Case law

Hartway v. State Board of Control

69 Cal. App. 3d 502 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 1976

(Crumpler v. Board of Administration (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 567, 581 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 293 ].) It is not contested that the Oakland Police Department failed to advise appellants of the victims of crime legislation. … (Lucas v. Board of Trustees (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 988, 993 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 431 ], hg. den.) An estoppel binds not only the immediate parties to the transaction but those in privity with them. (Lerner v.

Gamble v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 36 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2006

(Kopitske v. Workers’ Comp. … Standard of Review We are bound by the Board’s factual findings and decision if supported by substantial evidence. (Western Growers Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp.

Todd v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

198 Cal. App. 3d 757 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1988

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board agreed with the judge and denied reconsideration. We granted the applicant’s petition for a writ of review. … (Meyer v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1036, 1044 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 74 ].) The Board’s order denying reconsideration is affirmed. Kline, P. J., and Benson, J., concurred.

Maillet v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

23 Cal. App. 3d 107 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1972

The basis for respondent board’s last-quoted statement is found in Brown v. … (Witt v. Jackson, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 73 .) 4 A copy of such petition is at hand, portions of which are repeated verbatim in the board’s answer in the present case to the petition for the writ.

Toccalino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

128 Cal. App. 3d 543 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1982

In Anderson v. Workers’ Comp. … The board upheld this finding of the hearing judge. In Smith v. Workers’ Comp.

Herr v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

98 Cal. App. 3d 321 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 1979

Construction & Engineering Co. v. … The right to credit in the appeals board proceedings and the right to a lien in the third party action are separate and distinct. (Sanstad v. Industrial Acc.

Cadiz v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

92 Cal. App. 3d 365 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1979

Opinion BROWN (G. A.), P. J. In this proceeding Jose L. Cadiz, a farm worker, and his employer, M. Caratan, Inc. … It is true that the decision of the board is not a final order and is not directly reviewable under section 1160.8. (United Farm Workers v. Superior Court (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 268 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 87 ]; Radovich v.

Smith v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

152 Cal. App. 3d 1104 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1984

Smith for relief under Labor Code sec *1106 tion 132a. 1 The Board’s decision rests upon an erroneous interpretation of section 132a, and it must be annulled. I In Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. … The same conclusion would find support in County of Santa Barbara v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 211 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 65 ].

Johnson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

163 Cal. App. 3d 770 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1985

(Muznik v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 622, 635 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 407 ]; accord Hamilton v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 587, 592-593 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 721 ]; Hart v. Workers’ Comp. … But here the board’s only error was that it did not make a finding on the factual issue presented. Moreover, here the evidence is so clear that no factual issue is raised. The question is one of law. (Cf. Dimmig v.

McClune v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

62 Cal. App. 4th 1117 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1998

Recently, the court in Tyler v. Workers’ Comp. … (Zozaya v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 464, 468 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 793 ].)

Martin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

59 Cal. App. 4th 333 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1997

Attorney-client Privilege When this court ordered the WCAB to determine whether the witness statements requested by Martin were privileged, we referred the board to D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. … Co. v.

Bramall v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

78 Cal. App. 3d 151 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1978

Petitioner seeks review and annulment of the board’s decision. … The board opined that the facts of this case paralleled those in Wilson v. Workers’ Comp.

Steinsmith v. Medical Board of California

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 115 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 2000

. (§ 2337; see Leone v. Medical Board (2000) 22 Cal.4th 660, 663-664 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 , 995 P.2d 191 ].) … (Compare Painless Parker v. Board of Dental Exam., supra, 216 Cal. at p. 297 [corporate practice rule promotes undivided loyalty to patients] with Garvai v.

Nolan v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

70 Cal. App. 3d 122 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1977

(Gagnon Co., Inc. v. Nevada Desert Inn, supra, at p. 455.) … (Benner v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 346 [ 159 P.2d 24 ]; Industrial Indem. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (Varela) (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 684 [ 252 P.2d 649 ]; Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Ind. Acc. Com.

Motheral v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

199 Cal. App. 4th 148 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 2011

In reviewing questions of law, we review the Board’s determination de novo. [Citation.]” (County of San Joaquin v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1464 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 152 ].) *155 n. … (Burke, supra, 74 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 363; see also Montgomery v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 68 Cal.Comp.Cases 965, 967-968.)

Abril v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

55 Cal. App. 3d 480 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1976

(Franklin v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 18 Cal.App.3d 682, 684 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 201 ].) The increase in disability in this case may be “intangible,” but it is nonetheless real. As explained in Luchini v. Workmen’s Comp. … Also, as explained and illustrated in Nielsen v. Workmen’s Comp.

Young v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

227 Cal. App. 4th 472 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 2014

ADJ8321113) v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND COUNTY OF BUTTE, Respondents. … In Ezzy v. Workers’ Comp.

Allegretti v. Board of Osteopathic Examiners

145 Cal. App. 2d 435 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 1956

[Findings 1 and 2 refer only to an item of evidence that was before the board, and not to the charges.] “3. … It was entered after the final decision of the board. The judgment first entered vacated the first order of the board.

Banken v. State Board of Equalization

79 Cal. App. 2d 572 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1947

Before the amendment of 1939, a decision had been rendered by the Superior Court of Sacramento County in Bosqui v. … Also, prior to the codification of the act in 1941, the Supreme Court had rendered a decision in the ease of Bigsby v.

Rushing v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

15 Cal. App. 3d 517 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1971

(Lundberg v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 69 Cal.2d 436, 439 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 445 P.2d 300 ].) This rule is binding upon the board and this court. (Id. at p. 439.) … Moreover, although the board is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 33 Cal.2d 89, 93 [ 199 P.2d 302 ]; Pacific Freight Lines v. Industrial Acc.