Case law

Elliott v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

182 Cal. App. 4th 355 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2010

Fund v. Workers’ Comp. … Instead, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or board) ruled that under Brasher v.

Nabors v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 312 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 2006

Finally, CWCI points out that en banc Board decisions are generally entitled to great weight (Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658, 668 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 250 , 586 P.2d 564 ]). … In this case, however, the majority view in a seriously splintered Board decision has been expressly rejected in a well-reasoned published appellate court opinion. (See Hoechst Celanese Corp. v.

Bley v. Board of Dental Examiners

120 Cal. App. 426 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 1932

The following authorities so hold: Lanterman v. Anderson, 36 Cal. App. 472 [ 172 Pac. 625 ], Homan v. Board of Dental Examiners, 202 Cal. 593 [ 262 Pac. 324 ], Suckow v. … The Supreme Court, in denying a petition for a hearing in the case of Dyment v. Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Cal.

Gill v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

167 Cal. App. 3d 306 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 1985

(LeBoeuf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 240 .) … (See Tangye v. Henry C. Beck and Co. [1978] 43 Cal.Comp.Cases [3,] 8).” (Id., at pp. 243-244.)

Hayssen v. Board of Zoning Adjustments

171 Cal. App. 3d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1985

(Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 614 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 596 P.2d 1134 ]; San Diego Bldg. Contractors Assn. v. … (Horn v. County of Ventura, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 618 .) A case-by-case determination of the constitutional adequacy of notice thus continues to be the rule. *406 Appellants rely on Schroeder v.

Gustason v. Board of Osteopathic Examiners

10 Cal. App. 2d 436 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1935

Appellant’s first contention is that the law creating defendant board is unconstitutional. The legality of the board is, however, settled. (Board of Osteopathic Examiners v. … (Suckow v. Alderson, supra; Winning v. Board of Dental Examiners, 114 Cal. App. 658 [ 300 Pac. 866 ].)

Diola v. State Board of Control

135 Cal. App. 3d 580 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1982

The board relies on our decision in Ebberts v. … V The board made no findings to enable us to determine if rejection of the claim was based on the challenged premise. Such findings *589 are required. (See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.

Cleve v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

261 Cal. App. 2d 228 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1968

*229 BROWN (Gerald), P. J. … Exchange v. Indus *231 trial Acc. Com. (Cooper), supra, 21 Cal.2d 751 ). Order annulled. The Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board is directed to make an order allowing compensation.

Fernel v. Board of Medical Examiners

91 Cal. App. 712 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 1928

He con *714 tends that the Board has no jurisdiction to consider this subject a', all in connection with an application for a reciprocity certificate, but argumentatively admits that the Board may consider the subject when … The jurisdiction of the Board alone is challenged.

Santos v. Brown CA3

238 Cal. App. 4th 398 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2015

Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 432 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 200 , 11 P.3d 956 ]; Silvers v. Board of Equalization (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219 [ 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 355 ].) … Brown, Sr., granted clemency to 23 condemned inmates out of the 59 cases he reviewed.

Carey v. Board of Medical Examiners

66 Cal. App. 3d 538 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1977

(In re Hallinan, 43 Cal.2d 243, 247 [ 272 P.2d 768 ]; Mercer v. Lence, 96 F.2d 122, 124 ; and Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223, 227, 232 [ 95 L.Ed. 886 , 892-893, 71 S.Ct. 703 ].) Dr. … DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223 [ 95 L.Ed. 886 , 71 S.Ct. 703 ]; Chanan Din Khan v. Barber, 147 F.Supp. 771 ; Stanford v.

Whetstone v. Board of Dental Examiners

87 Cal. App. 156 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1927

The petitioner also relies upon the case of Dyment v. Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Cal. App. 260 [ 207 Pac. 411 ]. … In the ease of State v.

Walters v. Contractors' State License Board

229 Cal. App. 2d 449 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1964

The Supreme Court in the recent case of Ginns v. … In Crow v.

Belmontez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

7 Cal. App. 4th 786 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1992

Citing Harklerode v. … Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of the Board’s decision. He contended the application filed with the Board was a request for rehabilitation. Relying on this division’s opinion in Pereira v. Workers’ Comp.

Tobinski v. Board of Medical Examiners

49 Cal. App. 2d 591 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 1942

It is now claimed by petitioner that the evidence re[2] *593 ceived by the board was insufficient to justify the board’s action in revoking petitioner’s license. It is asserted that there was no evidence that Mrs. … From the transcript of the proceedings before the board it appears that Mrs.

Blanchard v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

53 Cal. App. 3d 590 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1975

(Beaida v. Workmen's Comp. App. … (Frost v. Witter, 132 Cal. 421, 424-425 [ 64 P. 705 ]; Day v. Western Loan & Bldg. Co., 42 Cal.App.2d 226, 232 [ 108 P.2d 702 ]; accord: Doolittle v. McConnell, 178 Cal. 697, 701-704 [ 174 P. 305 ]; Ruiz v.

Rhodes v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

84 Cal. App. 3d 471 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1978

We are of course not bound by the board’s conclusion with respect to this legal question. (Dimmig v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 860, 864-865 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 105 , 495 P.2d 433 ]; Bramall v. … Disposition The decision of the board is annulled and the matter is remanded to the board for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. Klein, P. J., and Potter, J., concurred.

Jordan v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

175 Cal. App. 3d 162 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1985

Our review of the decision of the Board is, of course, confined to a determination of whether, under the relevant law, the decision is supported by substantial evidence. (Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. … Appeals Bd., supra; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 208 , 463 P.2d 432 ].)

Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

45 Cal. App. 3d 162 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 1975

F. v. Ind. Acc. Comm. (1956) 142 Cal.App.2d 494 [ 298 P.2d 651 ].) … F. v. Ind. Acc. Comm., supra, 142 Cal.App.2d 494 at p. 498 ) or the result which respondent board reached here.

Moulton v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 175 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 2000

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the employer’s petition for reconsideration. … “In reviewing the evidence our legislative mandate and sole obligation under section 5952 is to review the entire record to determine whether the board’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.” (LeVesque v.