Print

Legal Brief Bank

  1. Legal Brief Bank

Text

Kuciemba v Victory Woodworks

Last Activity: 5/11/2022

Following a dismissal of the Complaint by the Federal District Court, plaintiffs have appealed to the Ninth Circuit in a case involving a claim for personal injury against an employer by an employee's spouse, who allegedly contracted COVID-19 from her employee-husband who in turn alleges that he was infected at work. The Ninth Circuit held Oral Argument on March 10, 2022. As of 4/21/22, however, the federal court ordered the case out of submission and certified two COVID-specific questions to the California Supreme Court regarding (1) whether the derivative injury rule applies to bar the claim, and (2) whether an employer owes a duty of ordinary care to the employee's household members

Manuel v Superior Court / BrightView Landscape

Last Activity: 5/09/2022

The employee has filed an appeal after the trial court found that the Federal Immigration Reform Act directly contradicts and preempts California statutes (SB 1818) and ordered him to respond to interrogatories regarding his immigration status in his wrongful termination claim. The Court of Appeal issued an Order to Show Cause to the Superior Court and set oral argument for 7/14/22. [H048665]

Earley et al v WCAB

Last Activity: 5/04/2022

Plaintiffs, all injured workers with pending Petitions for Reconsideration at the WCAB, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate asking the 2d District Court of Appeal to force the WCAB to invalidate its practice of issuing "grant and study" orders as without statutory authority. On 5/4/2022, the COA issued an Order to Show Cause

See's Candies v. Superior Court (Ek)

Last Activity: 4/13/2022

The Court of Appeal determined that the exclusive remedy rule does not protect an employer from a COVID-related civil lawsuit brought on behalf of an employee's spouse. The employee alleged that she was infected with the virus at work, and passed it along to her family. Her husband died from the disease, and the employee filed a claim for damages in Superior Court. The employer contended that the claim represented a derivative injury and was thus barred under exclusive remedy. But the Court of Appeal held that the fact an employee's injury is the biological cause of a nonemployee's injury does not thereby make the nonemployee's claim derivative of the employee's injury. CWCI joined the US Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae on behalf of the employer. The California Supreme Court denied the employer's petition for review on 4/13/22. [B312241] [S272923]

Castellanos v State of California

Last Activity: 2/24/2022

In 2020, voters passed Prop 22 giving app-based delivery companies an exemption from AB5/Dynamex and effectively confirming their drivers as independent contractors. A group of drivers successfully obtained a ruling from the Alameda Co. Superior Court declaring Prop 22 to be unconstitutional. That ruling is now before the 1st District Court of Appeal, and the sponsors of the original ballot measure have intervened. [A163655]

Musta v Mendota Heights Dental Center

Last Activity: 2/22/2022

The US Supreme Court is considering a request by the injured worker to grant review of a Minnesota Supreme Court decision holding that the federal Controlled Substances Act preempted a state law requiring an employer to reimburse an injured employee for the cost of medical marijuana used to treat a work-related injury. [USSC Docket 21-676] [see listing for companion case in Bierbach]

Bierbach v Digger's Polaris

Last Activity: 2/21/2022

The US Supreme Court is considering a request by the injured worker to grant review of a Minnesota Supreme Court decision holding that the federal Controlled Substances Act preempted a state law requiring an employer to reimburse an injured employee for the cost of medical marijuana used to treat a work-related injury. [USSC Docket 21-998] [see listing for companion case in Musta]

CCPOA v. WCAB (Martin)

Last Activity: 1/28/2022

At the request of the WCAB, the Court of Appeal has published its decision finding, in part, that a DIR Newsline regarding pandemic appearances was adequate notice that a previously scheduled hearing would take place telephonically, and that lien claimant's due process rights were not violated when a hearing originally noticed as in-person was automatically converted to a telephonic hearing pursuant to DIR Newsline 2020-37. [C093293]

Mierczynski v. City of Fullerton

Last Activity: 12/15/2021

In a case involving an incapacitated dependent of a deceased firefighter, the WCAB refused to order death benefits to increase over time under section 4661.5 and further held that the issue of incapacity was subject to the Board's continuing jurisdiction. Applicant appealed, contending that under section 4458.5 the initial death benefit should have been at the max TTD rate in effect at the time of payment, and that the rate is thereafter subject to further annual increases. Finally, AA argued that the WCAB has no authority to reserve jurisdiction over incapacity based on speculation. Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court denied the appeal. [G060410] [S271296]

City and Co of San Francisco v WCAB (Pacatte)

Last Activity: 10/29/2021

The First District denied a defense petition seeking to set aside a finding of compensability under the Special Mission exception to the going-and-coming rule. A firefighter driving his personal vehicle to his regular work station as part of his daily commute was killed in a head-on collision. While it was possible for him to be called to duty at another location, the employee had not been reassigned since joining his current station house and was not expected to be reassigned on DOI. The defense position on appeal was that the employee is required to demonstrate that, on the actual DOI, a benefit to the employer existed and that the employee needed his car for work. While the Court granted amicus status to CWCI, it denied the petition on 10/29/21.

