Case Name:	Lujan vs. WCAB, Vanier Graphics		12/03/1985
Summary:	MICHAEL T. LUJAN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, VANIER GRAPHICS CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. 1 The Board, in a two-to-one decision, granted reconsideration and concluded that the WCJ erred in utilizing actual post-injury earnings in computing the TD rate. The Board majority concluded that the facts herein were distinguishable from the facts in Thrifty Drug Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. In the Thrifty case, supra, 95 Cal. App. 3d 937, applicant, a full-time retail clerk, sustained industrial injury on March 22, 1971. She was subject to a collective bargaining agreement which provided for wage increases in July 1971 and July 1972.
Note:	Full time post injury earnings must be considered for a fair determination of earning capacity.
Citation:	175 CA3rd 212
WCC Citation:	WCC 29901985 CA

Case Name:	Luna v. WCAB		02/29/1988
Summary:	I Laguna Beach Police Officer John Luna was injured on August 2, 1985, while driving his private automobile to the stationhouse. Luna testified he intended to stop at a nearby emergency call box to report the traffic violation and assist in apprehending the driver. [2a] Luna maintains he was injured while attempting to apprehend the speeder and preserve life or property within the meaning of Labor Code section 3600. 2. The preliminary steps Luna claims to have taken were of a similar nature and insufficient to constitute an attempted apprehension of a criminal suspect. IV [7] Finally, Luna correctly notes the Legislature has codified a presumption that specific police officer disabilities are incurred during the course of employment.
Note:	Going and coming: requirements to find special mission an exception to rule.
Citation:	199 C.A.3d 77
WCC Citation:	WCC 28521988 CA

Case Name:	Lund v. San Joaquin Valley Railroad		07/03/2003
Summary:	RONALD G. LUND, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY RAILROAD, Defendant and Appellant. OPINION KENNARD, J. - Under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), a railroad employee injured by the employer's negligence may sue the employer for negligence. FACTS Plaintiff Ronald G. Lund worked as a trackman for defendant San Joaquin Valley Railroad. 1965) 342 F. 2d 244, 247; Snyder v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company (3d Cir. Congress enacted the FELA to achieve national uniformity in personal injury actions by railroad employees against their employers.
Note:	Under a Federal Employers Liability Act case, the jury should not be told that plaintiff is not entitled to work comp unless probative value outweighs prejudicial effect.
Citation:	31 Cal.4th 1, 71 P.3d 770
WCC Citation:	WCC 29452003 CA

Case Name:	Luque v. Herrera		06/12/2000
Summary:	CARMEN G. LUQUE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FIDEL HERRERA, Defendant; FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Objector and Appellant. 1 FACTS Fidel Herrera injured Carmen G. Luque in an automobile accident for which Herrera was solely at fault. At the time of the accident Luque was acting in the course and scope of his employment. Luque filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits with the Fremont Compensation Insurance Company. Luque also filed an action for damages against Herrera.
Note:	Employee's attorney entitled to fees when employer participated in litigation and reimbursement claim exceeded the settlement.
Citation:	81 Cal.App.4th 558, 65 CCC 812
WCC Citation:	WCC 23912000 CA

Case Name:	Ly v. County of Fresno		09/15/2017
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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             VA LY, et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             COUNTY OF FRESNO, Defendant and Respondent. .             F072351 .             (Super. Ct. No. 09CECG02743) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. .           -ooOoo- .           Three Laotian correctional officers, Va Ly, Travis Herr and Pao Yang, were allegedly subjected to racial and national origin discrimination, harassment and retaliation by their employer, the County of Fresno (County), and its employees. .           _____________________ GOMES, Acting P. J. .           WE CONCUR: .           _____________________ DETJEN, J.
Note:	The 5th District Court of Appeal last week ordered publication of its prior determination that a group of correctional officers could not pursue a discrimination action against their employer, since they had already litigated their claims in pursuit of workers’ compensation benefits.
Citation:	F072351
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 09CECG02743

