Case Name:	Compton v. Superior Court of LA County		03/19/2013
Summary:	COMPTON v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LEASA COMPTON Petioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC et al. , Real Parties in Interest. AMS then propounded special interrogatories on Compton, which she never answered because the district court remanded the action to state court in February 2010. After remand to the superior court, AMS propounded more discovery requests, including form and special interrogatories, document production requests, and requests for admission. According to Compton, when she applied for a job with AMS, she met with Paula Palento, who Compton believed was an administrative assistant for the company. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court discussed its earlier decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 148 (Discover Bank).
Note:	Unconscionability is a defense to the enforcement of an entire contract, or particular provisions of a contract, including agreements to arbitrate disputes.
Citation:	B236669
WCC Citation:	WCC 39932013 CA

Case Name:	Conrad v. 105 St. Assoc., LLC		10/28/2008
Summary:	Conrad v 105 St. Assoc. , LLC NY Slip Op 08180 Decided on October 28, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. 105554/04 4405A 590118/05 [*1]Richard Conrad, Plaintiff, v Street Associates, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, BFC Construction Corp. , et al. , Defendants. 105 Street Associates, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, BFC Construction Corp. , et al. , Third-Party Plaintiffs, Larry E. Knight, Inc. , et al. , Third-Party Defendants, JEM Erectors, Inc. , Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. We reject 105 Street's additional argument for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against JEM based on the latter's failure to remove debris near the opening.
Note:	That the general contractor may have assumed responsibility for erecting a barricade around the opening did not, absent contractual provision to the contrary, absolve JEM of its contractual obligation to implement adequate safety measures itself.
Citation:	4405 105554/04 4405A 590118/05
WCC Citation:	WCC 34432008 CA

Case Name:	Consolidated Structural v. SCIF, et. al.		10/21/2002
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CONSOLIDATED STRUCTURAL MATERIALS, INC. et al. ,Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. ,Defendants and Respondents. The Parks Suit In the First Amended Complaint, the Parks Suit alleged that the decedent was an employee of CSM. State Fund further agreed to "defend at our expense any claim, proceeding or suit against [CSM] for benefits payable by this insurance. "However, State Fund "ha[d] no duty to defend a claim, proceeding or suit that is not covered by this insurance. "However, State Fund did not have to defend "a claim, proceeding or suit that is not covered by this insurance. "
Note:	Coverage B does not require a defense against a civil suit where allegations fall clearly within work comp exclusive remedy.
Citation:	Unpublished
WCC Citation:	WCC 28942002 CA

Case Name:	Contemporary Services v. Staff Pro		08/05/2010
Summary:	INTRODUCTION Both appellant Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC) and respondent Staff Pro Security, Inc. (Staff Pro) provide security and event staffing services to arenas, stadiums, and similar venues in which concerts, athletic events, and trade shows are held. CSC sued Staff Pro and its President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Cory Meredith (collectively Staff Pro). Staff Pro never bid a contract with the knowledge that Staff Pro would not make a profit or that Staff Pro's bid would be below its cost. Even assuming that Staff Pro sold its services below cost whether it did so is a question of fact, [citation] CSC must prove that it [Staff Pro] did so with the express purpose of damaging or destroying competition. Assuming arguendo that Staff Pro did engage in ghost billing, the parties who suffered an "injury in fact" as a result of that practice are the venues Staff Pro ghost billed because they paid Staff Pro for services they never received.
Note:	A security staffing agency's unfair competition suit against a competitor failed because it could not prove that the defendant's alleged 'ghost billing' caused it to suffer an 'injury in fact.'
Citation:	B198981
WCC Citation:	WCC 36552010 CA

Case Name:	Continental Casualty vs. WCAB (Goodin)		04/24/2009
Summary:	Filed 4/24/09 Continental Casualty v. WCAB (Goodin) CA4/2 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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO CONTINENTAL CASUALTY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BERNADETTE GOODIN, Respondents. The workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found no apportionment to be appropriate and it is this element of the award that petitioner Continental Casualty challenges. STATEMENT OF FACTS Applicant, born in 1957, worked at a nursing home operated by petitioner's insured from November 1997 until October 2002. The symptoms progressed to the point where she could no longer work due to chronic and severe airway obstruction.
Note:	[Unpublished] WCJ can not ignore the only evidence on apportionment; if the WCJ did not feel the evidence was sufficient she should have developed the record further under LC 5701.
Citation:	E046117
WCC Citation:	WCC 35172009 CA

Case Name:	Contreras v. Jones		01/04/2011
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Monica P. Contreras met Jones in mid-May 2009, while Jones was a probationary employee with the County of Alameda (County), training to be an Eligibility Technician. After mid-July, Contreras had no further workplace contact with Jones, and the County ultimately dismissed his workplace complaint. In October 2009, Jones filed a small claims action against Contreras alleging she had defamed him during the conference about his performance. Contreras was shocked to see Jones and felt seriously threatened by the fact he had tracked her down. Several days later, Jones sent Contreras a letter stating he would dismiss his small claims case if she paid him several thousand dollars.
Note:	The 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed an Alameda County supervisor's restraining order against a subordinate employee who caused her to fear for her safety.
Citation:	A127068
WCC Citation:	WCC 36972011 CA

