Case Name:	Sunderland v. Lockheed Martin		06/09/2005
Summary:	KRISTI SUNDERLAND et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS SUPPORT COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add Mazloom's employer, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Support Company (LMASSC), as a defendant. On the date of the collision, LMASSC, a Lockheed Martin Corporation subsidiary, employed Mazloom as a field service representative. Headquartered in Marietta, Georgia, LMASSC provides after-market technical field support to government and military customers which own and operate aircraft manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendant Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Support Company.
Note:	The commercial traveler rule may not be incorporated into the respondeat superior doctrine.
Citation:	130 Cal.App.4th 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 31032005 CA

Case Name:	Sunwest Masonry & Concrete Inc. v. Zamora - unpublished		02/01/2021
Summary:	* * * After suffering injuries on the job, followed by a stroke two months later, construction worker Jose Zamora filed a workers compensation claim against his former employer, Sunwest Masonry & Concrete, Inc. (Sunwest). Zamora then sued Sunwest for wrongful termination, and Sunwest and a third party for negligence. Zamora eventually settled his workers compensation claim and the wrongful termination action; he then voluntarily dismissed Sunwest from the negligence action with prejudice. About a week later, Zamora failed to show up for a job, and Sunwest stopped calling him in to work. According to Smaili, Zamora had no further need to maintain the negligence action against Sunwest after he successfully settled his workers compensation claim.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld a decision to strike an employer’s malicious prosecution claim against a former employee and his attorney for having pursued an allegedly meritless negligence action.
Citation:	No. G058685
WCC Citation:	No. G058685

Case Name:	Supervalu v. Wexford Underwriting Managers		06/03/2009
Summary:	Filed 6/3/09 Supervalu v. Wexford Underwriting Managers CA2/2 (Editor's note: This decision was originally unpublished, but was granted published status on June 22, 2009. )IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SUPERVALU, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEXFORD UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. The issue presented is the interpretation of the word "occurrence" in the excess workers' compensation policies provided to appellant Supervalu, Inc. doing business as Albertson's Inc. (Supervalu) by respondents TIG Insurance Company (TIG), Continental Casualty Company (Continental) and Wexford Underwriting Managers, Inc. (Wexford) (collectively respondents). As to Continental and Wexford, Supervalu also alleged causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith. In an evidentiary vacuum, Supervalu states that the policies impose "an important duty on Wexford to transmit notice from [Supervalu] to the excess carrier.
Note:	[Unpublished] Policy language is not inconsistent with the apportionment of benefits envisioned by the provisions of the Labor Code.
Citation:	B206501
WCC Citation:	WCC 35312009 CA

Case Name:	Sutter Memorial Hospital v. WCAB		11/10/2008
Summary:	[U] Sutter Memorial Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, No. C058699 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 11/10/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C058699 November 10, 2008 SUTTER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND GREEN & AZEVEDO, RESPONDENTS. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Petitioner Sutter Memorial Hospital (Sutter) seeks reversal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denying reconsideration and restitution of attorney fees paid to respondent Green & Azevedo for its legal representation of the applicant Lucy Chaidez. The WCAB earlier reduced the applicant's permanent disability from 100 percent to 41 percent and ordered her to pay restitution to Sutter. In this proceeding, Sutter argues that the WCAB exceeded its powers in refusing to order Green & Azevedo to return $69,135 in attorney fees. In this case, the WCAB ordered the applicant to pay Sutter restitution in the sum of $60,092. 45 based on her misrepresentations to Dr. Kornblatt and the WCAB.
Note:	An employer is not entitled to restitution against attorneys who won $69,000 in attorney fees while unknowingly representing a fraudulent client.
Citation:	C058699
WCC Citation:	WCC 34602008 CA

Case Name:	Sutton v. WCAB		09/21/2007
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION THE COURT*fn1 Petitioner William R. Sutton asks this court to annul a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) in which the WCAB remanded the matter for further development of the medical record to determine whether Sutton is entitled to medical treatment arising out of a 1985 stipulated award providing that future medical care "may be" required. At some point thereafter, the Employer contested its liability to provide medical treatment, and Sutton responded by petitioning the WCAB for penalties and attorney fees against the Employer for failing to provide medical treatment. The Employer petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending Sutton never received an award for future medical care because the 1985 stipulation provided that additional medical care " `may be' " provided and then only " `upon reasonable demand. 'The WCAB found the precautionary award limited to the body areas specifically listed and upon Sutton making "a demand in advance of his need for treatment. "Although the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's findings ordering the Employer to provide six months of medical treatment, the WCAB has not yet issued a final determination whether medical evidence demonstrates Sutton requires continued medical treatment due to the 1983 injury and stipulated award.
Note:	[Unpublished] The ACOEM Guidelines presumptively establish reasonable medical treatment, regardless of the date of injury.
Citation:	F053104
WCC Citation:	WCC 32582007 CA

