Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Zinchik v. Moore | 10/26/2011 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | PAUL ZINCHIK et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JAMES W. MOORE, Defendant and Appellant. Zinchik did not feel that defendant "had a handle on the project," in terms of costs and billings. She called Zinchik and sent e-mails to him regularly that informed him of the progress and costs of the work. Zinchik testified that all of the bidding, orders for materials, and negotiating with subcontractors "always went through" Perez-Stable. The trial court based this date on the response by defendant to billing inquiries made by Paul Zinchik and the subsequent directives by defendant to Zinchik regarding the role of Perez-Stable. | ||
| Note: | A contractor must reimburse a customer $1.47 million he received for construction work on a residential home because he had misclassified an administrative worker, the 1st District Court of Appeal concluded. | ||
| Citation: | A129548 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 38162011 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Zipton v. WCAB | 03/14/1990 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | CONNIE ZIPTON et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF SAN LEANDRO et al. , Respondents. Factual and Procedural Background Michael Zipton was employed as a firefighter for respondent from October 1, 1970, until April 12, 1987. The specific number of carcinogens to which Zipton actually was exposed cannot be ascertained from this record. [218 Cal. App. 3d 984] On May 19, 1987, Zipton filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging that his cancer was occupationally related. Dr. Bendix examined Zipton prior to his death, and initially reported on November 16, 1987. | ||
| Note: | Carcinogen presumption not activated without establishment of causal relation. | ||
| Citation: | 218 Cal.App.3d 980 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 4131990 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Zozaya v. WCAB | 08/28/1972 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | DAVID L. ZOZAYA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Respondents (Opinion by Molinari, P. J. , with Sims and Elkington, JJ. , concurring. )Upon the basis of this petition the Board granted reconsideration and vacated its opinion and decision after reconsideration. The Board thereupon requested that another permanent rating be made by the rating expert based upon Dr. [27 Cal. App. 3d 467] Sirbu's analysis. The referee assigned to preside over the cross-examination submitted his summary of the evidence to the Board. In appraising this issue we first observe that the findings of the referee were filed on November 20, 1970. | ||
| Note: | Reconsideration should've been granted where conflict between doctor's and referee's description of disability. | ||
| Citation: | 27 Cal.App.3d 464 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 26611972 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Zullo v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County | 06/21/2011 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | ZULLO v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHARON ELIZABETH ZULLO, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; INLAND VALLEY PUBLISHING CO. , Real Party in Interest. The superior court granted Inland's petition to compel arbitration and stayed the civil proceedings. The superior court rejected the evidentiary challenge and found the agreement was not unconscionable. Petitioner argues that under the facts of this case, the superior court was bound to deny Inland's petition to compel. She further maintains that the superior court erred in overruling her objection that the acknowledgement of receipt was not properly authenticated. | ||
| Note: | An employer could not force a Fair Employment and Housing Act suit into arbitration, because its arbitration policy was both procedurally and substantively unfair, the 6th District Court of Appeal ruled in an unpublished opinion. | ||
| Citation: | H036242 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 37752011 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Zuniga v. WCAB (Interactive Trucking) | 01/23/2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Â Filed 1/12/18 Zuniga v. WCAB CA1/2 (unmodified opinion) Â . Â Petitioner Saul Zuniga availed himself of the IMR process and then petitioned the Workersâ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) to disclose the names of the reviewers. Zuniga points to no authority to suggest that a statute is rendered meaningless simply because his preferred method of enforcing it is unavailable. Under section 4610. 6, subdivision (h), IMR determinations are subject to review, and Zuniga sought, and received, review of the IMR determination in his case. Â In claiming that IMR reports are testimonial in character, Zuniga relies on Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. | ||
| Note: | California’s 1st District Court of Appeal on Friday ruled that injured workers do not have a due process right to know the identifies of the medical professionals performing their independent medical reviews. | ||
| Citation: | A143290 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCAB No. ADJ2563341) | ||
| Case Name: | Zurich Ins. Co. v. WCAB | 08/02/1973 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ORLANDO M. CAIRO, Respondents In Bank. He was provided compensation benefits through May 1, 1966, and resumed work at the warehouse on approximately that date. By letter dated December 14, 1970, counsel for petitioner filed written objection in response to the notice of intention. Did the board have the power to amend its awards more than five years after the injuries occurred?The jurisdiction of the appeals board in such cases shall be a [9 Cal. 3d 852] continuing jurisdiction at all times within such period. ' | ||
| Note: | Referee's notice of increased award brought case within 5 yr. statute of limitations. | ||
| Citation: | 9 Cal.3d 848 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 26601973 CA | ||
