstatement of Carr is not feasible.
Note:	[Unpublished] An employer failed to accommodate a bank teller's post-traumatic stress disorder pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	F051628
WCC Citation:	WCC 35162009 CA

Case Name:	Carrillo v. Wiberg Corporation of California		02/25/2011
Summary:	ARTHUR CARRILLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WIBERG CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Frank DeLaFuente filled in for Carrillo and was told he would have the position until Carrillo came back to work. Since the release did not state Carrillo could return to driving, the company asked Carrillo to provide a more specific release. Welzel instructed Ortega to call Carrillo and to reinstate him, but Ortega did not have a chance to reinstate Carrillo because he was informed Carrillo was looking for another job. Carrillo Asks for a Job Reference and Does Not Return to Work The Wiberg witnesses, including Welzel, Liczyk, Ortega, and Sylvia Cervantes, the California facility's office manager, all testified the company did not terminate Carrillo.
Note:	A disabled employee who quit his job before his employer had a chance to start the interactive process does not have a cause of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B219431
WCC Citation:	WCC 37222011 CA

Case Name:	Carrillo-Torres v. Bergen Part 1/2		03/28/2018
Summary:	.             A144704 .             (Alameda County Super. .           Once Bergen and KL Construction executed the contract, Bergen wrote an initial deposit check to KL Construction for $1,000. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .           On November 15, 2012, Torres filed a complaint against Bergen alleging one cause of action for premises liability and negligence. .           Bergen’s counsel maintained Bergen was protected from liability under Privette because she hired KL Construction, a licensed and insured contractor, who hired Gonzalez, and because Bergen exercised no control over project safety. .           As noted, Torres also contends Bergen schemed with KL Construction to improperly reduce the costs of the project by having Bergen write checks to workers directly.
Note:
Citation:	A144704
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG12656391

Case Name:	Carrillo-Torres v. Bergen Part 2/2		03/28/2018
Summary:	.           _________________________ Schulman, J. [¶] . [¶] . Because Bergen did not adequately explain the relevance of that ruling, and because the information is unnecessary to our analysis, we deny the request.   Elsewhere in his opening brief, Torres submits Bergen had a right under the contract to reject subcontractors. We reject Torres’s contention that Bergen must have hired Gonzalez (and thus must have been his employer) simply because she wrote two checks paying him.
Note:
Citation:	A144704
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG12656391

Case Name:	Carter v. County of LA (En Banc)		06/19/1986
Summary:	Carolyn Carter v. County of Los Angeles John Weatherspoon v. St. Ferdinand's School Elaine Constancio v. Los Angeles County W. C. A. B. Nos. On this ground we will dismiss defendant's petition in 84 LA 504567. (Labor Code 5310) In Constancio v. County of Los Angeles (84 POM 95786), a C&R dated January 23, 1986 was submitted for approval. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration filed in Carter v. County of Los Angeles (84 LA 504567) on February 28, 1986 be, and it is hereby, DISMISSED. 83 LA 504567 (Carter ), 84 POM 95786 (Constancio ) and 85 VN 142848 (Weatherspoon ), be, and they are hereby, REMANDED for further proceedings and decision consistent with the opinion expressed herein.
Note:	No release for subseq. injury in rehab. unless it is a 'compensable consequence' of prior injury.
Citation:	51 CCC 255
WCC Citation:	WCC 25711986 CA

Case Name:	Carver v. WCAB		02/20/1990
Summary:	WILLIAM CARVER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Racanelli, P. J. , with Newsom and Stein, JJ. , concurring. )On September 12, 1988, in response to petitioner's subsequent petition for reconsideration, the Board issued a second opinion affirming its July 21 result. Thus, we must conclude that there was no compliance with the Board rules requiring notice to a party. CIGA was created in 1969 to protect policyholders and claimants under policies of insurance issued by insurers who later become insolvent. The Board also expressed concern over CIGA's ability to defend such claims when employees of the insolvent may become unavailable.
Note:	Nonpayment penalties are benefits, not damages; UEF has burden of seeking reimbursement.
Citation:	217 Cal.App.3d 1539, 55 CCC 36
WCC Citation:	WCC 24471990 CA

Case Name:	Cascade Forest Products, Inc. v. WCAB		10/06/1998
Summary:	Cascade Forest Products, Inc. , Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, William R. Hines, Respondents. Workers' Compensation Judge Robert Kutz (WCJ) imposed a 10 percent penalty on the entire temporary disability award because Cascade Forest Products, Inc. (employer), terminated temporary disability prematurely. Dr. Soong stated employee was not a candidate for vocational rehabilitation and could return to work as a laborer without restrictions. Based upon Dr. Soong's report, employer, on October 4, 1996, filed and served by mail a petition to terminate liability for temporary disability. Employee's counsel objected by letter dated October 10, 1996, to termination, alleging Dr. Soong's opinion was based on inaccurate facts.
Note:	Employer may terminate benefits, then file petition to terminate benefits w/i 10 days; rebuttable presumption that TD extends 1 week following filing petition.
Citation:	63 CCC 1205
WCC Citation:	WCC 27731998 CA

Case Name:	CASE v. Brown		05/05/2011
Summary:	After briefing and argument, the court agreed with CASE that section 11873 prohibits the Governor from furloughing State Fund employees. Defendants argue that they have been prejudiced because the trial court's ruling in this action conflicts with the ruling in CASE I and the conflicting rulings create irreconcilable adjudications of the Governor's authority to furlough CASE employees at State Fund. Because the claims of State Fund employees were not adjudicated in CASE I, there is no conflicting adjudication as to those employees. That petition alleges that "CASE is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of legal professionals in State Bargaining Unit 2 . The order explained that CASE I raised issues "regarding the Governor's authority to order furloughs of [CASE] members, as employees of executive branch agencies.
Note:	A state governor does not have the authority to furlough employees of an autonomous, self-supporting organization.
Citation:	A125292
WCC Citation:	WCC 37592011 CA

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