Case Name:	Vradenburgh v. Southern California Edison Co.		12/06/2010
Summary:	HAROLD K. VRADENBURGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. A truck driver, who had worked at Southern California Edison's San Onofre nuclear power facility for some four years, was injured while unloading Edison materials from an Edison truck. The undisputed evidence, including the truck driver's deposition testimony, established that Edison had direct supervision and control over him. Because Edison did not have an agreement with a local council of building trades unions, Edison could not directly hire union personnel to work at San Onofre. He drove Edison trucks within the facility to load and unload warehouse materials "everything from toilet paper to plywood, pipe, prefabricated pipe.
Note:	A special employer's citation of its employment agreements helped it prove that it had the right to control a trucker's work and establish an exclusive remedy defense.
Citation:	G041931
WCC Citation:	WCC 36882010 CA

Case Name:	Wagner vs. Allied Signal		04/20/2001
Summary:	Ed Note: This case was expressly overruled by the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Honeywell v. WCAB (Wagner). A review of the record reveals that applicant was employed by defendant Allied Signal Aerospace from 1982 through 1999. The July 20,1998 notation states, in pertinent part, as follows: ". . . Has tried many times to deal with this industrial stress reduction in various forms. The October 16, 1998 message was placed in applicant's personnel file, and reads as follows: "Received an audix message from William Wagner's wife, Linda. "Wife is concerned that she does everything necessary to protect Bill's employment with Allied Signal.
Note:	Duty to provide claim form when reasonable certainty of claim of industrial injury.
Citation:	66 CCC 483 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29012001 CA

Case Name:	Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (Garcia)		10/30/2003
Summary:	1 Velta Elaine Garcia ("Applicant") suffered an admitted orthopedic injury to her back while employed by Wal-Mart ("Employer") in February of 1995. (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 227, 233), the issue before us is one of law, which we review de novo. This subdivision shall not apply if the psychiatric injury is caused by a sudden and extraordinary employment condition. "The statute, which contains other provisions governing and to some extent limiting benefits for psychiatric claims, fn. Again, we stress that whether the statute could reasonably, or even wisely, be amended is not before us.
Note:	Psychiatric injury arising out of physical injury is governed by LC 3208.3 limitations.
Citation:	112 Cal.App.4th 1435
WCC Citation:	WCC 29602003 CA

Case Name:	Wall Units, Inc. v. SCIF		06/09/2008
Summary:	Plaintiff Wall Units, Inc. (Wall Units) pursued a class action lawsuit against defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for allegedly misreporting the loss experience in workers' compensation insurance claims. Following further proceedings in the trial court, in February of 2007, Wall Units moved for certification of a class of employer plaintiffs who had "declared noncompensable" claims that SCIF had misreported. )*fn2 The new class definition framed by Wall Units after our prior opinion in 2006 encompassed all three prongs of the "declared non-compensable" definition. SCIF first learned of the Wiley claim on July 16, 1991, and denied the claim on October 15, 1992. Wall Units complains that the trial court's order denying class certification struck eight paragraphs in a supporting declaration provided by Wall Units.
Note:	[Unpublished] The trial court used proper legal criteria and assumptions in denying class certification when it focused on the absence of 'common questions of law or fact.'
Citation:	B200331
WCC Citation:	WCC 33822008 CA

Case Name:	Waqia v. City of Oakland		11/28/2007
Summary:	INTRODUCTION In this wrongful termination action, Delmont Waqia (Waqia) appeals following a jury verdict in favor of his former employer, the City of Oakland (the City). Waqia filed an action against the OFD and the City (collectively the City), alleging religious and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation. The parties agreed that Waqia or his attorney would meet with someone from the city attorney's office to discuss the matter further. In June 2003, Waqia filed a complaint against the City, alleging that the City acted in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. At trial, the City presented evidence regarding the 1993 sexual harassment claim against Waqia, as well as the surrounding circumstances of his 2002 arrest.
Note:	[Unpublished] Although the statutory burden to accommodate rests with the employer, an employee cannot shirk his duties to try to accommodate himself or to cooperate with his employer in reaching an accommodation by a mere recalcitrant citation of religious precepts.
Citation:	A114704
WCC Citation:	WCC 32822007 CA