Case Name:	Contreras v. WCAB		01/09/2012
Summary:	CONTRERAS v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD SALVADOR CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al. , Respondents. In 2004, petitioner Salvador Contreras timely filed a petition to reopen his industrial claim at the Los Angeles district office of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In June of 2001, the WCAB ruled in favor of Contreras, awarding him a 27 percent permanent partial disability. (Rivera v. WCAB (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1124, 1133; Boehm & Associates v. WCAB (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 513, 515-516. )which request action by the [WCAB] shall be filed with the office of the [WCAB] district office where the case has been assigned for hearing .
Note:	The mistake of accidentally filing a petition to reopen at the wrong Workers' Compensation Appeals Board office should not have barred an applicant's petition to reopen.
Citation:	B233103
WCC Citation:	WCC 38432012 CA

Case Name:	Cooper v. Brannon		09/25/2012
Summary:	COOPER v. BRANNON RANDY COOPER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LARRY BRANNON et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Archer Norris, Gary A. Watt, Teresa Li; Rifenbark & Wolf, Edward O'Connor, for Defendants and Respondents Larry Brannon and Susie Brannon. Cooper contends that homeowners Larry Brannon and Susie Brannon and their company, Brannon, Inc. , dba Smith Electric, Inc. , (Smith Electric) owed a duty to protect him from falling through an unguarded attic stairwell pursuant to Cal-OSHA regulations. Cooper sued Larry and Susie Brannon and Smith Electric for negligence and premises liability. Cooper declared that on one occasion, when the owner of Dream Builders was not present, Larry Brannon directed the Dream Builders employees to retrieve siding materials from the attic.
Note:	The employee of a contractor hired to perform a house remodel was barred from suing the homeowners for their alleged failure to comply with state safety regulations for attic stairwells.
Citation:	B235309
WCC Citation:	WCC 39332012 CA

Case Name:	Cooper v. Dept. of Fire and Police Pensions LA		04/07/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE GARY D. COOPER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND POLICE PENSIONS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. Cooper knew that the Department of Pensions separately handled claims for disability pensions. In February 1992, Cooper lost consciousness while driving to work in an unmarked police car. Cooper continued to work in the Claims Validation Unit until he retired with a service pension on September 3, 1994. Cooper knew that the Department of Pensions separately handled claims for disability pensions.
Note:	In deciding whether he should file an application for a service connected disability pension, it would be unreasonable for appellant to have relied on the opinions of his supervisor and co-worker about whether he should apply for workers' compensation.
Citation:	B210610
WCC Citation:	WCC 36132010 CA

Case Name:	Corbin v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Public Works		02/24/2012
Summary:	NETTIE CORBIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, and Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Nettie Corbin appeals from the trial court's order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement filed by defendants the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Eric Russell, and Mihran Sarkisian. In September 2010, a jury trial commenced before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel. Shortly thereafter, Corbin refused to sign the written settlement agreement prepared by the City.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the terms of a settlement agreement between a municipal agency and an employee which asserted that it would not affect her pending workers' compensation claim, but required that she retire, foreclosing reinstatement as a possible remedy in her workers' compensation action.
Citation:	B230414
WCC Citation:	WCC 38612012 CA

Case Name:	Corgiat v. Stanislaus County Superior Court		04/16/2013
Summary:	CORGIAT v. STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT KAREN CORGIAT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a former employee of the Stanislaus County Superior Court, filed a complaint against the court and three of its employees, alleging they discriminated against her based on physical and mental disability, retaliated against her for complaining about that discrimination, harassed her, and wrongfully constructively terminated her employment. The demurrer was heard on October 12, 2011, by Judge Duane Martin, a retired judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court. (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 211, 219 (Consolidated); McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 297, 303-304 (McDonald). )Thus, defendant superior court is not a person against whom a section 1983 claim may be alleged.
Note:	A disabled former state court employee is getting a second chance to establish the legal sufficiency of her discrimination and retaliation claims since her initial failure to respond to the defendant's demurrer should not have been treated as an admission of the demurrer's merit.
Citation:	F064200
WCC Citation:	WCC 40032013 CA

Case Name:	Correa Pallet, Inc. v. Lambeth		04/24/2008
Summary:	Michelle Lambeth served as the initial president, secretary, and treasurer of the corporate board of directors and Robert Lambeth served as the initial vice-president. Petterson signed the proposal on July 22, 2003 and Martin Correa, a principal of Correa, signed the proposal on August 12, 2003. She heard the arguments of counsel, adopted a tentative ruling, and amended the judgment to include Michelle Lambeth (but not Robert Lambeth) as a judgment debtor. Thus, Michelle Lambeth had the opportunity to control the litigation and Michelle Lambeth signed the settlement agreement. Lambeth presumably refers to the court's April 18, 2007, formal order amending the judgment to include shareholder Michelle Lambeth as a judgment debtor.
Note:	[Unpublished] Alter ego is a limited doctrine, invoked only where recognition of the corporate form would work an injustice to a third person.
Citation:	F052934
WCC Citation:	WCC 33492008 CA

