Case Name:	Alvarez v. WCAB		05/14/2010
Summary:	Note: Superceded by Alvarez v. WCAB (SCIF), B218847, 08/12/2010 Filed 5/14/10 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CARLOS ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. , Respondents. Carlos Alvarez (Alvarez or petitioner), her widower and guardian at litem of their two minor children, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits, alleging that Parades's death was caused by her work. Alvarez subsequently filed a petition objecting to the ex parte communication between Dr. Miller and defense counsel. )"*fn5 The WCAB added that the ex parte communication related back to an administrative matter discussed at the deposition, which was not ex parte. The WCAB also concluded that section 4062. 3 is concerned with a party initiating an ex parte communication, which did not occur here.
Note:	[Superceded] Section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel qualified medical evaluator, with the only exception being for communications by the employee or deceased employee's dependent in connection with an examination, and in the event of unauthorized ex parte communication permits the aggrieved party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel qualified medical evaluator.
Citation:	B218847
WCC Citation:	WCC 36212010 CA

Case Name:	Alvarez v. WCAB (SCIF)		08/12/2010
Summary:	Carlos Alvarez (Alvarez or petitioner), her widower and guardian at litem of their two minor children, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits, alleging that Parades's death was caused by her work. Alvarez noted that the new qualified medical evaluator regulations also prohibit all ex parte communications and that a single violation may result in a penalty. The WCAB said that even if the determination of the issue was not a final order, it would have denied the petition for removal of the matter to the WCAB. The WCAB also concluded that section . 3 is concerned with a party initiating an ex parte communication, which did not occur here. Alvarez, in seeking judicial review of the order denying reconsideration and dismissing the petition for removal to the WCAB, requests that order be annulled.
Note:	Section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel QME, with no exception based on the initiator of the communication or for 'administrative' matters. Nevertheless, because a certain degree of informality in workers' compensation procedures has been recognized, not every conceivable ex parte communication permits a party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel QME.
Citation:	B218847
WCC Citation:	WCC 36562010 CA

Case Name:	Alvis v. McIntyre		07/30/2008
Summary:	The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the employers (Pat Thomaselli, Thomaselli Construction, Robert McIntyre and McIntyre Enterprises), and Alvis timely appealed from the ensuing judgment. Robert McIntyre, doing business as McIntyre Enterprises (collectively, McIntyre) answered in part by denying he was Alvis's employer; he also alleged he had compensation insurance and Alvis had filed a compensation claim, therefore this suit was barred by the workers compensation remedy. For example, Alvis claimed McIntyre did not post proper workplace notices, and did not timely give Alvis a claim form. Alvis filed a "supplement," describing a form McIntyre filed with SCIF in which he said Alvis was not his employee but was working "per subcontract" for Thomaselli; Alvis asserted that Thomaselli had variously claimed to be Alvis's employer, that McIntyre was Alvis's employer and that Thomaselli was Alvis's "special employer," and argued that this raised a triable issue as to who was his employer. Alvis describes the following purported violations by McIntyre: (1) McIntyre did not post the appropriate compensation notices at the jobsite; (2) McIntyre did not promptly give Alvis a claim form after learning of the injury; (3) McIntyre failed to return a completed form to Alvis; (4) McIntyre failed to ensure prompt payment to Alvis of his benefits; (5) McIntyre failed to tell Alvis his rights under the compensation system; and (6) McIntyre failed to provide a safe jobsite.
Note:	[Unpublished] In an effort to avoid the exclusivity provisions of the workers compensation scheme, there is no theory in which plaintiff can prevail against defendants listed as employers on plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff could have, but did not, move to amend his complaint; his failure to do so means he is stuck with the complaint as pleaded.
Citation:	C055102
WCC Citation:	WCC 34042008 CA

Case Name:	Amalgamated Transit Union vs. LA Co MTA		03/28/2003
Summary:	AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 1277, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent. Appellant Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1277 (the Union) appeals from the trial court's denial of a petition to compel the employer, respondent Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (the MTA), to arbitrate pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement. The grievance alleged that she wanted to go back to work but that the MTA acted in bad faith. Approximately six months later, on June 1, 2000, after a second-step hearing on Sutherland's grievance, the MTA again denied the grievance. On June 7, 2000, the Union requested that the MTA arbitrate the grievance.
Note:	132a claim may be part of union requested employee arbitration.
Citation:	107 Cal.App.4th 673
WCC Citation:	WCC 29242003 CA

