Case law

Jacobsen v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners

169 Cal. App. 2d 389 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1959

(People v. McCaughan, 49 Cal.2d 409, 414 [ 317 P.2d 974 ].) The legislation under review meets the requirements of valid legislation as laid down by the Supreme Court in the McCaughan ease. … (Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608 [ 55 S.Ct. 570 , 79 L.Ed. 1086 ].)

Biggers v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 628 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1999

We are not bound by the Board’s conclusions on questions of law. (Barns v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 524, 530 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 503 ].) … In Schaeffer v.

Ascough v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

21 Cal. App. 3d 248 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1971

Although *259 the Board has considerable discretion in determining whether reconsideration should be granted (Redner v. Workmen’s Comp. … (Hegglin v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., supra, at .pp. 171-172.)

Ryan v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

265 Cal. App. 2d 654 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1968

The board may not “rest a decision on medical *660 reports that are no longer germane.” (Jones v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., supra, 68 Cal.2d 476, 480 .) … (Hogeberg v. Industrial Acc. Com., 201 Cal. 169,176 [ 256 P. 413 ].) The board and the insurance fund contend the 1966 order was res judicata on the issue of disability.

Gaytan v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2003

Gaytan petitioned for reconsideration and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) agreed that medical records can be addressed in supplemental reports, and Dr. … The WCAB affirmed based on Davis v.

Rumbaugh v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

87 Cal. App. 3d 907 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1978

The Board granted reconsideration and analyzed Rumbaugh’s position in light of our Supreme Court opinions in Fuentes, supra, 16 Cal.3d 1 and Wilkinson v. Workers’ Comp. … The Wilkinson court reached that result by following the reasoning of the Board in Bauer v. County of Los Angeles (1969) 34 Cal. Comp. Cases 594 .)

Detjen v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

42 Cal. App. 3d 470 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 1974

We granted the petition for writ of review to examine the action of the Board in light of Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 11 Cal.3d 274 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 520 P.2d 978 ]. … The issue is whether the Board’s order and decision are supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (Lab. Code, § 5952; Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 281 ; Garza v.

Personnel Commision v. Board of Education

223 Cal. App. 3d 1463 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1990

The Board appeals. Discussion 1. … (Lewin v. St. Joseph Hospital of Orange (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 368, 386-387 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 892 ]; American Canyon Fire Protection Dist. v. County of Napa (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 100, 106 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 189 ].) *1467 2.

Schweizer v. Local Joint Executive Board

121 Cal. App. 2d 45 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 1953

Parkimson Co. v. … Market Co. v.

Kosowski v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

170 Cal. App. 3d 632 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1985

Although the Board has no jurisdiction to make an award of section 4850 benefits (Boyd v. … If the Board permits reconsideration under section 5900, the Board’s subsequent decision is “final” for purposes of appellate review. (Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp.

Bartosh v. Board of Osteophatic Examiners

82 Cal. App. 2d 486 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 1947

Co. v. Reed Orchard Co., 177 Cal. 249, 254 [ 170 P. 426 ]; People v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78 [ 103 N.E. 537, 540]; Crohn v. Kansas City etc. Co., 131 Mo. 313 [ 109 S.W. 1068, 1070 ]; Savage v. … Wallace, 165 Ala. 572 [ 51 So. 605, 607 ] ; Culver v. People, 161 Ill. 89 [ 43 N.E. 812, 814 ] ; City of Charlston v. Johnston, 170 Ill. 336 [ 48 N.E. 985, 986 ]; Town of Cicero v.

Roblyer v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

62 Cal. App. 3d 574 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 1976

(Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 56, 65 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 140 , 465 P.2d 28 ]; Fruehauf Corp. v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … Roblyer a death benefit is hereby annulled and the cause remanded to that Board for proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed. Brown (G. A.), P. J., and Franson, J., concurred.

State Board of Equalization v. Wirick

112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2001

(Curle v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 751 , 16 P.3d 166 ].) In construing a statute, we must follow the legislative mandate for construction. In County of Fresno v. … (Ewing v. City of Carmel-By-TheSea (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1579, 1594 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 382 ].) The standards for certainty in a civil statute are less exacting than the standards for a criminal statute. (Duffy v.

Barron v. Board of Dental Examiners

109 Cal. App. 382 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1930

Cas. 1913E, 1349, 122 Pac. 961 ] ; Corbett v. State Board of Control, 188 Cal. 289 [ 204 Pac. 823 ]). … law or by implication included therein (Kentucky State Board, etc., v.

Fisher v. Board of Police Commissioners

236 Cal. App. 2d 298 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1965

to the board. … (See Fascination, Inc. v. Hoover, 39 Cal.2d 260, 269 [ 246 P.2d 656 ]; Walters v. Pine Cove County Water Dist., 177 Cal.App.2d 498 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 253 ]; Sobo v.

Sternoff v. State Board of Equalization

103 Cal. App. 3d 828 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1980

Board, presents somewhat different contentions than do the plaintiffs in Sternoff et al. v. Board. … C 200968—Sternoff et al. v. Board, the judgment is affirmed. In case No. C 205685, Lyon et al. v.

Nunez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 914 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2006

The Board relied on the rationale of Godinez v. … Should the Board decide on remand that former section 4062 is applicable, the repealed version of the statute should not be applied. 14 See Gee v. Workers’ Comp.

California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Board

45 Cal. App. 4th 1383 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 1996

The school board filed a timely notice of appeal. … (See James v. Board of Education of Central Dist. No. 1, Etc. (2d Cir. 1972) 461 F.2d 566, 573 (James).)

Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Board of Equalization

241 Cal. App. 4th 19 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 2015

Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 20, 24 [“Sales tax statutes do not impose a tax on services . . .”]; Preston v. … For support, the Board cites Pierce v. Underwood (1987) 487 U.S. 552, 569 (Pierce).

Aliano v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

100 Cal. App. 3d 341 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 24, 1979

(Dept, of Motor Vehicles v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Board (Payne) (1971) 20 Cal. App.3d 1039, 1044-1045 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 172 ].) … However, there is also appeals board authority to the contrary. (Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. I.A.C. (Bentley) 10 Cal.Comp.Cases 280.)