Case Name:	Cortes v. WCAB (Cal. Dept. of Corrections)		09/11/2008
Summary:	Cortes brought the matter before a WCJ after the SCIF rejected Cortes's request for additional TD indemnity. Cortes petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration and the WCJ issued a report on April 10, 2008, recommending the WCAB deny the petition. Five days later, the WCAB denied reconsideration by adopting and incorporating the WCJ's report and citing Brooks. *fn6 ) Cortes declares that our holding in Brooks conflicts with several WCAB and appellate court decisions. Although individual counsel has changed, Cortes and the employee in Brooks are represented by the same law firm.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because industrial disability leave (IDL) is statutorily defined as the equivalent of temporary disability (TD), then the two-year limitation under section 4656, subdivision (c)(1), necessarily must apply to both IDL and TD.
Citation:	F055390
WCC Citation:	WCC 34222008 CA

Case Name:	Cortez v. Abich		01/24/2011
Summary:	OCTOVIANO CORTEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOURDES ABICH et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Octoviano Cortez (plaintiff) was seriously injured while working on a job at a house purchased and owned by Lourdes Abich, for her son, Omar Abich (collectively, defendants), to use as a residence. Omar Abich personally obtained construction permits from the City of Pasadena for a remodeling project that would add over 750 square feet to the house. (b)), because the project was undertaken for the noncommercial purpose of enhancing defendants' personal enjoyment of their residence. (See Ramirez v. Nelson (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 908, 916-917; Fernandez v. Lawson (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 31, 39-44 (Fernandez) (conc.
Note:	A recent California Supreme Court ruling means that homeowners who hire unlicensed subcontractors for major remodeling work must comply with state regulations requiring them to provide workers with a safe working environment.
Citation:	S177075
WCC Citation:	WCC 37042011 CA

Case Name:	Cortez v. Abich (2nd DCA opinion)		09/02/2009
Summary:	OPINION SUZUKAWA, J. Appellant Octoviano Cortez appeals from the judgment entered in favor of respondents Lourdes and Omar Abich (collectively the Abiches) following the trial court's order granting their motion for summary judgment. Omar Abich obtained the necessary permits from the City of Pasadena, but did not supervise the work. The court finds as a matter of law that plaintiff was not an employee of the Abich defendants. Neither of these disputes of fact is material to the issue of whether plaintiff was employed by the Abich defendants. [¶] Plaintiff's contention that the Abich defendants were required to comply with OSHA requirements fails as a matter of law because they were not plaintiff's employer.
Note:	The homeowners did not owe a duty to the worker under Cal-OSHA regulations.
Citation:	B210628
WCC Citation:	WCC 37052009 CA

Case Name:	Cortez v. WCAB (C.T.&F., Inc.)		02/08/2006
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioner, Manuel Cortez, sustained an industrial back injury on June 29, , while working as a laborer for respondent, C. T. & F. , Inc. The employer provided medical treatment and orthopedic consultation with Richard Feldman, M. D. On October 24, 2001, Cortez and the employer entered into Stipulations with Request for Award. Cortez also procured medical treatment from orthopedist Archie Mays, M. D. Dr. Mays recommended psychological consultation for heightened anxiety. Cortez informed the employer by letter that he would not attend the evaluation with Dr. Perlo because ". The employer petitioned the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) for an order compelling Cortez to attend a rescheduled evaluation with Dr. Perlo.
Note:	Medical evaluation and reporting procedures of former section 4062 remain operative in represented cases with injury date before 1/1/05.
Citation:	136 Cal. App. 4th 596
WCC Citation:	WCC 31422006 CA

Case Name:	Cory James v. City of Los Angeles		12/15/2010
Summary:	Defendant City of Los Angeles (the City) offered plaintiff Cory James employment as a firefighter, conditional upon his passing a medical examination. FACTS After James passed the written and oral examinations for employment as a City firefighter, the City offered him employment contingent on passing a City-administered medical examination. This test was designed for the City of Los Angeles by Dr. Robert Goldberg, the City's former Assistant Medical Director. The City therefore made a prima facie showing that James was not qualified to be hired as a City firefighter. I would reverse the judgment and the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant City of Los Angeles.
Note:	The City of Los Angeles did not discriminate against an applicant for a firefighter position by failing to offer a reasonable accommodation after he failed to pass a color-vision test, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B222168
WCC Citation:	WCC 36942010 CA

Case Name:	Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic		11/13/2007
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. GRO 0031810 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) JOEY M. COSTA, Applicant, vs. HARDY DIAGNOSTIC and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 235, 238 [49 Cal. Comp. Cases 716, 718]: "As a general rule, the WCAB is authorized to award costs. "This constitutional provision supports petitioner's contention that the WCAB should have the authority to award appellate costs. Forcing employees to absorb such costs would diminish the minimal awards obtained under the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 3200 et seq. )*** "This court must construe section 5811 liberally, 'with the purpose of extending [its] benefits for the protection of persons injured in the course of their employment. '
Note:	The costs at issue here may be allowable under section 5811 and vocational rehabilitation counselors may be appropriate expert witnesses to present evidence on and/or in rebuttal to a permanent disability rating under the new permanent disability rating schedule. Case remanded.
Citation:	72 CCC 1492
WCC Citation:	WCC 32772007 CA