Case Name:	Ward v. City of Desert Hot Springs		09/25/2006
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIGNIFICANT PANEL DECISION Case No. RIV 0069499 KATHY WARD, Applicant, vs. CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS; permissibly self-insured and administered by HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendant. Therefore, the Order of May 5, 2006, properly denied defendant's request to compel applicant's examination pursuant to section 4064(d). On or about November 4, 2005, defendant arranged for applicant to be examined by Stuart Meisner, Ph. D. Applicant, through her counsel, refused to be examined by Dr. Meisner, asserting that the examination was impermissible pursuant to sections 4060 and 4062. 2. On May 5, 2006, the WCJ issued the Findings and Order of which defendant sought reconsideration or, in the alternative, from which it seeks removal.
Note:	For claimed injuries occurring on or after 1/1/05, where claimant represented by an attorney, correct med-legal procedure for compensability is 4062.2 only; reports under 4064(d) are inadmissable.
Citation:	71 CCC 1313
WCC Citation:	WCC 31842006 CA

Case Name:	Warner v. WCAB		12/27/2011
Summary:	WARNER v. WCAB RICHARD WARNER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS TURNER, P. J. Petitioner, Richard Warner, is a firefighter employed by the County of Los Angeles (the county). Island residents will go to petitioner's house for assistance if they live nearby or if an injury occurs near his home. As petitioner was going down the front stairs of his house, his wife asked him to help her trim the wisteria. Petitioner, Richard Warner, shall recover his costs incurred in connection with these writ proceedings.
Note:	A firefighter's decision to help his wife trim the wisteria in front of their Catalina Island home was incidentally related to his job because island residents would occasionally go to his home for emergency help.
Citation:	B232190
WCC Citation:	WCC 38382011 CA

Case Name:	Waste Management vs. Superior Court		06/01/2004
Summary:	WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. , et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; ROSA M. GUZMAN de PERALTA et al. , Real Parties in Interest. OPINION MCCONNELL, P. J. - Rafael Peralta Rios (Rafael) was killed by a trash truck while working as a mechanic for Waste Management of California, Inc. (WMCI). 1988) Torts, § 6, p. 61; Romero v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1078. )Code, § 3852; Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689, 697; Orosco v. Sun-Diamond Corp. (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1659, 1664. )Likewise in this case, the Peraltas adequately pleaded independent negligent or wrongful acts by Waste Management, Inc. and USA Waste of California (together, WMI).
Note:	Parent not liable to employee of subsidiary for injury/death where parent lacked control.
Citation:	119 Cal. App. 4th 105; 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 910
WCC Citation:	WCC 29862004 CA

Case Name:	Watters Associates v. Superior Court		02/25/1991
Summary:	WATTERS ASSOCIATES et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; GARDCO MANUFACTURING, INC. , et al. , Real Parties in Interest. (Superior Court of Alameda County, No. H127070-9, Joanne C. Parrilli, Judge. )In Watters Associates v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1322 [267 Cal. Rptr. 696] (Watters I) we held that an injured temporary employee could not pursue a civil action against his employment agency for an injury caused by his temporary employer's removal of the point of operation guard on a power press. Lamont G. Conley, registered as a temporary manufacturing employee, was sent by petitioners Watters Associates, Watters Personnel Service, and/or Shirley Watters (identified collectively as agency hereafter) to the business premises of real party in interest Gardco Manufacturing, Inc. (temporary employer hereafter). (Santa Cruz Poultry, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d [227 Cal. App. 3d 1346] 575, 578-579 [239 Cal. Rptr.
Note:	Temp agency exempted from liability for damages recovered by employee.
Citation:	227 Cal.App.3d 1341
WCC Citation:	WCC 23951991 CA

Case Name:	Wayne Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		11/21/2008
Summary:	Lewis v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 168 Cal. App. 4th 696, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 661 (Cal. App. Dist. 3 11/21/2008) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C057392 November 21, 2008 WAYNE LEWIS, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, BEUTLER HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, ET AL. ; RESPONDENTS. No appearance for Respondents Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or Beutler Heating & Air Conditioning. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION As part of its 2004 comprehensive reform of the workers' compensation laws, the Legislature adopted a new schedule for rating permanent disability. B ACKGROUND Wayne Lewis suffered an admitted injury to his low back on August 18, 2004, while working for Beutler Heating and Air Conditioning. It is undisputed that Lewis also had a prior back injury treated by lumbar fusion surgery.
Note:	A physician's report stating that an applicant cannot return to his regular job duties and may need vocational rehabilitation indicates the existence of permanent disability and triggers use of the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule instead of the version adopted in 2005.
Citation:	C057392
WCC Citation:	WCC 34642008 CA

