Case law

Bergenstal v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

45 Cal. App. 4th 1272 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1996

Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 656, 659 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 566 ].) … (Id., at p. 250.) 6 In a recent federal case (Gomez v.

Caldwell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

268 Cal. App. 2d 912 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1969

On March 31, 1967, a three-man panel of the appeals board by a majority vote decided Montoya v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 32 Cal. Comp. … I.A.C. 31 C.C.C. 158; Soren v. Assoc. Ind. Co. 16 I.A.C. 15; Bendock v. Globe Indem. Co., 10 I.A.C. 32).”

Reiman v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

66 Cal. App. 3d 732 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 1977

(Ila v. Hardy and Calif. Comp. Ins. Co., supra, 18 Cal.Comp. Cases 241.) … In Herrera v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 254 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 455 P.2d 425 ], the Supreme Court quoted with approval language employed by the former Industrial Accident Commission in Stan v.

Gruschka v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

169 Cal. App. 3d 789 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 1985

(Bilyeu v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 657, 667 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 837 ].) … (Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 671, 679, 685 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 298 , 677 P.2d 224 ].)

Naughton v. Retirement Board of San Francisco

43 Cal. App. 2d 254 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1941

Roche, supra; Peters v. Sacramento City E. R. System, 27 Cal. App. (2d) 10 [ 80 Pac. (2d) 179 ] ; McColgan v. Board of Police Commrs., 130 Cal. App. 66 [ 19 Pac. (2d) 815 ] ; Mogan v. Board of Police Commrs., 100 Cal. … (See, also, Buckley v. Roche, supra.) Stated another way, the board’s negative finding must be based on something more than mere conjecture.

Lynch v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

164 Cal. App. 3d 594 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1985

Accordingly, we *598 annul the board’s findings and award relative to petitioner and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 In Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Workers’ Comp. … The approach used by the WCAB was the one which had been adopted by the board en banc in Oropeza v. Newman Seed Company (1980) 45 Cal.Comp.Cases 1148.

Howson v. Board of Medical Examiners

128 Cal. App. 35 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 1932

The statement of the charges was in the language of the statute, which has been held to be sufficient in the recent case of Anderson v. Board of Medical Examiners, 117 Cal. App. 113 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 344 ]. … The objection was not made before the board, nor, so far as appears, to the trial court.

Sidders v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

205 Cal. App. 3d 613 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1988

Since there is no evidence to support this “observation]” of the board, a decision based on said observation must be annulled. (City of Santa Ana v. Workers’ Comp. … We, therefore, annul the board’s decision on this basis as well. (See City of Santa Ana v. Workers’ Comp.

Willamette Industries v. Franchise Tax Board

91 Cal. App. 3d 528 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 1979

. *530 Plaintiff Willamette Industries appeals from a judgment of the Sacramento County Superior Court entered after the court granted defendant Franchise Tax Board’s motion for summary judgment.

Parish v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

210 Cal. App. 3d 92 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1989

(Johnson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 770, 775 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 28 ]; see City and County of San Francisco v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. … As stated in Johnson v. Workers’ Comp.

Stewart v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

172 Cal. App. 3d 351 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1985

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) granted reconsideration. In rescinding the findings and award, the Board found applicant to be a covered employee, reasoning that because Mrs. … (Lauzier v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1919) 43 Cal.App. 725, 728 [ 185 P. 870 ].) Lauzier was followed in Ford v. Industrial Acc.

Rivera v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

70 Cal. App. 3d 705 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 1977

In Lewis v. Workers’ Comp. … Co. v. Workers’ Comp.

Fortich v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

233 Cal. App. 3d 1449 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 9, 1991

The Board in the past has evidenced support for strict construction of notice requirements and concluded that improper dismissal does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction. In Associated Indem. Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. … (See Roth v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 20 Cal.App.3d at pp. 459-460; Dave’s Scrap Metal v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 45 Cal.Comp.Cases 541; cf. Jones v.

Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court

212 Cal. App. 3d 1343 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 1989

Franchise Tax Board. (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 875 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 810 ] (collection of taxes under jeopardy assessment); Helms Bakeries v. St. Bd. Equalization (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 417 (sales and use taxes); cf. … (Dupuy v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 410, 416 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 900 , 541 P.2d 540 ]; Aronoff v. Franchise Tax Board, supra, 60 Cal.2d 177 .)

Rosenblatt v. California State Board of Pharmacy

69 Cal. App. 2d 69 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 1945

Michigan, 188 U.S. 505 [ 230 S.Ct. 390 , 47 L.Ed. 563 ]; Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U.S. 74 [ 15 S.Ct. 985 , 40 L.Ed. 80 ]; Dent v. West Virginia, supra; State v. … Burroughs v. Webster, 150 Ind. 607 [ 50 N.E. 750 , 41 L.R.A. 212 ]; State v. Gazlay, 5 Ohio 14, 15 ; Simmons v. State, 12 Mo. 268 [49 Am.Dec. 131].)

Gay v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

96 Cal. App. 3d 555 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1979

For the reasons stated below, we annul the Board’s finding of apportionment and remand the matter to the Board. I. … (See *561 Flesher v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 322 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 459 , 590 P.2d 35 .) 2 Gay then sought reconsideration by the Board.

Brown v. All American Cab Co.

57 Cal. App. 3d 896 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1976

J., and Jefferson (Bernard), J., concurred. 1 That a taxi cab operator may voluntarily procure uninsured motorist coverage was stated in Howlett v. Transit Cas. Co. (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 348, 350 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 277 ],

Price v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

10 Cal. App. 4th 959 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1992

Fund v. Workers’ Comp. … Kay. 6 The Board has held that a compromise and release signed before an employee’s death may be approved after the death of the employee. (Light v.

Rouseyrol v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

234 Cal. App. 3d 1476 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 1991

The court is not bound to accept the Board’s findings where they are unreasonable. (Bracken v. Workers’ Comp. … The Board may not isolate part of a physician’s opinion and disregard other parts that contradict or nullify the portion on which the Board relies. (See Bracken v. Workers’ Comp.

Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court

168 Cal. App. 3d 970 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1985

(See Wilder v. Superior Court (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 90, 93-94 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 494 ]; Cooke v. Superior Court (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 582, 587 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 915 ]; Derry v. … Automatic 55. 1 Shotgun 02986RN168 Browning .20GA Double Barrel 56. 1 Shotgun 16933RN153 Browning . 12GA Over/Under 57. 1 Shotgun 01887PM168 Browning .20GA Double Barrel 58. 1 Shotgun 08109RP273 Browning .28GA Over/Under