Case law

Zemansky v. Board of Police Commissioners

61 Cal. App. 2d 450 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1943

(Co-operative Junk Co. of Cal. v. Board of Police Commissioners, 38 Cal.App. 676, 679 [ 177 P. 308 ]; State ex rel. Wagner v. Fields, 218 Mo.App. 155 [ 263 S.W. 853, 858 ]; Downes v. … Anderson v. City of Chicago, 312 Ill.App. 187 [ 37 N.E.2d 929 ].)

Messina v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

105 Cal. App. 3d 964 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1980

Code, § 4703. 2 ) *967 Respondent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, in a closely divided en banc opinion (Messina v. … The courts have also frequently cited board opinions as authority. (See e.g., Wilkinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 491 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 696 , 564 P.2d 848 ]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v.

Duthie v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

86 Cal. App. 3d 721 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1978

(Hart v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 82 Cal.App.3d at p. 628 .) In both Franklin and Hart , the medical experts on whom the board relied confused the concepts of cause and disability. … An expert’s opinion, however, which does not rest upon relevant facts or which assumes an incorrect legal theory cannot constitute substantial evidence upon which the board may base an apportionment finding. (Zemke v.

Pacheco v. Board of Retirement

188 Cal. App. 3d 631 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1986

In so ruling, the trial court anticipated the Supreme Court’s rulings in Bowen v. Board of Retirement (1986) 42 Cal.3d 572 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 814 , 724 P.2d 500 ]; and Hoffman v. … His report was discounted by both the Board and the trial court.

Meyer v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

157 Cal. App. 3d 1036 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1984

A purported finding by the Board or its referee on a question of law is not binding on the appellate court. (Perez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 152 Cal.App.3d 60 .) … (Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 149 Cal.App.3d at p. 575 .) Since an assessment of these factors is a question of law, this court is not bound by the Board’s findings. {Dimmig v.

Warriner v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

32 Cal. App. 3d 353 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1973

Brown. … (Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, 68 Cal.2d 67 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 435 P.2d 553 ]; Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners, 32 Cal.2d 301 [ 196 P.2d 20 ]; Lacy v. California Unemployment Ins.

Amico v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

43 Cal. App. 3d 592 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1974

(Lundberg v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 69 Cal.2d 436 , 439 . . .) This rule is binding upon the board and this court. (Id. at p. 439.)’ (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 , 317 . . .) … ‘As a general rule, the board “must accept as true the intended meaning of [evidence] both uncontradicted and unimpeached.” (LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., supra, 1 Cal.3d 627, 639 ; Mc-Allister v.

Lanterman v. Board of Medical Examiners

4 Cal. App. 2d 319 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1935

Lanterman to practice medicine in this state was revoked, was rendered in excess of the jurisdiction of said board, and consequently was void. … The effect of the evidence adduced at the hearing before said board is determinative of the question herein presented.

Glass v. Board of Medical Examiners

50 Cal. App. 389 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1920

In State Board of Medical Examiners v. Macy, 92 Wash. 614 , [ 159 Pac. 801 ], this provision was attacked upon the same grounds urged by appellant here. … After an extensive review of decisions from various states, including Hewitt v.

Coon v. Board of Public Works

7 Cal. App. 760 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1908

Louis v. Russell, 116 Mo. 248 , [ 22 S. W. 470 ]. See, also, Ruffin, C. J., in Dargan v. Waddill, 9 Ired. (N. C.) 244, [ 49 Am. Dec. 421 ] ; Kirkman v. Handy, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 406, [ 54 Am. Dec. 45 ].) … The court in the same opinion quotes from the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 373 , [6 Sup. Ct.

Rowland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

66 Cal. App. 3d 448 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1977

If the board allows a lien against an award of compensation benefits in satisfaction of a debt not specified in section 4903, it acts in excess of its authority and without jurisdiction. (Ogdon v. Workmen’s Comp. … Co. v. Ind. Acc.

Zozaya v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

27 Cal. App. 3d 464 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1972

A new decision may therefore be issued by the Board in compliance with section 5908.5. (See Evans v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., supra; Solomon v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 24 Cal.App.3d 282, 287-288 .) … (See Thaxter v.

Hernandez v. State Personnel Board

California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2021

Hernandez appealed to the State Personnel Board (Board). … (Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 217.)

Cunningham v. Burbank Board of Realtors

262 Cal. App. 2d 211 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1968

(Cason v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn., supra; Bernstein v. Alameda etc. Medical Assn., supra; Smith v. Kern County Medical Assn., supra; Swital v. Real Estate Comr., supra.) … (See Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of Medicine, 20 Cal.2d 713, 719 [ 128 P.2d 522 , 141 A.L.R. 1358 ]; Kraft v. Smith, 24 Cal.2d 124, 132 [ 148 P.2d 23 ]; Veterans’ Welfare Board v.

State Board of Equalization v. Woo

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 206 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 2000

Ho, appellant’s husband, to respondent State Board of Equalization. … This court affirmed that judgment in an unpublished opinion filed on December 2, 1997, in Ho v. State Bd. of Equalization, A077815.

Martino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 812 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 2002

(Martinez v. Workers’ Comp. … We said, “The Board clearly erred ....

Chittem v. Board of Directors

77 Cal. App. 252 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1926

In brief, the situation here with respect to the record on appeal from the order is precisely the same as that with respect to the record on appeal from the order in McOmie v. … Board of Directors of Veterans’ Home, ante, p. 248 [ 246 Pac. 155 ], and upon the authority of that case and the cases therein cited, the appeal from the order must be dismissed.

Gunn v. State Board of Equalization

123 Cal. App. 2d 283 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1954

However, in 1934 in Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford University v. … They, cite three decisions (Wright v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co., Fed.Cas. No. 18087 [ 8 Blatchf. 14 ]; Steck v. Prentice, 43 Colo. 17 [ 95 P. 552 ]; and Flowers v.

Jensen v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

170 Cal. App. 3d 244 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 1985

Petitioner Otto Jensen seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) opinion and order denying reconsideration. … Unlike Ulrich v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

King v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

231 Cal. App. 3d 1640 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 1991

Although the Board may base a finding as to the percentage of permanent disability on the range of the medical evidence *1648 (U.S. Auto Stores v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … When the Board grants reconsideration, it has the power to direct the taking of additional evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5701, 5906; Lundberg v. Workmen’s Comp. App.