Case Name:	Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic and State Compensation Insurance Fund		12/06/2006
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA JOEY M. COSTA, Applicant v. HARDY DIAGNOSTIC and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). "Applicant further alleged the response demonstrated that "the acting AD shirked her constitutional duty, as a public official, in administering workers' compensation benefits. "Moreover, these are issues affecting a large number of workers' compensation cases in California, i. e. , those which have a permanent disability rating. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. (d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.
Note:	Presenting the deposition transcript of an expert from another unrelated case to which insurer was not a party deprives insurer of its fundamental right of cross-examination, and thus, of due process of law.
Citation:	71 CCC 1797
WCC Citation:	WCC 31982006 CA

Case Name:	Costco Wholesale Corp. v. WCAB		05/23/2007
Summary:	Filed 5/23/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JORGE CHAVEZ, Respondents. A116145 (WCAB Case No. SFO 484264) Costco Wholesale Corporation and its third party claims administrator Sedgwick Claims Management Services (collectively, Costco) petitioned for review of the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) affirming an award to respondent Jorge Chavez (Chavez). (footnote #1) The statute then lists three exceptions to the rule that the date of injury governs the schedule to be applied. He contends that prior to January 1, 2005, Costco was required to provide the notice required by section 4061 to the injured worker, thus triggering the earlier schedule. Costco was required to provide notice under section 4061, together with the last payment of temporary disability indemnity in June 2005.
Note:	Under Labor Code section 4660(d), a medical-legal report, like a treating physician's report, must contain an indication of permanent disability to trigger use of the pre-2005 rating schedule.
Citation:	151 Cal. App. 4th 148, 72 CCC 582
WCC Citation:	WCC 32242007 CA

Case Name:	Costco Wholesale vs. WCAB (Slayton)		03/27/2009
Summary:	F057008 (WCAB No. STK 210450) OPINION THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Costco Wholesale (Costco) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) claiming an injury sustained at the end of an employee's shift while retrieving and completing a purchased item in the employer's store did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. In March 2007, Slayton underwent right knee surgery as a result of the fall, but Costco denied reimbursement as a nonindustrial injury. The WCAB subsequently summarily denied Costco's petition for reconsideration, adopting and incorporating the reasoning from the WCJ's report and recommendation. Accordingly, we must agree with the WCAB that Costco's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.
Note:	[Unpublished] Though retrieving a cake for personal reasons, injury was AOE/COE because injured workers' shift had not yet ended and she was further business' interest because another employee would have been required to complete the task.
Citation:	F057008
WCC Citation:	WCC 35082009 CA

Case Name:	County of Alameda v. WCAB (Knittel)		01/30/2013
Summary:	COUNTY OF ALAMEDA v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Petitioner, v. THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and BRYAN KNITTEL, Respondents. Miguel Marquez, County Counsel, Donna Diaz, Lead Deputy County Counsel, Sara J. Ponzio, Deputy County Counsel, Office of the County Counsel County of Santa Clara. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Ralph L Rosato, Assistant County Counsel, Jeffrey L. Scott, Deputy County Counsel, Lin Lee, Deputy County Counsel, County of Los Angeles. BACKGROUND On September 13, 2009, Bryan Knittel injured his knee while working as an Alameda County Deputy Sheriff. Knittel was unable to perform his duties after the injury, and the County of Alameda (County) paid disability benefits from the date of his injury.
Note:	The California 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarding an injured law enforcement officer 104 weeks of temporary disability benefits after he had collected 52 weeks of salary continuation benefits for a knee injury which continued to prevent him from working.
Citation:	A135889
WCC Citation:	WCC 39792013 CA