Case Name:	Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions		04/20/2006
Summary:	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA No. S125171 April 20, 2006 AMAANI LYLE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. WARNER BROTHERS TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Ct. App. 2/7 160528 Los Angeles County Super. Plaintiff was a comedy writers' assistant who worked on the production of a popular television show called Friends. Factual and Procedural Background After receiving a right to sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, plaintiff Amaani Lyle filed this action against organizations and individuals involved in the production and writing of the popular adult-oriented Friends television show, including Warner Bros. Television Production (WBTV), NBC Studios (NBC), Bright, Kauffman, Crane Productions (BKC), and producers-writers Adam Chase, Gregory Malins, and Andrew Reich. of Beam, C. J. )), or even unsuitable for broadcast television (see Jackson v. Racine County, supra, 2005 WL 2291025, *7). The writers of the television show, Friends, were engaged in a creative process-writing adult comedy-when the alleged harassing conduct occurred.
Note:	Sexual jokes and vulgar language not directed at plaintiff did not constitute severe or pervasive harassment under FEHA.
Citation:	38 Cal. 4th 264
WCC Citation:	WCC 31542006 CA

Case Name:	M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management		10/26/2017
Summary:	Filed 10/26/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             M. F. , Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             PACIFIC PEARL HOTEL MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant and Respondent. .             D070150 .             (Super. II BACKGROUND .           According to the allegations in the complaint, which we must accept as true for purposes of this appeal (Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal. 4th 919, 924), M. F. worked for Pacific Pearl Hotel Management, LLC (Pacific) as a housekeeper at its five-building hotel property. .           The trespasser approached housekeepers cleaning hotel rooms three times while he walked around the hotel property. .           On the third occasion, the trespasser went to the hotel room M. F. was cleaning.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a hotel worker could proceed with a claim against her employer under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for failing to protect her from sexual assault by a trespasser who was known to be on the property and harassing other members of the staff.
Citation:	D070150
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 37-2014-00039787- CU-PO-CTL

Case Name:	M/A Com-Phi v. WCAB		07/29/1998
Summary:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarded benefits based upon the reports of the employer's doctors, who were not provided with impeaching surveillance films. On February 20, 1992, Sevadjian received an electrical shock while repairing a high-voltage 'Ion Implanter,' which is not in dispute. In a subsequent letter to this court, the WCAB pointed out that the employer had more than two months before trial to submit the surveillance films to Drs. DISPOSITION The decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Labor Code section 5906, in relevant part, authorizes the WCAB upon appeal, to 'grant reconsideration and direct the taking of additional evidence. '
Note:	WCAB had duty to develop record and show surveillance film to defense.
Citation:	65 Cal.App.4th 1020, 63 CCC 821
WCC Citation:	WCC 25561998 CA

Case Name:	Mackey vs. Dept. of Corrections		01/27/2003
Summary:	However, Brown told her the move was only temporary and promised Mackey she would continue to receive inmate pay. Later, Brown told Mackey she would not be returning to the reception area and was not entitled to inmate pay. The next day, Mackey reported the incident to Kuykendall, who said he would take care of it. Brown also tried to reach Mackey outside work, and Mackey became stressed and fearful. The interim warden told Mackey in front of another employee that Mackey was "disruptive" and "demanding. "
Note:	Exclusive remedy of employee not the direct victim of sexual harassment or discrimination is work comp.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 945, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 57
WCC Citation:	WCC 29102003 CA

Case Name:	Madden v. Summit View, Inc.		08/11/2008
Summary:	He sued the general contractor, Summit View, Inc. (Summit View), alleging that his injuries were caused by Summit View's negligence in failing to place a protective railing along the open side of the patio. It was undisputed that Summit View was the general contractor and Madden was an employee of the subcontractor at the Welsh construction site. )*fn2 In contrast, Madden produced virtually no evidence here that Summit View retained control over general safety conditions at the Welsh site. He sued the general contractor, Summit View, Inc. (Summit View), alleging that his injuries were caused by Summit View's negligence in failing to place a protective railing along the open side of the patio. It does, however, negate any claim by Madden that Summit View induced him to believe the hazard did not exist or that the hazard was otherwise concealed from him but known to Summit View.
Note:	Plaintiff did not know how high he was off the ground when he fell and no one else witnessed the accident. Plaintiff is therefore unable to establish that a safety railing would have been required by section 1621 at the location where he fell. Since he cannot prove a causal relationship between his injuries and Defendant's asserted omission to perform a nondelegable duty, Plaintiff cannot avoid summary judgment.
Citation:	A117128
WCC Citation:	WCC 34112008 CA