Case Name:	Lee v. Harbor Distributing, LLC		02/28/2013
Summary:	LEE v. HARBOR DISTRIBUTING, LLC RONNIE LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HARBOR DISTRIBUTING, LLC et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Lee was a 53-year-old African American truck driver who worked for Harbor, a beer distributor, for about 10 years. According to Murata, Harbor permitted Lee to work as a "transfer driver" on a temporary basis in 2007 while Lee was awaiting shoulder surgery, even though Harbor did not need another transfer driver during much of that time. At the meeting, Hughes told Lee that he could not return to work as a "side loader" with his physical restrictions and discussed other positions at Harbor that Lee might perform. Lee stated that he was not qualified for the positions identified, and suggested only one position at Harbor that he could performtransfer driver.
Note:	A beer distributor is getting a second chance to prove his former employer discriminated against him on the basis of his disability and wrongfully terminated him.
Citation:	B238872
WCC Citation:	WCC 39902013 CA

Case Name:	Lee v. Yang		12/02/2012
Summary:	.             Claremont Law Group, David K. Lee and Shirin R. Delkhah for Defendant and Respondent Jun Yang. INTRODUCTION .             Plaintiffs and appellants Joung Hyen Lee, Hyen Uk Lee, and Esther Lee (plaintiffs) are former employees of The Christian Herald, Inc. (the Herald), a corporation they allege is solely owned and was managed by their former boss, defendant Jun Yang. Hyen Uk Lee asserted three additional causes of action (assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Yang, and premises liability against the Herald) arising out of alleged physical confrontations with Yang. Joung Hyen Lee was a reporter, while Hyen Uk Lee and Esther Lee were administrative assistants. .           Plaintiff Hyen Uk Lee asserted three additional causes of action: two against Yang (assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress) and one against the Herald (premises liability).
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation law did not bar a worker from suing her former supervisor after he allegedly threw a phone at her and knocked her unconscious by pushing her into a door.
Citation:	B266853
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC543345

Case Name:	Lee vs. Miracle Ford; CIGA		02/18/2003
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. LAO 781284 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL ALFRED R. LEE, JR. (Deceased), VALERIE L. LEE (Widow), Applicant, vs. Therefore, we will grant removal, rescind the order allowing election against CIGA, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings. We also conclude that it is premature to dismiss CIGA as a party defendant at this point in the proceedings. The application named Miracle Ford as the employer and HIH as the insurance carrier. However, the WCJ also issued the rulings disputed here, approving applicant's election against CIGA and submitting this matter for decision.
Note:	Applicant may not elect against CIGA when there are other viable carriers having liability during the alleged CT period.
Citation:	68 CCC 213 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29192003 CA

Case Name:	Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. Diaz		08/18/2005
Summary:	The Complaint On June 17, 2003, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. (Leegin) filed a fraud complaint against Carolina Diaz Santiaguin alleging the following facts. On January 3, 2003, Santiaguin informed Leegin that she was suffering from work-related injuries based on an event that had occurred on December 2, 2002. Leegin sent Santiaguin to the industrial health clinic it uses to diagnose and treat its employees for work-related injuries. From January 4, 2003 to April 8, 2003, Santiaguin worked "on light duty" because Leegin "reasonably believed" Santiaguin had suffered work-related injuries. Leegin alleged that Santiaguin falsely represented that she had been injured on the job "with the intent to have [Leegin] rely upon [those false representations] and with the foreseeable consequence of having [Leegin] submit [her] claim to its workers' compensation carrier[. ]"
Note:	Employer cannot bring civil suit for fraud against claimant.
Citation:	131 Cal.App.4th 1517
WCC Citation:	WCC 31142005 CA