Case Name:	County of Kern v. WCAB (Petersen)		09/30/2011
Summary:	Theresa A. Goldner, County Counsel, Margo A. Raison, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and David T. Unger, Deputy County Counsel for Petitioner. On June 19, 2007, the Kern Administrative Officer, Kern Board of Supervisors Chairman, Kern Assistant County Counsel, and SCVFD President executed an "Agreement for Donation toward Equipment Purchase for the Sand Canyon Volunteer Fire Department" (Donation Agreement). After Kern petitioned for a writ of review, the WCAB reaffirmed its decision denying reconsideration in briefing to this court. "To the contrary, it is felt that any one of the above-described events represented official recognition of SCVFD by Petitioner Kern County. "Here, Kern provided SCVFD with funds and donated use of equipment the year before Kern disputed its workers' compensation liability.
Note:	Kern County is the statutory employer of a volunteer firefighter for the Sand Canyon Volunteer Fire Department.
Citation:	F057718
WCC Citation:	WCC 38072011 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. LA County Employee Relations Commision		02/24/2011
Summary:	COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 721, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Proc. , 1094. 5), in which it asserted the privacy rights of these non-member County employees and challenged the decision by the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (Commission) that ordered the County to release their names, home addresses, and home telephone numbers to the Union. The Union filed an unfair employee-relations practice charge with the Commission in which it contended the County violated sections 12(a)(3) and 151 of the County's Employee Relations Ordinance (Ordinance). (Union of American Physicians & Dentists v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com. Section 12, subdivision (a)(3), codified at section 5. 04. 240, subdivision (A)(3) of the Los Angeles County Code, states that it is an unfair employee relations practice for the County "[t]o refuse to negotiate with representatives of certified employee organizations on negotiable matters. "
Note:	Los Angeles County must give its non-union employees notice and an opportunity to object before disclosing their personal information to the Service Employees International Union, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B217668
WCC Citation:	WCC 37232011 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. WCAB (Bass)		04/21/1986
Summary:	Petitioner, County of Los Angeles (County), seeks review of the Board's opinion and order dismissing County's petition for reconsideration. County failed to attach a proof of service to the petition for reconsideration. In its petition for review County asserts that counsel for applicant was served with a copy of the petition for reconsideration. County contends that the Board should have informed it that no proof of service was attached and should have given County an opportunity to prove that the petition was timely served. County also contends that in light of applicant's responses to Dr. Levy's questions County should not be required to offer applicant psychiatric treatment to reduce its liability for compensation since such an offer would be futile.
Note:	Board must notify lack of proper service of Petition for Recon., afford reas. time for proof.
Citation:	51 CCC 194
WCC Citation:	WCC 27271986 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. WCAB (King)		03/17/1980
Summary:	COUNSEL John H. Larson, County Counsel, Milton J. Litvin and Daniel E. McCoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner. OPINION FILES, P. J. Petitioner County of Los Angeles contends that respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board erred in assessing a 10 percent penalty against county pursuant to Labor Code fn. On November 19, 1973, while employed as a vocational nurse by county, King sustained an injury to her right eye. County began payments under the new award and also provided medical care by referring King to Michael J. On September 3, 1977, county filed a petition to reduce the permanent disability award on the ground that King's permanent disability had lessened.
Note:	Regs. 10462, 10464, 10466 are not applicable to permanent disability; termination of PD before WCAB orders reduction valid where circumstances known to employer prove reasonable.
Citation:	104 Cal.App.3d 933, 45 CCC 248
WCC Citation:	WCC 27741980 CA

Case Name:	County of LA v. WCAB (Rottman)		08/31/1982
Summary:	[135 Cal. App. 3d 568] COUNSEL John H. Larson, County Counsel, Milton J. Litvin and Patrick A. Wu, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner. This is a writ of review from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and a denial of a petition for reconsideration. The order is that the county is liable for the value for services rendered Zachary Rottman (Rottman) by Kaiser Foundation Hospital (Kaiser). 1 was an employee of Los Angeles County (County). A hearing was held on the claimed liability of the County for the Kaiser lien.
Note:	Lien claim not barred by SOL where employee or claimant had no knowledge that disability was work-related.
Citation:	135 Cal.App.3d 567, 47 CCC 951
WCC Citation:	WCC 25341982 CA

Case Name:	County of Los Angeles v. WCAB and Jones		10/04/2002
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and STACEY JONES, Respondents. Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, Patrick A. Wu, Assistant County Counsel, Leah D. Davis, Deputy County Counsel; Malmquist, Fields & Camastra and Tom Hedrick for Petitioner. Stacey Jones was injured while employed as a social worker by the County of Los Angeles (County). Following a subsequent allegation that County unreasonably denied medical treatment and after a hearing on that issue, Jones and County entered a stipulation with request for award, which was approved on March 21, 2002. County issued a check for the attorney's fees, but the law firm representing Jones, Rose, Klein & Marias, did not receive the check within the thirty-day period.
Note:	Attorney fees are a species of benefits on which penalties may be assessed.
Citation:	2002 CCC
WCC Citation:	WCC 28872002 CA

Case Name:	County of Orange v. WCAB		01/31/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE COUNTY OF ORANGE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jack Lean sustained back injury caused by a work-related accident while he was employed by the County of Orange. County then sought a hearing before Board on the disputed issue of the commencement of payment of disability benefits. The affidavit of Deborah Rivera, an employee of the law firm representing County, was submitted with County's petition for review. Thus, Lean concludes, County made no showing of excusable neglect to be afforded relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).
Note:	[Unpublished] Under Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, while the language of 5909 appears mandatory and jurisdictional, 'the time periods must be based on a presumption that a claimant's file will be available to the board; any other result deprives a claimant of due process and the right to a review by the board.'
Citation:	G038527
WCC Citation:	WCC 33122008 CA

Case Name:	County of Riverside v. WCAB (Sylves)		03/24/2017
Summary:	Filed 3/24/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PETER G. SYLVES, Respondents. .             Law Office of Louis D. Seaman and Louis D. Seaman for Petitioner. .           CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION .           McKINSTER P. J. .           We concur: .           MILLER J. Commencing January 1, 1979, and thereafter on the first day of January for each of the next two years, the liability period for occupational disease or cumulative injury shall be decreased by one year so that liability is limited in the following manner: For claims filed or Asserted on or after:                       The period shall be: January 1, 1979                                                           three years January 1, 1980                                                           two years January 1, 1981 and thereafter                                   one year The statute was not, as the County asserts without citation to authority, “clearly put in place to avoid situations where employees could reach back over numerous years and sue an unsuspecting employer who had no notice of such injury when, in fact, that applicant had continued to perform the same occupation with a subsequent employer being subject to the continued injurious exposure. ”
Note:
Citation:	E065688
WCC Citation:	WCAB Case No. ADJ9538021