Case Name:	Amborn v. WCAB		09/08/1971
Summary:	HOWARD AMBORN, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Respondents (Opinion by Rattigan, Acting P. J. , with Christian, J. , and Elkington, J. , concurring. )OPINION RATTIGAN, Acting P. J. Howard Amborn, the applicant in a workmen's compensation proceeding, petitioned this court for review of the final award made therein. The Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (hereinafter the 'appeals board') adopted the referee's 'Findings and Award,' in all respects, after proceedings upon reconsideration thereof. 3 Section 4800 makes no distinction between temporary and permanent disability, or between temporary and permanent 'disability payments. '3, ante), limits a disabled highway patrolman's salaried leave of absence to the period of his temporary disability.
Note:	Patrolman entitled to leave of absence without loss of pay for 1 yr. as well as PD benefits.
Citation:	19 Cal.App.3d 953, 36 CCC 544
WCC Citation:	WCC 26761971 CA

Case Name:	Amer. Intern. Adj. Co., Inc. v. Crawford		01/09/1997
Summary:	On December 3, 1993, the superior court (Judge Stock) issued a TRO freezing Professional's assets and setting a contested hearing. The next day the court dissolved the TRO and declined to issue a writ of attachment or preliminary injunction. The court's statements at the December 14 hearing indicated the court's displeasure with 'a plaintiff contesting this matter in two forums. On February 25, 1994, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the ground the WACB had exclusive jurisdiction. The court conceded American had argued 'with some degree of persuasion' that 'there's dual jurisdiction over these kinds of matters . . .
Note:	WCAB has jurisdiction over bad faith or fraud claims against carriers or medical/legal lien claimants.
Citation:	51 Cal. App. 4th 1489, 62 CCC 22
WCC Citation:	WCC 24851997 CA

Case Name:	Amer. Psych. Consultants, Inc. v. WCAB		07/21/1995
Summary:	Defendant Republic did not contest the bill as unreasonable or unnecessary within the 60-day period permitted in Labor Code section 4622. 4 The WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, on the ground that APC's petition for reconsideration had not been verified. Applicant underwent surgery on November 20, 1990, and was released by Dr. Najafi to return to work in January 1991. Applicant obtained counsel and signed a claim form on December 5, 1990, which was received by defendant employer on December 12, 1990. Defendants responded the services rendered by Apex were not medical-legal expenses subject to the statutory provisions cited by Apex.
Note:	When both parties equally mistaken where money was paid, restitution not available.
Citation:	36 Cal.App.4th 1626, 60 CCC 559
WCC Citation:	WCC 24401995 CA

Case Name:	Ameri-Medical Corp. v. WCAB		02/27/1996
Summary:	On May 7, 1990, Lizzi filed an employee's claim alleging an industrial injury to her psyche due to stress. Subsequently, Lizzi sought a psychological examination and evaluation for medical-legal purposes at the Eleventh Street Clinic, owned by Ameri-Med. Franco and Kreman were independent contractors and if Ameri-Med charged respondents an amount in excess of the physicians' direct charges. In Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, WCAB No. LBO 218124, the February 18, 1994, order of the Board is annulled. Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, WCAB No. LBO 218124.
Note:	Defendants objecting to bill have interest in impermissable charges but not unfettered access to doctor's business records; Disclosure of identity of medical reports preparers is essential.
Citation:	42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 61 CCC 149
WCC Citation:	WCC 24421996 CA

Case Name:	American Cargo Express v. Superior Court of Sacramento County		10/13/2017
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) .             AMERICAN CARGO EXPRESS, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, .             v. .             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; .             CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS’ SECURITY FUND, Real Party in Interest. .             C081125 .             (Super. .           Filed 10/13/17 .           CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION .           IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT .           (Sacramento) .           AMERICAN CARGO EXPRESS, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, .           v. .           THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; .           CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS’ SECURITY FUND, Real Party in Interest. Ct. No. 34201100113628) .           ORDER MODIFYING OPINION, DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING, AND GRANTING REQUEST TO PUBLISH .           [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] .           ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate and/or prohibition. .           FOR THE COURT: .           /S/ BLEASE, Acting P. J.
Note:	The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that the California Self-Insurers’ Security Fund can proceed with its claim for reimbursement from the former clients of a defunct staffing company.
Citation:	C081125
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 34201100113628

Case Name:	American Casualty v. Miller		01/29/2008
Summary:	The CGL Policy Plaintiff and respondent American Casualty Company of Redding, PA. (American Casualty), provided Miller, doing business as Stripper Herk, with a CGL policy, which was effective from April 26, 2002 to April 26, 2003. In May 2004, Miller tendered the Valenzuela action and re-tendered the Zurich action to American Casualty. On May 28, 2004, American Casualty refused to defend or indemnify Miller with respect to the lawsuits. In January and February 2005, Miller again requested that American Casualty defend and indemnify him for damages resulting from Valenzuela's injuries. American Casualty Files For Declaratory Relief On June 7, 2005, American Casualty filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Miller, doing business as Stripper Herk, and Valenzuela (defendants).
Note:	The injured worker's injuries arose from an event commonly thought of as environmental pollution. An ordinary insured would reasonably expect that the release of methylene chloride into a public sewer is environmental pollution.
Citation:	B192216
WCC Citation:	WCC 33092008 CA