Case Name:	Johnson v. John Deere Landscapes, Inc.		03/28/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. C05-02210) A temporary employment agency assigned appellant Kenneth Johnson to work for respondent John Deere Landscapes, Inc. (John Deere). He further contends John Deere is bound by the initial determination of its workers' compensation carrier that John Deere was not Johnson's employer. Labor Connection did not direct the manner in which Johnson performed his daily assignments for John Deere, and Johnson did not undertake work on his own initiative. John Deere argued that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that it was Johnson's special employer, rendering John Deere immune from tort liability for Johnson's injuries. Johnson contends that the "admission" by John Deere's workers' compensation carrier that John Deere was not Johnson's employer vitiates the affirmative defense based on workers' compensation exclusivity.
Note:	[Unpublished] Although the special employment factors do not unanimously favor a finding of special employment, there is no requirement of unanimity and there was no error in finding that John Deere Landscapes, Inc. was Claimant's 'special employer' and thus the relationship falls under the exclusive remedy provision.
Citation:	A116643
WCC Citation:	WCC 33342008 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. Pacific International Bearing, Inc.		12/27/2012
Summary:	JOHNSON v. PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL BEARING, INC. RICK JOHNSON, JR. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL BEARING, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Johnson did not come close to making his monthly sales goals at any time during his employment by Pacific. He was concerned that many of the accounts Johnson was targeting were too small or needed products Pacific was not selling, so he began to mentor Johnson and redirect him toward more productive efforts. On April 6, Sweeney and Johnson exchanged e-mails over a scheduled performance review for Johnson and other employees. Johnson's Termination On April 10, at 8:36 a. m. , Sweeney sent Davis an e-mail, copied to Johnson, instructing her to go on certain sales calls with Johnson.
Note:	Substantial evidence supported a jury's determination that an employer had not fired a poorly performing salesman with a history of lying to his boss because of a known or perceived physical disability.
Citation:	A129774
WCC Citation:	WCC 39662012 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (City of LA)		07/13/1989
Summary:	James Johnson, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and City of Los Angeles, Respondents. Dr. Hyman reported applicant has reflux esophagitis and the condition was neither caused nor aggravated by the employment but rather was entirely congenital. Dr. Markovitz noted applicant was taking medication for his arm and some medications, including aspirin, upset applicant's stomach. Dr. Markovitz recommended applicant receive medication and occasional examinations by a physician for the gastrointestinal condition. In the present case, however, the WCJ's letter clarifying his decision concerned the precise issue as to which applicant sought reconsideration.
Note:	Time limit for filing begins when WCJ issues a clarification of issues based in Petition for Reconsideration.
Citation:	54 CCC 256
WCC Citation:	WCC 27331989 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (Lentz)		07/30/1970
Summary:	JEAN JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, LENTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. , Respondents. Mr. Johnson died on January 2, 1969; his widow filed her claim for death benefits on January 27. On February 4 the referee, without hearing or responsive pleading from the employer or insurance carrier, dismissed petitioner's application on the basis of the release executed by Mr. Johnson. We conclude that Labor Code section 5000 empowers an employee to compromise and release claims of his dependents. [7] Petitioner alleges that Mr. Johnson, in executing the compromise and release, did not know that he was releasing her claim to death benefits and did not intend that result.
Note:	Release of dependent's benefits valid;
Citation:	2 Cal.3d 964, 35 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 25551970 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (TWA)		11/19/1984
Summary:	In July of 1977, Johnson filed applications with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or board) for adjudication of his claims for permanent disability compensation benefits arising from the two injuries. Johnson filed a petition for writ of review and requested the Court of Appeal to order Hartford to reimburse him for the printing costs. To assess the accuracy of the Rodriguez court's statement, it is helpful to survey the history of WCAB practices in this area. However, in 1971, the WCAB adopted a new policy under which it no longer answered such petitions unless they challenged WCAB procedures or policies. Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the WCAB with directions to award Johnson reasonable appellate costs.
Note:	Printing costs awarded to worker in answering petition for writ of review.