Case Name:	County of Riverside v. WCAB (Taylor)		12/14/2012
Summary:	COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Petitioner, v. THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and SANDIE TAYLOR, Respondents. STATEMENT OF FACTS Applicant was a member of a group known as the "Mounted Posse Program" established by the Sheriff of Riverside County. Membership in, and the duties of, the posse are extensively prescribed in a manual prepared by the County. (Logoed shirts and caps were provided by the County, but members otherwise provided their own clothing and tack. )*fn2 Applicant testified that it was usual for the County to pay for training, although this was not universal.
Note:	The County of Riverside is not liable for benefits to a volunteer member of its mounted posse program.
Citation:	E055965
WCC Citation:	WCC 39532012 CA

Case Name:	County of Sacramento v. WCAB (Brooks)		04/22/2013
Summary:	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and MICHAEL BROOKS, Respondents. The County filed a petition for writ of review, and we order issuance of the writ. According to the County, the evidence does not support Dr. Allen's attempt to apportion the injury to the various causes. (Larch v. Contra Costa County (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 831, 833-839; Stockman v. State of California/Department of Corr. Additional procedure and evidence, especially with respect to the causation issue, are discussed in connection with the contentions of the County of Sacramento (the County).
Note:	California's 3rd District Court of Appeal on Monday overturned an administrative decision that a county's good faith personnel action was not a substantial cause of an applicant's psyche claim.
Citation:	C067739
WCC Citation:	WCC 40042013 CA

Case Name:	County of Sacramento v. WCAB (Estrada)		01/07/1999
Summary:	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PAMELA ESTRADA, Respondents. OPINION NICHOLSON, J. - The County of Sacramento sought a writ of review in this court after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) upheld the award of temporary benefits to respondent Pamela Estrada. 1 In March 1992, Estrada was employed by the county as a work project inmate and injured her back on the job. The county, however, objected to this procedure because, by statute, discovery closed on the date of the settlement conference. In addition, she found that the report of Dr. Michael Kasman, submitted by the county, was inadmissible because the county was not entitled to a rebuttal QME.
Note:	WCAB violated 5502(d)(3) by allowing record to remain open to get supp. medical report.
Citation:	68 Cal.App.4th 1429
WCC Citation:	WCC 24561999 CA

Case Name:	County of Sacramento v. WCAB (Estrada)		01/07/1999
Summary:	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and PAMELA ESTRADA, Respondents. OPINION NICHOLSON, J. - The County of Sacramento sought a writ of review in this court after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) upheld the award of temporary benefits to respondent Pamela Estrada. 1 In March 1992, Estrada was employed by the county as a work project inmate and injured her back on the job. The county, however, objected to this procedure because, by statute, discovery closed on the date of the settlement conference. In addition, she found that the report of Dr. Michael Kasman, submitted by the county, was inadmissible because the county was not entitled to a rebuttal QME.
Note:	Judge improperly left open discovery to get supp. med. report after MSC.
Citation:	68 Cal.App.4th 1429, 64 CCC 26
WCC Citation:	WCC 25501999 CA

Case Name:	County of Sacramento v. WCAB (McCartney)		07/11/2017
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 .             COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JONATHON SCOTT MCCARTNEY, Respondents. .             McCartney was diagnosed with actinic keratosis in October 2013. .           In this case, the qualified medical examiner (QME) testified to the following, among other things: .           1. .           MAURO , J. McCartney’s employing entity is a County subdivision (“County of Sacramento Contracts”); as his counsel put it, “It’s a technical thing. )Â
Note:
Citation:	C082282
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ9510323

Case Name:	County of Sacramento v. WCAB (Weatherall)		01/11/2000
Summary:	COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND GLENNIS WEATHERALL, etc. , Respondents. After a June 14, 1995, claim for benefits on behalf of the widow and minor daughter was filed, Sacramento County (County) raised statute of limitation issues and the parties disputed whether a 'cumulative' injury had been pleaded. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) issued a decision finding in part death was not 'due to a specific job event. ''This trial judge approached the issues in this case from the factual basis established in part by the parties stipulations. (d)(2); see County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Board must have Good Cause to set aside stipulations of parties.
Citation:	77 Cal. App. 4th 1114, 65 CCC 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 3972000 CA

Case Name:	County of San Bernardino v. WCAB		10/04/2007
Summary:	Filed 10/4/07 County of San Bernardino v. WCAB CA4/2 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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ROBERT SCHROEDER, Respondents. Ruth E. Stringer, Acting County Counsel, and Sandra Grajeda, Deputy County Counsel for Petitioner. Petitioner County of San Bernardino (County), as the affected employer, seeks review and annulment of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) affirming the award in favor of applicant Robert Schroeder (applicant). FACTS Applicant was employed as a firefighter and later as a battalion chief by the County of San Bernardino from 1969 until November 7, 1999, his last day on the job.
Note:	[Unpublished] Successive, specific industrial injuries to different parts of the body cannot be rated together simply because they share one date of injury.
Citation:	E041757
WCC Citation:	WCC 32652007 CA

Case Name:	County of San Bernardino v. WCAB (McCoy)		02/29/2012
Summary:	COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOHN McCOY, Respondents. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Eric K. Yee, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner. County of San Bernardino (County) contends that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) erred when it awarded benefits to John McCoy for migraine headaches he suffered. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND McCoy worked as an automated systems technician for the County. The workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found that the injuries were not compensable as argued by County.
Note:	An employer's use of the good faith personnel action defense in Labor Code 3208.3 barred a technician's claim for migraine headaches.
Citation:	E053173
WCC Citation:	WCC 38642012 CA