Case Name:	Leek v. Cooper		04/15/2011
Summary:	DONNA LEEK et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JAY COOPER, Defendant and Respondent. The plaintiffs responded to the summary judgment motion, arguing that Cooper was the alter ego of Auburn Honda on the apparent theory that Cooper was their employer. They pointed to evidence that Cooper was the president of Auburn Honda, and that there were no directors of the corporation, that Cooper "individually" fired the plaintiffs, that Cooper "individually" makes all policy, procedure, and management decisions for Auburn Honda, that Cooper "individually" owns the land on which the dealership is located, and that he raises the rent as he sees fit. Instead, they argue that Cooper was in fact the employer because of the control he exercised over them. In fact, plaintiffs pleaded that Cooper was their employer. 2 Defendant's summary judgment motion adduced facts showing that plaintiffs were employed by Auburn Honda, rather than Cooper.
Note:	Although several plaintiff employees of a sole shareholder's auto sales business could not show that he was an alter ego of his corporation, he still could be personally liable for their Fair Employment and Housing Act claims if the plaintiffs prevail and his corporation cannot pay the judgment.
Citation:	C061510
WCC Citation:	WCC 37482011 CA

Case Name:	LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court of LA County		08/20/2012
Summary:	LeFIELL MANUFACTURING CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LeFIELL MANUFACTURING CO. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; O'NEIL WATROUS et al. , Real Parties in Interest. The Court of Appeal nonetheless concluded the spouse's loss of consortium claim as pleaded in the civil action remained viable. Consequently, under settled principles of workers' compensation law, the exclusivity rule bars a dependent spouse's claim for loss of consortium. The trial court overruled employer's demurrer to employee's causes of action for negligence and products liability. That aspect of the Court of Appeal's judgment is not contested, and as such, shall be affirmed.
Note:	The California Supreme Court on Monday overturned a published appellate court decision allowing the wife of an injured worker to proceed with a loss-of-consortium claim against her husband's employer based on Labor Code Section 4558's exception to workers' compensation exclusivity.
Citation:	S192759
WCC Citation:	WCC 39212012 CA

Case Name:	LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Ct of LA (Watrous et al.)		03/30/2011
Summary:	LeFiell also "failed to properly provide guarding so as to prevent material from flying up into or out of the machine . The form pleading seeks to recover for strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied and express written and oral warranties. LeFiell also contended Watrous's spouse lacked standing to pursue any cause of action arising from the power press injury (first, second, and fourth causes of action). Moreover, LeFiell argued her loss of consortium claim for damages (third cause of action) was barred by the exclusive remedy rule (§ 3600 et seq. )(Jones v. Keppeler (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 705, 709; see also Flowmaster, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1019, 1029. )
Note:	The California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that an applicant may not sue his employer for products liability and general negligence under the Labor Code 4558's exception to exclusive remedy, but allowed his wife to file a loss-of-consortium claim because her claim falls outside the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation.
Citation:	B226240
WCC Citation:	WCC 37402011 CA

Case Name:	Legrone v. Mogenson		06/28/2011
Summary:	LEGRONE v. MOGENSON GENEVA LEGRONE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THOMAS MOGENSON et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff, Geneva Legrone, injured her ankle during a work-related activity and was seen by Thomas Mogensen, M. D. (Mogensen), at Central Occupational Medical Providers (COMP), the provider of medical care for injured workers employed by the City of Perris. A month after sustaining the injury, an MRI was finally ordered, and plaintiff had to undergo surgery to repair the injury. Mogensen recommended physical therapy and prescribed pain medication, directing plaintiff to return to work with restrictions of intermittent standing and no walking. Plaintiff was reexamined by Mogensen on March 31, 2006, and was instructed to return to work with restrictions.
Note:	A worker's medical malpractice suit against an occupational physician was untimely, because she filed it after the one-year statute of limitations expired.
Citation:	E050274
WCC Citation:	WCC 37792011 CA

Case Name:	Leinon vs. Fishermen's Grotto, Mid-Century Insurance Company		08/25/2004
Summary:	BACKGROUND Applicant claimed a cumulative trauma (CT) injury to his spine, left hip, and right knee for the period ending November 1, 1998. Defendant disputed injury from the outset by sending applicant a timely delay letter; later it timely denied the claim. Thereafter, applicant claimed that defendant failed to pay a section 4650(d) penalty when it paid the TDI required by the May 30, 2001 Findings and Award. In the decision reconsidered here, the WCJ found defendant liable for a section 4650(d) penalty on the TDI due under the May 30, 2001 Findings and Award. "(b) If the injury causes permanent disability, the first payment shall be made within 14 days after the date of last payment of temporary disability indemnity.
Note:	No 4650 penalty due if denied claim later determined compensable and benefits paid within 14 days after Award.
Citation:	68 CCC 1460 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 30212004 CA