Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. LAO 862841

Regular

Feb 28, 2008

BAHATI H. SALAS vs. LIVHOME, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and quashed the applicant's notice for a second deposition of Dr. Peterson. The Board found no good cause for a second deposition, as the applicant's representative was present at the first and failed to question Dr. Peterson on relevant matters despite having all necessary documentation. Allowing repeated depositions without changed circumstances would be neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contradicting the Board's mandate.

RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Due ProcessGood CauseCredibilitySubsequent DepositionLabor Code 4062.3Substantial Justice

References

Case No. ADJ4571463 (AHM 0150883)

Regular

Jan 02, 2013

DANIEL LE COMPTE vs. VOLCOM, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an administrative law judge's dismissal of applicant Daniel Le Compte's case for lack of prosecution. The WCAB found no good reason to force the applicant to refile when he expressed a desire to proceed with his claim, especially given the system's policy favoring expedited and inexpensive dispute resolution. The Board emphasized the overriding policy to decide claims on their merits. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABReconsiderationDismissalLack of ProsecutionRule 10582ExpeditiousInexpensiveRescindedMeritsRelated Case

References

Case No. ANA 0400591

Regular

May 05, 2008

ALEXANDER SPITZ vs. PEPSI BOTTLING COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded a prior order from the administrative law judge, and quashed the applicant's subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested documents and that the protracted proceedings surrounding the subpoena were neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contrary to public policy. The applicant may issue a new, narrowly drawn subpoena if future disputes necessitate document production.

RemovalPetition for RemovalQuash Subpoena Duces TecumCode of Civil Procedure Section 1985(b)Good CauseMaterialityPublic PolicySubstantial JusticeExpeditiouslyInexpensively

References

Case No. OAK 328137

Regular

Aug 20, 2007

AARON DE MATTEO vs. JOINERY STRUCTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the liability of Joinery Structures and State Compensation Insurance Fund for the applicant's vocational expert costs. The Board affirmed that vocational expert fees are recoverable expenses under Labor Code Section 5811, as such testimony is relevant to determining permanent disability and aligns with the mandate for expeditious and inexpensive resolution. The denial also addressed the defendants' arguments regarding the timing of the expert's report and its compliance with specific Labor Code sections, finding them unpersuasive.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationApplicantDefendantJOINERY STRUCTURESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDWCJvocational expertloss of future earning capacity1997 Guidelines

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 21, 2000

Tushaj v. Elm Management Associates, Inc.

Pjeter Tushaj, a building superintendent, and his wife Linda Tushaj, sued Elm Management Associates, Inc., the managing agent, after Pjeter was injured from a fall due to a defective scaffold. The jury found Elm 40% responsible, but the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to Elm, arguing its limited authority for repairs (under $500) precluded liability for nonfeasance. This appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and reinstated the jury's verdict. Citing the precedent of Palka v Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., the court held that Elm's contractual obligation to inspect and maintain the building, coupled with its authority to fix the inexpensive defect and actual notice of the danger, extended its duty to the non-contracting plaintiffs. The case was remanded for a determination of damages.

Managing Agent LiabilityContractual ObligationsForeseeability of InjuryNegligenceDuty of CarePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExceptionSpecial Employee DoctrineJury Verdict ReinstatementAppellate Review

References

Showing 1-5 of 5 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

BAHATI H. SALAS vs. LIVHOME, INC.

RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Due ProcessGood CauseCredibilitySubsequent DepositionLabor Code 4062.3Substantial Justice

DANIEL LE COMPTE vs. VOLCOM, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

WCABReconsiderationDismissalLack of ProsecutionRule 10582ExpeditiousInexpensiveRescindedMeritsRelated Case

ALEXANDER SPITZ vs. PEPSI BOTTLING COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

RemovalPetition for RemovalQuash Subpoena Duces TecumCode of Civil Procedure Section 1985(b)Good CauseMaterialityPublic PolicySubstantial JusticeExpeditiouslyInexpensively

AARON DE MATTEO vs. JOINERY STRUCTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationApplicantDefendantJOINERY STRUCTURESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDWCJvocational expertloss of future earning capacity1997 Guidelines

Tushaj v. Elm Management Associates, Inc.