Case Name:	County of San Diego v. WCAB (Pike)		03/06/2018
Summary:	Filed 3/6/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Petitioner, .             v. .             WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and KYLE PIKE, Respondents. .             D072648 .             (WCAB No. ADJ7811907) .             Petition for writ of review from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. .             Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, and David E. Shamsky, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner. D. The County's petition for reconsideration .           The County filed a petition for reconsideration. .           WE CONCUR: .           HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
Note:
Citation:	D072648
WCC Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ7811907

Case Name:	County of San Joaquin v. WCAB and James Davis		02/27/2006
Summary:	STK164337 & STK164334) COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JAMES DAVIS, Respondents. The County of San Joaquin (County) petitions this court for a writ of review of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (Board) decision that James Davis (Davis) is a maximum wage earner for purposes of calculating his temporary and permanent disability indemnity benefits. Fifty-five year-old Davis was employed as an attorney at State Fund and paid a monthly salary of $7,299. Subdivision (c)(2) contemplates an hourly rate of pay and neither the County nor State Fund paid Davis an hourly rate. Here, there were no "aggregate earnings" because as a state worker,*fn 6* Davis did not earn wages from the County.
Note:	An attorney injured in the course of his jury duty was properly compensated at an amount reflecting his maximum earning capacity, rather than the $5 per day wage for jury duty.
Citation:	147 Cal. App. 4th 1459
WCC Citation:	WCC 32092006 CA

Case Name:	County of San Joaquin vs. WCAB (Sepulveda)		04/21/2004
Summary:	COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al. , Respondents. Paragraph 6 recites "PERMANENT DISABILITY INDEMNITY" of $2,442. 87 will be deducted, "LEAVING A BALANCE of $ $21,55713, less approved attorney fee . Vons Companies, Inc. v. WCAB (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 276 (Vons) is a Court of Appeal opinion not published in the California Official Reports. DISPOSITION The WCAB decision is annulled and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. County of San Joaquin shall recover costs on this appeal.
Note:	Carrier may take credit for PDAs not specifically set forth in C&R.
Citation:	117 Cal.App.4th 1180
WCC Citation:	WCC 29842004 CA

Case Name:	County of San Luis Obispo v. WCAB (Martinez)		09/29/2005
Summary:	The County of San Luis Obispo (County) petitions for a writ of review to determine the lawfulness of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding the County discriminated against its employee, Art Martinez, for sustaining a work-related injury. )*fn1 The County contends it permissibly took Martinez off work because his medical restrictions were inconsistent with the requirements of his job. Based on Dr. Kissel's revised opinion, the County permitted Martinez to return to work on February 23, 2003. The WCAB also erred by focusing on what the County knew at the time it returned Martinez to work. The WCAB also found discrimination because the County did not obtain an additional medical opinion before it terminated Martinez.
Note:	To establish discrimination, an employee must show that he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment because of his injury.
Citation:	133 Cal. App. 4th 641
WCC Citation:	WCC 31272005 CA

Case Name:	County of San Mateo v. WCAB		07/13/1982
Summary:	COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and WENDY R. WARREN, Respondents. This petition by the County of San Mateo challenges an award of enhanced disability benefits granted under the authority of Labor Code section 4850. fn. The county paid temporary disability benefits, but at the normal rate of $154 per week, not at a rate equal to Ms. Warren's salary. Petitioner relies heavily upon the decision in Collins v. County of Los Angeles (1976) 55 Cal. App. 3d 594 [126 Cal. Rptr. 541]. He sought writ of mandate to compel the county to pay him his full salary in lieu of temporary disability payments.
Note:	Not entitled to full salary leave of absence when injury occurred after nonmedical resignation.
Citation:	133 Cal.App.3d 737, 47 CCC 739
WCC Citation:	WCC 26791982 CA

Case Name:	County of Ventura v. WCAB		10/04/1993
Summary:	County of Ventura, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Evangelina Anaya, et al. , Respondents. County asserts that the WCAB should have ordered Dr. Sanchez to reimburse County for at least 75 percent and possibly 100 percent of the temporary disability indemnity and past medical treatment costs for which County paid. n2 The WCAB case number for the application against County is VEN 78908. n4 As previously noted, WCAB case No. VEN 78908 is the case against County. n5 As previously noted, WCAB case No. VEN 78908 is the case against County.
Note:	Right to arbitration on 'contribution' issues is waived if not timely raised.
Citation:	58 CCC 649
WCC Citation:	WCC 26251993 CA

Case Name:	Courtney v. City of Redondo Beach		02/27/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT TERI COURTNEY et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, Defendant and Respondent. Teri Courtney and Lillian Ballinger were long-term employees who worked for the City of Redondo Beach in its police department as jailers. In accordance with Dr. Berman's conclusions, the City asked Courtney to return to work on March 4, 2003. In December 2004, Courtney, Ballinger, Jo Ellen Latham (an identification technician for the police department), and Elizabeth Blatt filed this lawsuit against the City of Redondo Beach, alleging numerous violations of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The City of Redondo Beach is to recover its costs on appeal.
Note:	[Unpublished] The City did not violate its legal duty to reassign Plaintiffs to another equivalent job for which they were qualified because the evidence showed no such positions were available when they were terminated.
Citation:	B192927
WCC Citation:	WCC 33222008 CA

