Case Name:	21st Century Insurance Company v. The Superior Court Of San Diego County		08/24/2009
Summary:	Filed 8/24/09 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA st CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; SILVIA QUINTANA, Real Party in Interest Ct. App. 4/1 D049430 San Diego County Super. She maintained an auto insurance policy with 21st Century Insurance Company (21st Century) that included first party, no-fault medical payment (medpay) insurance coverage in case of an accident. Quintana's insurance company, 21st Century, paid her $1,000 under her insurance policy's med-pay provisions. Her automobile insurer, defendant 21st Century Insurance Company (21st Century), paid her $1,000 under the policy's no-fault medical payment coverage. Name of Opinion 21st Century Insurance Company v. San Diego County Superior Court Unpublished Opinion XXX NP opn.
Note:	In cases like this, where the insured does not dispute that the settlement adequately compensated her damages, a pro rata apportionment requires the insurer to account for its fair share of the attorney fees by reducing the amount of reimbursement to cover some portion of those fees.
Citation:	S154790
WCC Citation:	WCC 35582009 CA

Case Name:	99 Cents Only Stores v. WCAB		05/03/2000
Summary:	CENTS ONLY STORES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and EDY ARRIAGA, Respondents. The petitioner and employer, 99 Cents Only Stores (Stores), contends the fees awarded were not based on substantial evidence and were excessive. Stores further alleged that although hearing representatives may provide services, inconsistent amounts were awarded by the WCJ and there is no uniformity even among WCAB offices. Stores also asserted $613 was excessive because there was no evidence regarding the qualifications or supervision of hearing representative Plasencia. Finally, Stores argued that most attorneys practicing workers' compensation law receive a lower hourly rate than the amount awarded for Plasencia's services.
Note:	Non-attorney not entitled to full attorney rate for depo fees; analysis same as attorney.
Citation:	80 Cal.App.4th 644, 65 CCC 456
WCC Citation:	WCC 25602000 CA

Case Name:	99 Cents Only Stores v. WCAB		05/03/2000
Summary:	CENTS ONLY STORES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and EDY ARRIAGA, Respondents. The petitioner and employer, 99 Cents Only Stores (Stores), contends the fees awarded were not based on substantial evidence and were excessive. Stores further alleged that although hearing representatives may provide services, inconsistent amounts were awarded by the WCJ and there is no uniformity even among WCAB offices. Stores also asserted $613 was excessive because there was no evidence regarding the qualifications or supervision of hearing representative Plasencia. Finally, Stores argued that most attorneys practicing workers' compensation law receive a lower hourly rate than the amount awarded for Plasencia's services.
Note:	Non-attorney, hearing rep.'s fee of $163/hour deemed excessive.
Citation:	80 Cal.App.4th 644
WCC Citation:	WCC 26002000 CA

Case Name:	A.M. v. Albertsons, LLC.		10/15/2009
Summary:	A delivery truck was arriving, so Sampson asked A. M. if she could wait. A. M. agreed to do so. She called Sampson on the store intercom to say that she needed to go to the bathroom. When Hollis returned, she reported that Sampson said that she was still busy and that A. M. had to wait. The customer walked her to her car and stayed with her for a while. A. M. was becoming more agitated. The next day, she was withdrawn and depressed, in marked contrast to the positive and joyous person that she usually was.
Note:	Under the FEHA, the failure to accommodate and the failure to engage in the interactive process in determining a reasonable accommodation for a known physical disability are separate claims. Once a reasonable accommodation has been granted, the employer has a duty to provide that accommodation. Failure to do so, even on a single occasion, can support a cause of action for damages sustained by the failure as this is in line with the intent of the FEHA and the public policies behind the provision.
Citation:	A122307
WCC Citation:	WCC 35722009 CA

Case Name:	Abdelrahim v. Guardsmark LLC		11/17/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN FATHY ABDELRAHIM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GUARDSMARK, LLC, et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Appellant Fathy Abdelrahim appeals from the judgment upon an order for directed verdicts on his negligence and misrepresentation claims and a jury verdict in favor of respondent Guardsmark, LLC ("Guardsmark") on the remaining claims. Guardsmark was contracted by Marriott Los Angeles Downtown, a hotel, to provide security for the hotel. At the trial, Guardsmark offered the Stryker email into evidence and the court admitted the document over appellant's hearsay objection. After both sides had presented their cases, Guardsmark filed a motion for a directed verdict on all counts.
Note:	In regards to negligence claims. No civil action will stand where a claimant alleges facts that place the claim squarely within the purview of workers' compensation statutes, and fails to allege facts negating the exclusivity rule.
Citation:	B207270
WCC Citation:	WCC 35792009 CA