Case Name:	Wayne Oberreuter et al v. Traylor Brothers		05/05/2011
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D056637 May 5, 2011 WAYNE OBERREUTER ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS, CROSS-DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS, v. TRAYLOR BROTHERS, DEFENDANT, CROSS-COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT. Mountain was the subcontractor hired by a general contractor, defendant Traylor Brothers, Inc. (Traylor), to provide hauling services for a construction project. Oberreuter and his wife filed this action against Traylor seeking damages, and Traylor moved for summary judgment under the "Privette/Hooker"*fn1 doctrine. The trial court concluded there was no triable issue of material fact, and Privette/Hooker barred Oberreuter's claims against Traylor, and entered judgment in favor of Traylor. Procedural History Oberreuter and his wife filed the present action against Traylor, among others, asserting Traylor was negligent.
Note:	California's common law Hooker/Privette doctrine barred an subcontractor's employee from suing a general contractor.
Citation:	D056637
WCC Citation:	WCC 37602011 CA

Case Name:	WCAB v. Small Claims Court		11/29/1973
Summary:	WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Petitioner, v. THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT FOR THE SAN LEANDRO-HAYWARD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY et al. , Respondents; EARLY-WINSTON-DRAKE et al. , Real Parties in Interest (Opinion by Taylor, P. J. , with Kane and Rouse, JJ. , concurring. )[1] Petitioner, Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, seeks prohibition to prevent respondent, Small Claims Court, San Leandro-Hayward Judicial District, from proceeding to trial on [35 Cal. App. 3d 645] two small claims actions on the ground that the subject matter of the actions is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board. Respondents Righetti and Sidlow may not circumvent the remedy provided by statute by filing actions in the small claims court. [2c] Because the subject matter of the actions filed in respondent small claims court is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, respondent small claims court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine the claims. Let a writ of prohibition issue commanding respondent small claims court to dismiss the actions in small claims cases Nos.
Note:	Small claims court had no jurisdiction to hear case regarding expert witness and attorney fees from WC claim.
Citation:	35 Cal.App.3d 643
WCC Citation:	WCC 27481973 CA

Case Name:	Webb v. San Luis Obispo Community College Dist.		12/10/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX d Civil No. B195886 December 10, 2007 PAMELA WEBB, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Ct. No. CV060418) (San Luis Obispo County) Martin J. Tangeman, Judge. Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi, Llp, Peter C. Flanderka for Defendant and Respondent San Luis Obispo Community College District. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Pamela Webb appeals from a judgment of dismissal after orders sustaining the demurrers of School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE) and San Luis Obispo Community College District (District), each public entities. Webb was an employee of Cuesta College in the San Luis Obispo Community College District.
Note:	[Unpublished] A plaintiff may not sue for damages based on violation of the privacy clause of article I, section 1 of the California Constitution.
Citation:	B195886
WCC Citation:	WCC 32872007 CA

Case Name:	Webb v. WCAB		12/22/1980
Summary:	ROBERT F. WEBB, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DI GIORGIO CORPORATION, Respondents (Opinion by Mosk, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )On January 31, 1975, employee Webb slipped from a forklift he was operating for employer Di Giorgio Corporation and contused his lower back, causing debilitating pain. The bureau approved the plan and declared that 'employer will pay all temporary disability at the rate of $119 per week from the date of injury to the date Mr. Webb begins work at Roberts Motel. The workers' compensation judge found in his favor and ordered employer to pay the missing six months of temporary rehabilitation benefits. Moreover, this court has repeatedly recognized that a rule of liberal construction applies to all aspects of workers' compensation law.
Note:	Employer has duty to give notice to the Rehab. Bureau of EE's right to rehab.
Citation:	28 Cal.3d 621
WCC Citation:	WCC 28041980 CA

Case Name:	Weber v. UPS		04/03/2003
Summary:	According to Weber's first amended complaint, UPS employed Weber as an aircraft mechanic. UPS did not administer the hearing tests itself, but contracted with defendant TK Group to administer the tests on its behalf, and to report the results to UPS. Further, to the extent UPS knew that Weber's tests showed significant abnormalities in his hearing, UPS failed to notify Weber of the findings or their medical significance. UPS demurred to Weber's first amended complaint on the sole ground that because Weber had alleged that his injuries arose out of his employment with UPS, the Act provided Weber his sole and exclusive remedy, and barred his civil action in tort against UPS. Critical to the analysis of Weber's claim is the undisputed fact that but for his employment with UPS, Weber would have no basis for any claim against UPS under any legal theory.
Note:	No civil liability of employer for injuries from failure to diagnose condition that should have been detected on required med exam.
Citation:	107 Cal.App.4th 801, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 412
WCC Citation:	WCC 29262003 CA