Case Name:	Sweeney v. WCAB		07/24/1968
Summary:	ROBERT D. SWEENEY, SR. , Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, FREDRICKSON & WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. , Respondents. The record herein includes seven reports made by Dr. Feldman at various times to and including July 28, 1965. On February 13, 1964, petitioner was examined by Dr. Loopesko, at the request of the insurance carrier. On July 16, 1965, Dr. Feldman performed a lumbar laminectomy on petitioner, from 'L-4 to S-1,' removing a herniated disc. The other medical reports indicated that the disability was less severe and that the applicant was not so narrowly limited occupationally.
Note:	Matter remanded after WCAB relied on improper physician's report.
Citation:	264 Cal.App.2d 296
WCC Citation:	WCC 25631968 CA

Case Name:	T and T Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Curtis Ray Hillman		06/01/2012
Summary:	T and T Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Curtis Ray Hillman, Deceased, No. C067171 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 06/01/2012) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT C067171 June 1, 2012 T AND T CONSTRUCTION, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND CURTIS RAY HILLMAN, DECEASED, ETC. , RESPONDENTS. Hillman's counsel filed a petition for serious and willful misconduct with the Board on August 20, 2009. We are not bound by the conclusions of the Board on questions of law, such as the interpretation of a statute. Petitioner's name appears throughout the record in many variations, including T&T Construction, TT Construction, and T and T Construction. We have elected to use the name as it appears on the order denying reconsideration, T and T Construction.
Note:	The act of filing a petition for workers' compensation benefits based on the alleged serious and willful misconduct of an employer is sufficient to 'commence' proceedings for purposes of the statute of limitations.
Citation:	C067171
WCC Citation:	WCC 39032012 CA

Case Name:	Tabaie v. Stockton Unified School Dist.		11/20/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- BIJAN TABAIE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. That Bijan Tabaie was an employee of the Stockton Unified School District. That the Stockton Unified School District knew or thought Bijan Tabaie had a physical condition that limited a major life activity; "4. That Bijan Tabaie's physical condition was a motivating reason for the discharge, or [¶] [t]hat the Stockton Unified School District's belief that Bijan Tabaie had a physical condition was a motivating reason for the discharge. That the Stockton Unified School District's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Bijan Tabaie's harm. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Special instruction wrongly required the jury to decide issues of law and to engage in a burden-shifting analysis that is not to be performed by a jury at trial.
Citation:	C056222
WCC Citation:	WCC 35802009 CA

Case Name:	Tanimura v. Antle		11/21/2007
Summary:	Tanimura & Antle and its insurer petitioned this court for writ of review, and we granted the petition. Nor does he show that before 2005, Tanimura & Antle was required to provide notice under Labor Code section 4061, subdivision (a). The agreed medical examiner found Lopez to be permanent and stationary on January 13, 2006, and Tanimura & Antle made its last temporary disability payment on March 8, 2006. Filed 12/18/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TANIMURA & ANTLE, et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and AVELINO LOPEZ, Respondents. Trial Court: Santa Clara County W. C. A. B. No. SAL 108539 Attorneys for Petitioners: Daniel H. Hunt Tanimura & Antle et al. Matovich & McLean Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Michael A.
Note:	It is the date of proof of permanent disability, not the date of injury that determines whether a disability rating falls under the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) or the prior 1997 schedule.
Citation:	157 Cal. App. 4th 1489; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 127
WCC Citation:	WCC 32802007 CA

Case Name:	Tapia et al., v. Dresden et al.		08/30/2010
Summary:	Filed 8/30/10 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District (Sacramento) C061925 (Superior Ct. No. 34200800024335CUPOGDS) Jorge Tapia et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Karl Dresden et al. , Defendants and Respondents. First, they asserted that because Jorges cause of action was precluded by the workers compensation exclusivity rule, Glorias cause of action was likewise precluded. The court concluded that the employee of an independent contractor may not sue the owner or hirer for injuries on the job. Also, while the Ungas did not have workers compensation coverage, workers compensation benefits were nonetheless available to Jorge. DISCUSSION I Standard Of Review The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint by raising questions of law.
Note:	Exclusive remedy did not bar an injured worker's suit against a property owner because the general contractor on the job did not have a valid license or workers' compensation coverage, California's 3rd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	C061925
WCC Citation:	WCC 36612010 CA

