Case Name:	Jackson v. Raley's		11/29/2012
Summary:	When I attempted to discuss reasonable accommodations, such as modified or alternative jobs that [Jackson] might be able to perform with his medical restrictions, [Jackson] refused to continue the conversation. However, believing that Jackson was no longer employed by Raley's, Archie did not call Jackson during his bid time. Raley's also pointed out that Gabbert immediately sent Jackson a letter summarizing the phone call and encouraging Jackson to contact him to discuss possible accommodations, but Jackson neither responded to the letter nor contacted anyone at Raley's to discuss such accommodations. Gabbert sent [Jackson] a letter confirming their call and requesting [Jackson] contact him to discuss accommodations. Despite Gabbert's letter informing Jackson to contact him if he changed his mind and wanted to discuss qualifications or alternate positions at Raley's, Jackson refused to engage.
Note:	The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that a former supermarket worker could not hold his employer liable for its alleged failure to engage in a good faith interactive process to find accommodation for his disability when the worker himself failed to engage in the interactive process at all.
Citation:	C067248
WCC Citation:	WCC 39612012 CA

Case Name:	Jackson v. WCAB		10/27/2005
Summary:	on rehearing) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) CYNTHIA JACKSON et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al. , Respondents. II Procedure Cynthia Jackson, as the guardian ad litem for Barryn Davis, Jr. , filed an application for adjudication of claim asserting that Davis, Sr. 's heart attack arose out of and in the course of his employment. In those proceedings, Jackson invoked the presumption contained in Labor Code section 3212. 2, which provides in relevant part: "In the case of officers and employees in the Department of Corrections having custodial duties, . The WCAB concluded that the medical evidence that the cause of death was "the non-industrial viral infection that led to the development of the myocarditis" constituted sufficient evidence "to rebut the presumption of industrial causation. "Jackson filed a petition for a writ and we issued a writ of review.
Note:	Employer must do more to rebut the presumption of compensability than present evidence that nothing in the employee's job caused his heart attack.
Citation:	133 Cal. App. 4th 965; 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256
WCC Citation:	WCC 31282005 CA

Case Name:	James W. Cristler et al. v. Express Messenger Systems		01/23/2009
Summary:	Ct. No. GIC803519) Â		  BARRY NEWMANN,               Plaintiff,               v.   EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. , et al. ,               Defendants.               James W. Cristler, John Purves, James G. Harrod, Sydney Moroff and Mark Lambert, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons (collectively Cristler), sued a parcel delivery company, Express Messenger Systems, Inc. , doing business as California Overnight (Express Messenger). The lawsuit contained a number of causes of actions, all based on a core contention that Express Messenger improperly classified its employees as independent contractors.             Drivers who elected to continue working with Express Messenger after the change entered into written independent contractor agreements with SCI to perform delivery services for Express Messenger.             In December 2004, Cristler filed a complaint against Express Messenger on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees/independent contractors of Express Messenger.
Note:	Drivers for a delivery service were independent contractors, even though the company had terminated its employees and contracted with them to perform the same duties.
Citation:	D050719
WCC Citation:	WCC 34822009 CA

Case Name:	Janet v. IAC		12/01/1965
Summary:	MORTON L. JANET, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, BROWN DRILLING CO. , et al. , Respondents. On November 27, 1960, petitioner suffered an industrial injury to his stomach, back, legs and chest when a derrick board fell upon him. On December 19, 1961, petitioner applied for medical care and further total temporary disability. Applicant thereafter was examined by an orthopedist of his own selection whose report of June 7, 1962, suggested a 'high volume type of myelogram. 'On June 24, 1963, applicant again petitioned for a hearing for temporary compensation, medical treatment and reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment.
Note:	TTD awarded where worker refused surgery that wasn't an aid to cure.
Citation:	238 Cal.App.2d 491, 30 CCC 411
WCC Citation:	WCC 24841965 CA

Case Name:	Janya v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group Part 1/2		01/07/2020
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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             JAMES JANYA et al. ,Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP,Defendant and Respondent. .             B290754 .             (Los Angeles CountySuper. .             The Rager Law Firm, Jeffrey Rager, James Y. Yoon; Gusdorff Law and Janet Gusdorfffor Plaintiffs and Appellants. .             Davis Wright Tremaine, John P. LeCrone and Rochelle L. Wilcoxfor Defendant and Respondent.   .             Plaintiffs James Janya and Michael Salloom appeal from a summary judgment on their retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims related to the termination of their employment with defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG). . Bailey’s Meetings With Janya and Salloom .           On September 15, 2015, Bailey met (separately) with Janya and Salloom to discuss the results of his investigation.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the dismissal of two workers’ claims for retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Citation:	No. B290754
WCC Citation:	No. B290754

