Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. ADJ9518031

Regular

Oct 16, 2014

MARIA LUISA GARCIA vs. GABRIEL STEFFENS AND KATHERINE E. BELL, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Removal to address the dismissal of their Petition to Quash a subpoena duces tecum (SDT). The defendant argued the SDT was improperly served only on the defendant, not their counsel, despite notice of representation being filed. The Board agreed that failure to serve counsel renders an SDT void ab initio. Consequently, the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's dismissal order and returned the matter to the trial level for a merits determination of the Petition to Quash.

Petition for RemovalPetition to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumService of ProcessVoid ab initioMootnessIndustrial InjuryRight Upper ExtremityPsycheBaby Sitter

References

Case No. ADJ607600 (SFO 0411600)

Regular

May 27, 2011

DELMAR GREEN vs. STATE ROOFING SYSTEMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, HIH AMERICA COMPENSATION & LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) sought to compel the production of documents from Recovery Resources, Inc. to determine if a lien assigned by St. Francis Memorial Hospital to Recovery was a covered claim under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9)(B). The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) previously quashed a subpoena duces tecum (SDT) seeking these documents, citing privilege and overbreadth. The Appeals Board granted CIGA's Petition for Removal, rescinded the order quashing the subpoena, and returned the matter to the trial level. The Board ruled that CIGA has the right to discover evidence of the contractual relationship to prove a legal assignment, but must avoid privileged material and burdensome requests.

CIGAPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumQuashedAssignmentChose in actionInsurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9)(B)Privileged materialAttorney work productAttorney-client communication

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 15, 2002

Kye Yong Kim v. 40th Associates

This Labor Law action involved an initial jury award of damages to plaintiffs, apportioning fault among a premises owner (40th Associates), managing agent (Jack Resnick & Sons Inc.), tenant (SDT Enterprises Corp.), and general contractor (More Design Interior, Inc.). The Supreme Court modified this judgment. The court vacated the 10% fault apportionment against the owner and managing agent, finding no sufficient evidentiary basis for nonstatutory negligence, and reassigned this fault to the tenant and general contractor. The owner and managing agent were also awarded contractual indemnification from the tenant and common-law indemnification from the general contractor. Furthermore, the court affirmed the refusal to include the plaintiff's nonparty employer on the verdict sheet, citing that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which precluded third-party claims. The jury's damage award was upheld as reasonable.

Labor LawFault ApportionmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationPremises LiabilityGeneral ContractorManaging AgentTenant LiabilityDamages AwardAppellate Review

References

Showing 1-3 of 3 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

MARIA LUISA GARCIA vs. GABRIEL STEFFENS AND KATHERINE E. BELL, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

Petition for RemovalPetition to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumService of ProcessVoid ab initioMootnessIndustrial InjuryRight Upper ExtremityPsycheBaby Sitter

DELMAR GREEN vs. STATE ROOFING SYSTEMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, HIH AMERICA COMPENSATION & LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

CIGAPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumQuashedAssignmentChose in actionInsurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9)(B)Privileged materialAttorney work productAttorney-client communication

Kye Yong Kim v. 40th Associates

Labor LawFault ApportionmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationPremises LiabilityGeneral ContractorManaging AgentTenant LiabilityDamages AwardAppellate Review