Case Name:	Tapia v. Skill Master Staffing		09/17/2008
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Case No. ADJ 4564224 (En Banc) (LBO 0322121) MARIA TAPIA, Applicant, vs. SKILL MASTER STAFFING; and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s), SB SURGERY CENTER, Lien Claimant. The new fee schedule for this procedure would be $1,770. 34. That would apply only to injuries on or after 1-1-04. Medicare ASC [Ambulatory Surgical Center], which was used in calculating the new fee schedule, would be $832. 49 for this procedure. A comparable procedure under the CHSWC study Level 5 (which was this procedure's level) would be an average of $2,196.
Note:	[En Banc] (1) An outpatient surgery center lien claimant has burden of proving that charges are reasonable; (2) the outpatient surgery center lien claimant's billing, by itself, does not establish that claimed fee is 'reasonable'; and (3) any evidence relevant to reasonableness may be offered to support or rebut the lien.
Citation:	4564224
WCC Citation:	WCC 34252008 CA

Case Name:	Target Stores v. WCAB		01/18/2008
Summary:	Filed 1/18/08 Target Stores v. WCAB (Sollars) CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS. -ooOoo- Target Stores (Target) petitions for a writ of review disputing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concluding that a 1994 stipulated award for further medical care contained a clerical error and that, regardless of the error, Target was estopped from terminating medical benefits it had been providing a former employee for over 11 years. Sollars stopped working for Target in June 1991 and began working as a receptionist with Sierra Medical Group. Target also argues the WCAB improperly considered Target's past payment for neck treatment an admission of liability and that it should not have relied upon Dr. Chittenden's medical reporting lacking substantial evidence. (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 784 (Robinson), Target contends there were no legal grounds for the WCAB to withdraw or set aside the 1994 stipulated award.
Note:	[Unpublished] The WCAB may interpret and enforce a prior award.
Citation:	F053581
WCC Citation:	WCC 33032008 CA

Case Name:	Tate v. IAC		10/19/1953
Summary:	On rehearing it developed that the district manager of the employer not only knew that Tate was drinking, but participated with Tate in the drinking and purchased at least one round of drinks. The facts, in more detail, are as follows: Ernest Tate was employed as a janitor and supervising employee by the American Building Maintenance Company, a self-insured employer. The employer raised the affirmative defense that death was caused by the intoxication of Tate. Tate then made a telephone call and he and Deardorff left Allison's home for San Francisco at 2:30 a. m. Allison stated he did not believe that Tate was then drunk, or he would not have allowed him to leave. Allison also stated that Tate had worked for this same employer for seven or eight years; that about three or four months before the accident Tate had been warned about four to six times about drinking on the job.
Note:	On rehearing, petitioner for rehearing may raise any point he could have raised in original hearing.
Citation:	120 Cal.App.2d 657
WCC Citation:	WCC 26961953 CA

Case Name:	Telles Transport v. WCAB (Zuniga)		10/16/2001
Summary:	TELLES TRANSPORT, INC. et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and LUIS ZUNIGA, Respondents. OPINION CORNELL, J. Telles Transport, Inc. (Telles) petitions this court by a writ of review challenging the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or Board). Although the documents were not offered into evidence, Telles apparently had its own copy of the relevant UMC records. The WCAB disagreed with the WCJ and found the WCJ had a duty to develop fully the record by admitting the relevant UMC records. 1 Zuniga maintains the WCAB acted within its authority in ordering the WCJ to admit the previously undisclosed UMC records.
Note:	Where a party's own conduct caused or induced the error he is estopped from appealing the issue of that error.
Citation:	92 Cal.App.4th 1159
WCC Citation:	WCC 28182001 CA

Case Name:	Tenet/Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Rushing		05/18/2000
Summary:	Dr. Glousman treated Rushing continuously beginning in August 1995, performing surgery twice on her right knee and conducting follow-up care. In the category of 'Treatment Recommendations,' Dr. Glousman wrote that Rushing 'will continue on a home exercise program. 'As Rushing was not represented at the time, the hospital followed the requirements of Labor Code section 4061, subdivision (d), and provided her with a three-physician panel. The WCJ effectively ruled that Dr. Stokes was the primary treating physician, rationalizing that Rushing was entitled to change treating physicians when future medical care is warranted. Rushing seeks an award of supplementary attorney fees predicated on the assertion there was no reasonable basis for this petition for review.
Note:	When applicant P&S, must comply with 4061/4062 before obtaining new treating physician.
Citation:	80 C.A.4th 1041, 65 CCC 477
WCC Citation:	WCC 24052000 CA