Banerjee v Superior Court

Last Activity: 10/05/2021

In the first published decision interpreting the prohibition against self-referrals under LC section 139.32 and the "physician's office" exception contained in LC section 139.31(e), the Court of Appeal held that a physician may render services to patients through separate legal entities in which they have financial interest without violating the prohibition on self-referrals, as long as services are rendered within the same physician's office or group practice office. [E076291]

Great Divide Ins Co v WCAB (Banegas)

Last Activity: 9/16/2021

Citing jurisdiction as asserted by the WCAB, the Court of Appeal has dismissed a case that raised issues of the parameters of the Commercial Traveler Rule.. The WCAB had notified the Court that it had not received the defense Petition for Reconsideration of its earlier ruling, although it was correctly filed. In the underlying matter, an Oakland-based employee was sent to a special project in Santa Monica, where the employer provided hotel and a food allowance. On a weekend, the employee traveled back to Oakland for personal reasons. While returning to Santa Monica, the employee was killed in a car accident. The WCJ originally found that the claim was barred, but the WCAB reversed under the Commercial Traveler exception. [F083019]

Applied Materials v. WCAB

Last Activity: 6/01/2021

In the latest confirmation that there is no "alternate path" to a finding of total disability under Fitzpatrick, the Court of Appeal overturned a WCAB finding of 100% disability for an injured worker who claimed psychiatric injury (PTSD) after she became involved in a sexual relationship with the PTP for her underlying orthopedic industrial injury. The Award was based on a psych QME finding that applicant was totally disabled because she was unable to work due solely to PTSD, and under Hikida, the entire disability was the result of industrial medical treatment. Because the QME used an incorrect legal standard, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings. CWCI acted as amicus and obtained publication of this decision. [H047148] [H047154]

Vasquez v. Jan-Pro

Last Activity: 1/14/2021

The California Supreme Court has confirmed that its prior decision in Dynamex should apply retroactively to all non-final cases governed by similarly worded wage orders. Because Dynamex did not overrule any prior California Supreme Court decision or disapprove any prior California Court of Appeal decision, the well-established general principle affirming the retroactive application of judicial decisions interpreting legislative measures supports the retroactive application in this case. [S258191]

Gund v. Co. of Trinity

Last Activity: 8/28/2020

The California Supreme Court has upheld an appellate court ruling that the workers compensation system provides the only available remedy to two private citizens who were injured in a knife attack while checking on the well-being of a neighbor at the request of a deputy sheriff. The trial court and the Court of Appeal ruled that the couple was knowingly assisting in active law enforcement service and that LC Section 3366 prohibits the couple from pursuing a civil action against the County. By a vote of 5-2, the Supreme Court has agreed. [C076828] [S249792]

County of Santa Clara v. WCAB (Justice)

Last Activity: 8/26/2020

In a case where the Institute filed a joint amicus curiae brief with CalChamber, the 6th District Court of Appeal has held that apportionment is mandated even where industrial medical treatment has caused residual permanent disability. In limiting Hikida to new conditions where the medical treatment is the sole cause of the disability, the decision has effectively confirmed apportionment under LC sections 4663 and 4664 in all instances where both industrial and nonindustrial factors have combined to cause permanent disability. On 8/26/2020, the Supreme Court denied applicant's appeal. [S263128] [H046562]

Hom v. City and Co. of San Francisco

Last Activity: 8/06/2020

In an apportionment case with a complicated procedural history involving multiple injuries using both DRE and ROM methodologies, the Court of Appeal has ultimately upheld the WCAB's second decision in favor of the defense. The WCAB had originally found in favor of applicant, but confessed error upon receipt of the defense appellate pleadings and asked the Court of Appeal to remand the case for further consideration. The WCAB then reversed its original decision and held that Under AMA Guides 2.5(h), impairments to the same body part utilizing the same edition of the Guides may overlap, and conversion is only necessary if different editions of the Guides were utilized.

Todd v. SIBTF

Last Activity: 6/23/2020

The en banc Appeals Board held that (1) prior and subsequent permanent disabilities shall be added to the extent they do not overlap in order to determine the combined permanent disability specified in section 4751; and (2) that SIBTF is liable, under section 4751, for the total amount of the combined permanent disability less the amount due to applicant from the subsequent injury and less credits allowable under section 4753.

Dennis v. Dept. of Corrections

Last Activity: 4/13/2020

In a series of en banc decisions, the WCAB exercised its power to invalidate a regulation against 8 CCR 10133.54 on the basis that it improperly vested adjudicatory review of SJDB voucher disputes and constituted an invalid assertion of jurisdiction that exceeded the statutory authority. The WCAB further held that in order to avoid the obligation to provide a SJDB voucher, an employer must offer regular, modified, or alternative work -- regardless of the employer's ability to make such an offer, and regardless of an employee's ability to accept. In order for an offer of employment to be bona fide, it must be genuine and made in good faith at the time conveyed.

Colamonico v. Secure Transportation

Last Activity: 11/14/2019

The en banc Appeals Board held that a lien claimant has the initial burden to prove all elements necessary to establish entitlement to payment for a medical-legal service, and only after having done so may the lien claimant proceed to address the reasonable value of those services pursuant to the framework under section 4622. Defendant's failure to issue an Explanation of Review in response to a med-legal billing does not constitute a waiver of objections under Labor Code sections 4620 and 4621.

Page  of  7  with up to entries per page, 121 entries total       Last