Citation:	37 Cal.3d 235, 49 CCC 716
WCC Citation:	WCC 26241984 CA

Case Name:	Johnston v. Kelly		01/03/2012
Summary:	JOHNSTON v. KELLY GEORGE PATRICK JOHNSTON et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SHARON KELLY et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Johnston and Dairy filed their complaint in this action, alleging two causes of action for malicious prosecution and unfair business practices against Kelly and her law firm. Johnston contacted the union because another employee would have to be laid off in order to reinstate Toro, and Johnston wanted the union's input in determining which employee would be terminated. Toro testified at trial that he talked to Johnston when Johnston returned from vacation and Johnston said he had received a letter from EDD indicating Toro had quit; Johnston told Toro to come back and talk to him after he resolved the problem with EDD. At another point, Toro testified he went to see Johnston and ask for work; Johnston told him there was no work for him then.
Note:	An employer defeated a plaintiff's motion to strike a malicious prosecution suit that emanated from a failed Labor Code 132a claim.
Citation:	F060909
WCC Citation:	WCC 38422012 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. 414 Equities LLC		10/28/2008
Summary:	Jones v 414 Equities LLC NY Slip Op 08197 Decided on October 28, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department McGuire, J. /05 [*1]Clarence Jones, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Equities LLC, et al. , Defendants-Respondents. Plaintiff worked as a demolition laborer on a renovation project at a five-story apartment building owned by defendant 414 Equities LLC. Plaintiff did not "hear anything or see anything" before the floor collapsed except for the loud cracking noise. The owner answered the complaint in April 2005, and commenced a third-party action against plaintiff's employer in September 2005.
Note:	In light of the brevity of the delay, the absence of prejudice to plaintiff and the public policy favoring the resolution of disputes on their merits, Supreme Court properly granted the general contractor's cross motion to serve a late answer.
Citation:	100477/05
WCC Citation:	WCC 34442008 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation		07/03/2007
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA KIM C. JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Jones was displeased and went to retake it; however, McMinn blocked her and refused to move out of her way. That day Jones reported pain in her neck and right wrist and shoulder, for which she received medical care at Donovan. In January and September, 2004, Jones filed complaints with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) against Donovan and several employees. Moreover, Jones did not present any evidence to refute Respondents' claims their complained-of employment actions were made for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.
Note:	For conduct committed within the scope of employment, employees, like their employers, should not be held subject to suit. There are, however, statutory exceptions to coemployee immunity. A civil suit is permissible when an employee proximately causes another employee's injury or death by a 'willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression.'
Citation:	152 Cal. App. 4th 1367
WCC Citation:	WCC 32332007 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Newton		06/02/2010
Summary:	MARY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PETER NEWTON, Defendant and Respondent. Mary Jones, in pro. Plaintiff Mary Jones appeals from a trial court order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend her third amended complaint against defendant Peter Newton, M. D. She was referred to Newton "for further treatment" by her employer's third party worker's compensation administrator. But, as best as can be determined from plaintiff's rambling and inflammatory allegations, defendant failed to treat her properly.
Note:	Given the trial court's generosity in granting plaintiff several opportunities to file a proper pleading, and plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that the defects in her third amended complaint could be cured, we readily conclude that the trial court properly sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend.
Citation:	B217472
WCC Citation:	WCC 36332010 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Opfer		11/23/2010
Summary:	SAM JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RALPH OPFER et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Sam Jones appeals from a judgment of dismissal for failure to bring to trial within five years (Code Civ. Proc. , §§ 583. 310, 583. 360) his complaint for personal injuries against defendants Ralph Opfer, individually and doing business as Ralph Opfer Flooring. Plaintiff asserts he is appealing from the dismissal with respect to all named defendants: R&R Flooring, Ralph Opfer and Randy Opfer. However, the notice of appeal states only an appeal from the judgment "in favor of Defendants Ralph Opfer, Ralph Opfer dba Ralph Opfer Flooring. "
Note:	The 3rd District Court of Appeal rejected an injured worker's attempt to blame the Sacramento County Superior Court for failing to bring a personal injury suit against an employer to trial within five years.
Citation:	C062312
WCC Citation:	WCC 36862010 CA