Case Name:	Tenet/Doctors Medical Center v. WCAB		03/24/2008
Summary:	Filed 3/24/08 Tenet/Doctors Medical Center v. WCAB (Reddick) CA1/5 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). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER, etc. , et al. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BONNIE REDDRICK, Respondent. BACKGROUND While employed as an admitting clerk by petitioner Tenet/Doctors Medical Center (Tenet), respondent Bonnie Reddrick injured her hand and wrist. Among other things, this legislation amended section 4660 to require the implementation of a new permanent disability rating schedule incorporating the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th ed. 'Permanent and stationary status' is the point when the employee has reached maximal medical improvement, meaning his or her condition is well stabilized, and unlikely to change substantially in the next year with or without medical treatment. "
Note:	[Unpublished] A medical-legal report issued before January 1, 2005 need not state that that the claimant is permanent and stationary in order to trigger the old rating schedule. It is only necessary that a pre-2005 report indicate that the claimant has suffered a permanent impairment of earning capacity, a permanent impairment of the normal use of a body part, or a permanent competitive handicap in the open market. See Genlyte Group, Inc. v. WCAB, (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 705.
Citation:	A118238
WCC Citation:	WCC 33292008 CA

Case Name:	Tensfeldt v. WCAB		08/20/1998
Summary:	GARY TENSFELDT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondents. [66 Cal. App. 4th 119] OPINION PETERSON, P. J. - Petitioner Gary Tensfeldt (Tensfeldt) was convicted of insurance fraud under Insurance Code section 1871. 4, subdivision (a)(1), fn. Upon completion, Lynch drove Tensfeldt and another crew member to a City gymnasium where they joined other water department employees to play basketball. Upon learning that the investigation was complete, Tensfeldt met with the police on April 22, 1994, and revealed the true nature of the injury. In a two-to-one opinion the Board held that Tensfeldt was barred under section 1871. 5 from 'receiving or retaining any workers' compensation benefits. '
Note:	Conviction of fraud bars applicant from receiving any compensation under 3207.
Citation:	66 Cal. App. 4th 116
WCC Citation:	WCC 4021998 CA

Case Name:	Terra Linda Farms, Inc., et al v. California Fair Employment and Housing Commission		01/19/2012
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT F059869 January 19, 2012 TERRA LINDA FARMS, INC. , ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS; MARIBEL RIVAS ET AL. , REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST AND RESPONDENTS. The Commission had found the companies violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. FACTS Terra Linda Farms, Inc. , Terra Linda Farms, a general partnership, and Terra Linda Packing (collectively, Terra Linda), filed this administrative mandamus proceeding. Terra Linda's writ petition named the Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the Department) as defendants. During the 1995 onion season, they worked directly for Terra Linda and their paychecks came from Terra Linda.
Note:	Substantial evidence supported a Fair Employment and Housing Commission decision to award two female workers $96,575 in damages.
Citation:	F059869
WCC Citation:	WCC 38452012 CA

Case Name:	Tevis v. Spare Time Part 1/2		10/16/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             KELLY TEVIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SPARE TIME, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             C074938 .             (Super. .           Six months after she was hired as an assistant marketing director at Spare Time’s Lodi facility, Spare Time promoted plaintiff to be a marketing director at the Natomas Racquet Club. .           We, therefore, will put a wider lens on the facts Spare Time characterize as undisputed and fatal to her claims. Tevis testified that she did not start to feel better until October or November 2010. ” .           “153.
Note:	A California appellate court revived a worker’s disability discrimination claim after she allegedly suffered a psychological injury because of pervasive harassment by her supervisor.
Citation:	C074938
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 34201100116411CUWTGDS

Case Name:	Tevis v. Spare Time Part 2/2		10/16/2017
Summary:	.           Finally, Spare Time insists plaintiff admitted she never asked for any kind of accommodation, including separation from Rose. Whether it was explicit or implicit, Spare Time was certainly on notice that plaintiff perceived Rose as an ongoing threat and sought to be separated from him. Plaintiff presented sufficient circumstantial evidence that Spare Time’s asserted reason for discharging her was pretextual and that a trier of fact is needed to determine Spare Time’s true motives. According to plaintiff, in April Sierra had assured her Spare Time was conducting a thorough investigation of her charges. .         Plaintiff contends Spare Time has not established the lack of retaliatory animus as a matter of law.
Note:	A California appellate court revived a worker’s disability discrimination claim after she allegedly suffered a psychological injury because of pervasive harassment by her supervisor.
Citation:	C074938
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 34201100116411CUWTGDS