Case law

Fox v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

4 Cal. App. 4th 1196 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1992

(Reich, Adell, Crost & Perry v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 225, 236 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 218 ].) The Board has exclusive jurisdiction over medical liens (§§ 5300, subd. (b), 5304; Bell v. … Carr, M.D., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Maciel) (1987) 52 Cal.Comp.Cases 534, writ denied, the Board also denied the lien of a claimant who had failed twice to appear. Board rule 10562 (Cal.

Shipley v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

7 Cal. App. 4th 1104 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1992

In Carreiro v. … Allowing the board to subsequently deny the petition by operation of law under section 5909 makes no sense. Our position is bolstered by State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Workers’ Comp.

Landtbom v. Board of Fire Commissioners

98 Cal. App. 629 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 1929

Board of Equalisation, 97 Cal. 318 , 325 [ 32 Pac. 312 ]; Johnston v. Board of Supervisors, 104 Cal. 390, 394 [ 37 Pac. 1046 ]; Imperial Water Co. v. Supervisors, 162 Cal. *632 14, 25 [ 120 Pac. 780 ].) … (Hagenmeyer v. Mendocino County, 82 Cal. 214, 218 [ 23 Pac. 14 ].) The defendant board cites Roberts v.

Allen v. State Board of Equalization

43 Cal. App. 2d 90 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1941

Petitioners had been certified as eligible for, and had been appointed to, positions of “collector” of State Board of Equalization. … A situation similar to that of petitioners was presented to the court in the case of Pinion v. State Personnel Board, 29 Cal.

Orwitz v. Board of Dental Examiners

41 Cal. App. 2d 653 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1940

Appellant relies upon certain language in Osborne v. Baughman, 85 Cal. App. 224 [ 259 Pac. 70 ], and Engstrom v. … Unlike the Osborne case, there is not an entire lack of competent evidence upholding the position of the Board. (Fuller v. Board of Medical Examiners, 14 Cal. App. (2d) 734 [ 59 Pac. (2d) 171 ]; County of Los Angeles v.

Barrett v. Board of Osteopathic Examiners

4 Cal. App. 2d 135 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1935

If, under these circumstances, the license of the employing physician is properly revoked the ruling of the board in revoking Dr. Barrett’s license must be sustained. … It must be assumed that the board understood the evidence to be sufficient to supply these necessary facts for it is not conceivable that the members of the board believed that they had the right or that it would be proper

Sanita v. Board of Police Commissioners

27 Cal. App. 3d 993 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 1972

Daniel was overruled, however, in Burton v. … (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 [ 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 ]; Barrows v. Municipal Court, 1 Cal.3d 821 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 819 , 464 P.2d 483 ]; cf. Dixon v.

Jimenez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

1 Cal. App. 4th 61 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1991

(Hofmeister v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 848, 852 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 100 ].) … (Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (Charlesworth) (1947) 30 Cal.2d 388, 393 [ 182 P.2d 159 ].)

Garvai v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners

216 Cal. App. 2d 374 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1963

(Lawton v. Board of Medical Examiners, 143 Cal.App.2d 256, 261 [ 299 P.2d 362 ].) … (See Messner v. Board of Dental Examiners, 87 Cal.App. 199 [ 262 P. 58 ].

Board of Retirement v. Superior Court

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 850 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 2002

(Weber v. Board of Retirement (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1440, 1442 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 769 ].) … (Gutierrez v. Board of Retirement (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 745, 748 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 837 ].) 3 The 31452 exemption was originally enacted as section 32 of the County Employees Retirement Act of 1937.

Power v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

179 Cal. App. 3d 775 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1986

(Place v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 424 , 475 P.2d 656 ].) Here, the Board expressly relied on Dr. … Applicant relies on Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp.

Cavanaugh v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

255 Cal. App. 2d 181 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1967

BROWN (Gerald), P. J. The Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board filed an order March 9, 1967, in its Santa Ana office, denying.George Cavanaugh’s petition for-eommu *178 tation. … The board determined he. filed it too late. The board is correct if Labor Code, section 5903’s 20 days are measured from March 9,1967. Petitioner relies upon Taylor v. Industrial Acc.

Russ v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

125 Cal. App. 3d 834 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1981

(See § 101; see also, e.g., California Human Resources Dept. v. Java (1971) 402 U.S. 121, 125 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 666, 670 , 915 S.Ct. 1347 ]; Gillum v. … (Morse v. Municipal Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 149, 156 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 529 P.2d 46 }; People v. Baker (1968) 69 Cal.2d 44, 50 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 595 , 442 P.2d 675 ]; People v.

Vienna v. California Horse Racing Board

133 Cal. App. 3d 387 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1982

(Sandstrom v. Cal. Horse Racing Board, supra, 31 Cal. 2d at p. 409 ; Jones v. Superior Court, supra, 114 Cal. App.3d at p. 730 .) … (See Sandstrom v. Cal. Horse Racing Board, supra, 31 Cal. 2d at p. 412 .)

Chambers v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

33 Cal. App. 3d 923 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1973

Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603-607 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 563, 566-569 , 81 S.Ct. 1144 ]; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Valentine v. … (Braun feld v. Brown, supra, 366 U.S. 599 .) A statute making it a crime for an 18-year-old girl'to sell literature in public places was upheld, although it was her religious duty to do so. (Prince v.

Arboleda v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

253 Cal. App. 2d 481 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1967

Council v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra, 94 Cal.App.2d 65 ; Schreifer v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra, 61 Cal.2d 289 .) In the case of Los Angeles Jewish etc. Council v. Industrial Acc. … Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Board (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 944 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 428 P.2d 606 ].)

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.

Bray v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

26 Cal. App. 4th 530 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1994

In Cole v. … In Livitsanos v.

Holt v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

187 Cal. App. 3d 1257 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1986

Petitioner seeks review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) after denial of his petition for reconsideration of the Board’s decision to adopt the report and recommendation of the workers’ … Upon a review of the entire record, we find the Board’s decision to be amply supported by substantial evidence. (LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 208 , 463 P.2d 432 ].)

Rodriguez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

21 Cal. App. 4th 1747 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1994

On the issue of whether applicant needs further medical treatment, the Board, relying on Taylor v. Workers’ Comp. … In Carter v.