Case Name:	Abney vs. Aera Energy; Liberty Mutual		12/08/2004
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. GRO 024430 MYRON ABNEY, Applicant, vs. AERA ENERGY; and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s). Because of the important legal issue presented as to the meaning and application of Senate Bill (SB) 899 (Stats. Following a July 26, 2004 hearing on the issue, the WCJ issued a Findings and Award on August 5, 2004. The question of delay and the reasonableness of the cause therefor shall be determined by the appeals board in accordance with the facts. The Appeals Board's en banc decisions are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and workers' compensation administrative law judges (WCJ).
Note:	5814, as amended, applies to acts prior to effective date if adjudicated after.
Citation:	69 CCC (2004); En Banc
WCC Citation:	WCC 30662004 CA

Case Name:	Abraham vs. WCAB (City of Buena Park)		12/01/2003
Summary:	In this appeal, Sandra Abraham (appellant) challenges a judgment of the superior court denying her petition for writ of administrative mandamus against the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The City of Buena Park (the city), appellant's former employer, appeared as the real party in interest in the proceeding below. Thereafter, in June 1997, appellant sought a determination by the WCAB that her disability was industrial. In accordance with section 21166, the WCAB hears and determines disputes arising under PERS regarding industrial causation of a disability. -------------------------- FOOTNOTES A claim for disability retirement benefits with PERS is a process separate from the application for disability benefits with the WCAB.
Note:	WCAB ruling on PERS disability issue does not alter limitation to bring action within 5 years from date of injury.
Citation:	113 Cal.App.4th 1082
WCC Citation:	WCC 29592003 CA

Case Name:	Abratte v. WCAB; Co. of Los Angeles		07/11/2000
Summary:	OPINION: INTRODUCTION Petitioner, Pilar Abratte, was industrially injured while working for the County of Los Angeles (County). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Pilar Abratte, a medical technologist for the County of Los Angeles, admittedly sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome to her wrists while at work from February 1, 1979, to August 17, 1995. Abratte also cited cases which found discrimination under section 132a for discontinuance of fringe benefits during shorter periods of temporary disability. 134], Abratte was not entitled to further accrual of sick and vacation days as these benefits were not being earned. Petitioner, Ms. Abratte, was an employee of Los Angeles County, and a member of a County employees union.
Note:	Public agencies subject to 132a; covers employment benefits.
Citation:	65 CCC 790-NOT PUBLISHED
WCC Citation:	WCC 28132000 CA

Case Name:	Ackerman v. Poway Unified School District		11/05/2009
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Terri Ackerman (Plaintiff) was injured in when she slipped and fell at the premises of the school where she taught, which was owned and operated by defendant and respondent Poway Unified School District (the District). (John R. v. Oakland Unified School District (1989) 48 Cal. 3d , 441, fn. In her claim, she alleged that the District was negligent because it had installed painted concrete, as opposed to stained and porous concrete. In the District's letter transmitting the correct form, its official stated that "the District is covering Ms. Ackerman's injury under our workers' compensation plan. ")*fn4 She alleged that the District had issued a change order regarding the concrete surface, which created unreasonably dangerous conditions.
Note:	[Unpublished] The equitable tolling doctrine does not allow Plaintiff to forego a timely filing of a court action or other proceeding to seek formal redress of injury, within the statutory periods set by the Act.
Citation:	D054529
WCC Citation:	WCC 35752009 CA

Case Name:	Acosta v. Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System		02/19/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C061089 February 19, 2010 ANA LUISA ACOSTA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Proc. , § 1094. 5. ) In her petition, Acosta sought to compel respondent Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System (SCERS) to grant her application for service-connected disability retirement benefits. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Injuries Sustained in 1993, 1996, and 2001 In December 1988, the County of Sacramento (County) hired Acosta as a public health aide. In November 1994, Acosta transferred to the Public Health Nursing program, where she remained for the duration of her active employment with the County. Respondent Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System shall recover its costs on appeal.
Note:	A public health aide is not entitled to service-connected disability benefits because she has not reached maximum medical improvement.
Citation:	C061089
WCC Citation:	WCC 35992010 CA