Case Name:	Webinger v. WCAB		11/21/1975
Summary:	JOSEPH B. WEBINGER, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, Respondents. Applicant began receiving disability payments from the Veterans' Administration on April 1, 1946, in the amount of $ 13. 80 per month. On October 31, 1962, Mr. Webinger began receiving checks in the amount of $ 20. 00 per month. On January 1, 1973, he began receiving $ 178. 84 per month, which includes compensation for regular aid and attendance. '(2) On December 22, 1967, he suffered a bruise-type industrial injury to his right foot that necessitated amputation of his leg.
Note:	S.I.F. was entitled to a credit for payments for a non-service connected disability which pre-existed injury.
Citation:	40 CCC 714
WCC Citation:	WCC 25181975 CA

Case Name:	Weerasinghe v. Gates, McDonald and Co.		05/14/2010
Summary:	Weerasinghe contends that Gates was not entitled to summary judgment on any of her six causes of action. FACTS[ 1 ] In 2002, respondent Gates hired appellant Manique Weerasinghe to be a worker's compensation claims examiner in its Concord office. From November 30 through December 6, 2004, Gates granted Weerasinghe a one-week medical leave of absence to have a breast mass removed. From January 14 through 27, 2005, Gates granted Weerasinghe a leave of absence to provide medical care for her spouse. During February 2005, Tovar placed Weerasinghe on an attendance improvement plan because she had failed to heed the earlier coaching about attendance issues.
Note:	A former claims examiner did not have enough evidence to substantiate a variety of retaliation, discrimination, and wrongful termination claims after her employer fired her for poor performance.
Citation:	A124847
WCC Citation:	WCC 36242010 CA

Case Name:	Weiner v. Ralphs Co., et al. (Order Denying Reconsideration)		08/17/2009
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) Case No. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426) LAWRENCE WEINER, Applicant, vs. RALPHS COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured; and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). Applicant, Lawrence Weiner, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (En Banc) issued by the Appeals Board on June 11, 2009. (See Weiner v. Ralphs Company (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 736 (Appeals Board en banc) (Weiner I). )On April 8, 2008, a stipulated Findings and Award issued finding 60% permanent disability and a need for further medical treatment. Defendant appealed the Rehabilitation Unit's determination and a trial was held before the WCJ on November 24, 2008.
Note:	The WCAB determined that the applicant's right to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance never vested. The WCAB also explained that it lacks the authority to declarea statute unconstitutional.
Citation:	ADJ347040
WCC Citation:	WCC 35542009 CA

Case Name:	Weiner v. Ralphs Company		06/11/2009
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426) LAWRENCE WEINER, Applicant, vs. RALPHS COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured; and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) We granted the petition for reconsideration of defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company, to allow time to further study the record and applicable law. Background Applicant, Lawrence Weiner, sustained an industrial injury to his right hip, cervical spine, and lumbar spine from 1967 through September 30, 2002, while employed as a checker by defendant. Code, § 4644(a)(5)-(7)) and to provide that an employee was normally limited to only one vocational rehabilitation plan (former Lab. Applicant, Lawrence Weiner, while employed as a checker by Ralphs Grocery Company at Los Angeles, California, during the period of 1967 through September 30, 2002, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of the employment to his right hip, cervical spine and lumbar spine.
Note:	[En Banc] The repeal of section 139.5 terminated any rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits or services pursuant to orders or awards that were not final before January 1, 2009, including those pending on or after that date, and effective January 1, 2009, the WCAB lost jurisdiction over non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims, but the WCAB continues to have jurisdiction under sections 5502(b)(3) and 5803 to enforce or terminate vested rights.
Citation:	ADJ347040
WCC Citation:	WCC 35332009 CA

Case Name:	Weinstein v. St. Mary's Med. Cntr.		10/30/1997
Summary:	On January 10, 1995, while still on crutches, Weinstein went to the Hospital to receive medical treatment for her injury. As this was happening, Weinstein slipped and fell on a watery liquid substance in one of the Hospital's hallways. [58 Cal. App. 4th 1227] On December 12, 1995, Weinstein filed her complaint in this personal injury action against the Hospital. Thus the 'conditions of compensation' were not met, and Weinstein was not restricted to the remedy of workers' compensation. The Hospital countered that it owed Weinstein the same duty to maintain safe premises whether she was there as a patient or an employee.
Note:	Exclusive remedy only applies when duty arises from employment relationship.
Citation:	58 Cal.App.4th 1223
WCC Citation:	WCC 24181997 CA