Case Name:	Cox v. San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Dept.		03/28/2012
Summary:	EDWARD COX, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Edward Cox appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department (Department). But in his prior deposition, Cox was asked, "Do you believe that your cerebral palsy restricts you from doing things?"That memorandum reflects that Thompson told Cox that he was not performing well and he asked Cox "if there was anything [he] could do to help [Cox] improve. "Cox responded, "No. " Cox claimed Moore unfairly criticized him for making an incorrect time entry on a log.
Note:	A sheriff's deputy terminated during his new-hire probationary period failed to prove his claim of disability discrimination based upon his alleged cerebral palsy.
Citation:	B231260
WCC Citation:	WCC 38792012 CA

Case Name:	Cranford v. City of Huntington Beach		03/02/2012
Summary:	NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION O'LEARY, P. J. Catherine Denise Cranford appeals from the judgment in her action against her former employer, the City of Huntington Beach (the City). Herrera retaliated against Cranford by repeatedly complaining to Miller about Cranford's job performance and constantly confronting Cranford about job-related matters. When Cranford tried to "chastise the officer for violating the prisoner's right of privacy[,]" the officer looked at Cranford "dismissively . Cranford claimed Herrera made a "`preemptive strike'" by telling Miller she was considering filing a complaint against Cranford, which coerced Cranford into not filing a formal complaint against Herrera. There is no evidence the City Attorney had any knowledge of the animosity between Cranford and Herrera, or of any complaints Cranford made to Miller.
Note:	A municipal employer's release of medical information from an employee's workers' compensation claim file did not constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of the state Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	G043791
WCC Citation:	WCC 38672012 CA

Case Name:	Crawford v. WCAB		06/13/1989
Summary:	Dr. Crawford then petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition restraining further proceedings by the WCAB. 1 An additional 13 counts charge Dr. Crawford with deceit in failing to identify the persons who prepared medical reports and in willfully misrepresenting to the WCAB that Dr. Crawford alone took medical histories and prepared the reports. Another count (35) charges that Dr. Crawford filed false medical reports and liens in two other workers' compensation [213 Cal. App. 3d 163] cases (Robert J. Kelley v. Panama Moving and Storage, WCAB No. 85 LA 525604, and Robert J. Kelley v. Goldrich & Kest Management, WCAB Nos. Based on the accusation and accompanying exhibits, the WCAB ordered that Dr. Crawford appear before a WCAB commissioner at a certain time and place and show cause, if any, why he should not be held in contempt pursuant to Labor Code section 134. The WCAB states: 'It is a policy of the [WCAB] to conduct an investigation of all charges of impropriety against persons involved in [WCAB] proceedings before considering whether an order to show cause regarding contempt should issue.
Note:	WCAB has wide latitude in enforcement of contempt findings.
Citation:	213 Cal.App.3d 156, 54 CCC 198
WCC Citation:	WCC 25651989 CA

Case Name:	Creative Environments of Hollywood v. USF Ins. Co.		08/20/2012
Summary:	CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTS OF HOLLYWOOD v. USF INS. CO. CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTS OF HOLLYWOOD et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. USF INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiffs and appellants Creative Environments of Hollywood and 201 Westmoreland Associates, Ltd. (collectively Contractor), appeals from summary judgments in favor of defendants and respondents USF Insurance Company (Insurer) and its agent Burns & Wilcox, Ltd. (Agent). I dissent as to the summary judgment in favor of USF Insurance Company (USF). Thus, as interpreted by USF, the policy, having a total cost of over $5,000, is almost illusory.
Note:	An insurance carrier had no duty to defend its client from a claim by an injured plumbing subcontractor for maintaining an unsafe work environment since the plain language of its policy specifically excluded coverage for bodily injury to such workers arising out of their employment.
Citation:	B232436
WCC Citation:	WCC 39222012 CA

Case Name:	Criswell v. WCAB		02/20/2009
Summary:	At a July 16, 2008, hearing in which Criswell testified, the WCJ immediately ruled Criswell was entitled to left ankle surgery along with the left knee surgery as described by Dr. Pistel at the County's expense. The WCAB granted the County's petition for reconsideration and in a split decision, the majority disagreed with the WCJ and concluded Criswell failed to meet her burden of proving industrial causation with reasonably probability. Accordingly, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's order and concluded Criswell was not entitled to the left ankle surgery described by Dr. Pistel at defendant's expense. Criswell contends the WCAB majority failed to consider Dr. Pistel's medical opinion that the left ankle surgery would aid her recovery from the industrially related knee surgery in denying the concurrent ankle surgery. While we agree with Criswell that the WCAB provided little reasoning related to this argument, the majority's decision is supported by the medical evidence.
Note:	WCAB's decision not to order surgery supported by substantial evidence and applicant's effective waiver of the issue in adopting a stipulated award.
Citation:	F056510
WCC Citation:	WCC 34942009 CA