Case Name:	Janya v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group Part 2/2		01/07/2020
Summary:	Thus, Janya, and not Alepian, was the person responsible for the serious violation of policy. .           As a preliminary matter, we fail to see how this evidence establishes the existence of the glitch Janya describes. Janya stated that the glitch happened sometimes when he logged out without first hitting the “file” button. .           Finally, SCPMG presented evidence that Baileyinvestigated the purported glitch by contacting an expert from HealthConnect. .         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS .         WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the dismissal of two workers’ claims for retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Citation:	No. B290754
WCC Citation:	No. B290754

Case Name:	Janzen v. WCAB		12/30/1997
Summary:	STEPHANIE JANZEN et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CLAYTON CURTIS et al. , Respondents. [61 Cal. App. 4th 112] OPINION PUGLIA, P. J. - Petitioner, Stephanie Janzen, seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) dismissing her application for death benefits. Petitioner's father, Stanley Janzen (the deceased), a California resident, was killed in an airplane crash while working in Wyoming as a pilot for a Wyoming employer. 1 Curtis made a 'special appearance' in the workers' compensation proceeding, objecting to subject matter [61 Cal. App. 4th 113] jurisdiction. The State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) was later added as a defendant and Marvin Janzen was dropped.
Note:	Employment contract was entered into in CA; thus Sec. 5305 confers subject matter jurisdiction over dispute
Citation:	61 Cal.App.4th 109, 63 CCC 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 24811997 CA

Case Name:	Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.		09/03/2009
Summary:	FACTS Marc Brandon worked for Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Warner) as Vice-President of Anti-Piracy Internet Operations. The accident occurred at approximately 4:35 p. m. One or both cars struck and injured pedestrians Chuenchomporn Jeewarat, Tipphawan Tantisriyanurak and Kanhathai Vutthicharoen. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 2, 2007, Jeewarat and Tantisriyanurak filed a personal injury action against Brandon and Southard. On July 5, 2007, Jeewarat and Tantisriyanurak filed an amendment to the complaint substituting Warner as a Doe defendant. Warner asserted that even if the special errand doctrine applied, any special errand ended when Brandon drove his regular commute route home.
Note:	An employee's attendance at an out-of-town business conference may be considered a special errand under the special errand doctrine and the errand is not concluded simply because the employee drives his regular commute route, but rather, the errand is concluded when the employee returns home or deviates from the errand for personal reasons.
Citation:	B212323
WCC Citation:	WCC 35592009 CA

Case Name:	Jefferson v. CA Dept. of Youth Authority		07/01/2002
Summary:	MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The California Department of Youth Authority (the Youth Authority) employed Mary Jefferson from September 1992 to February 1994 to work part-time as a teacher's assistant in the high school classroom of Larry Berg. Eventually, the Youth Authority reassigned Jefferson to a different classroom, but at about the same time, her doctor recommended she stop working due to work-related stress. On July 9, 1996, Jefferson settled her workers' compensation claim against the Youth Authority using the mandatory form adopted by the workers' compensation appeals board (WCAB) for compromise and release of claims. Jefferson filed this civil action on August 23, 1996, against the Youth Authority and Larry Berg.
Note:	C&R that releases all claims sufficient to defeat FEHA claim arising from same facts.
Citation:	28 Cal.4th 299; 67 CCC 727
WCC Citation:	WCC 28662002 CA

Case Name:	Jefferson v. CA Youth Authority		03/26/2001
Summary:	MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Introduction Plaintiff Mary J. Jefferson appeals judgment entered in favor of defendants California Department of Youth Authority (CYA) and Larry Berg (defendants) following the trial court's ruling granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Jefferson v. California Dept. of Youth Authority (2001) , Cal. App. 4th [No. E026915. MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents.
Note:	A general release in a C&R is effective against ALL other claims.
Citation:	87 Cal.App.4th 1357, 66 CCC 343
WCC Citation:	WCC 4232001 CA