Important Recent California Case Law
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 | 0
NEW! Advanced Orthopedics v. WCAB (City of Los Angeles), B250663, (11/26/13): The California Supreme Court denied review of a Workers Compensation Appeals Board panel decision reviving a Southern California medical providers $96,519 lien claim for 12 years of treatment provided to a veteran police officer who was injured in the line of duty.
NEW! Federal Insurance Co. v. WCAB (Johnson), B249201, (12/03/2013): The California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that the Workers Compensation Appeals Board could not exercise jurisdiction over the cumulative trauma claims of a former professional basketball player based on the fact that she had practiced and played one game in Los Angeles during the final season of her career.
NEW! Sheffield v. Chevron, No. F066032, (11/26/2013): An oil rig worker who suffered injuries falling into the rigs well cellar could not sue the company that had hired his employer to perform the drilling work based on the Privette doctrine, a California appellate court ruled.
NEW! San Diego Unified School District v. WCAB, D063602, (11/18/2013): The 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that the reasonable value of three epidural injections for a San Diego-area worker was $3,300.
Herrera v. Unistar Food Processing, B241440, (11/14/2013): A worker who lost part of his right arm after it got caught in a meat grinder could not bring a tort action against his employer based on the statutory power press exception to workers compensation exclusivity, a California appellate court ruled.
Valdez v. WCAB (Warehouse Demo Services), S204387, (11/14/2013): The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that reports from non-network physicians who are privately retained and compensated are admissible for the purposes of resolving disputes about the compensability of workplace injuries.
Angelotti Chiropractic v. Baker, SACV 13-1139-GW(JEMx), (11/12/2013): A federal judge prohibited the California Division of Workers Compensation from collecting the $100 activation fee or dismissing unactivated liens until he rules on whether the fee created by Senate Bill 863 violates the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Contreras v. Gibson Farms, ADJ7707093, (9/9/2013): Applicants attorneys do not have the right to select the interpreter who will translate his or her clients words into English at a deposition for his or her comp claim, according to a recent panel decision from the California Workers Compensation Appeals Board.
People v. McAnally, D062105, (10/31/2013): A contractor who pleaded guilty to two criminal charges for failing to provide workers compensation coverage to his employees was not entitled to have his conviction set aside on the basis that his wife had engaged in a romantic relationship with the attorney who prosecuted him.
Comments