Case law

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.

Szabo v. Board of Osteopathic Examiners

129 Cal. App. 3d 958 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1982

A helpful discussion of the distinction is found in Hollywood Circle, Inc. v. … Savelli v.

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.

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].)

MacK v. State Board of Education

224 Cal. App. 2d 370 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1964

There was thus included in the evidence considered by the hearing officer, the board, and the superior court that which was added by judicial notice. In Communist Party v. … (Board of Education v. Mass (1956) 47 Cal.2d 494, 498 [ 304 P.2d 1015 ].)

Brant v. Retirement Board of San Francisco

57 Cal. App. 2d 721 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1943

Retirement Board of S. F., 43 Cal.App.2d 254 [ 110 P.2d 714 ] ; Walker v. City of San Gabriel, 20 Cal.2d 879 [ 129 P.2d 349 ].) … As was said in Reese v.

Heaton v. Marin County Employees Retirement Board

63 Cal. App. 3d 421 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1976

Moreover, the court in Minor v. … Board of Retirement (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 891 ]; Flaherty v.

Gonzalez v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

49 Cal. App. 3d 280 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1975

The Board reversed itself two months later and upheld the referee primarily because (1) Gooch v. Clark, 433 F.2d 74 and Sam Andrews’ Sons v. … Before Brown (Gerald), P. J., Ault, J., and Cologne, J. The card reads: “Immigration Card.

Andersen v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

149 Cal. App. 4th 1369 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 2007

(Patton v. Governing Board (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 495 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 593 ] [no payment to local government employee for accumulated sick leave prior to commencement of disability retirement]; accord, Campbell v. … Marsille v.

Arenstein v. California State Board of Pharmacy

265 Cal. App. 2d 179 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 1968

(Kramer v. State Board of Accountancy, 200 Cal.App.2d 163, 177 [19 Cal.Rptr.226].) … Following Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners, 32 Cal.2d 301, 308 [ 196 P.2d 20 ], and Yakov v.

Baptist v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

137 Cal. App. 3d 903 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1982

Our task is made narrower by the Board’s evidently exclusive reliance on Dr. Mustacchi’s opinion. As our high court observed, in Place v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … In Zemke v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court

147 Cal. App. 2d 424 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 1957

The opinion of this court (Desert Turf Club v. … In Desert Turf Club v.

Zarate v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

99 Cal. App. 3d 598 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 1979

The WCAB lead opinion also noted that in Adams v. Workers’ Comp. … The dissent also pointed out that in Turudich v. Industrial Acc.

Kingston v. Board of Supervisors

230 Cal. App. 2d 455 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1964

(See Griffin v. Board of Supervisors, 60 Cal.2d 318, 320 [ 33 Cal. … (See Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. at pp. 579-581 [84 S.Ct. at pp. 1390-1392, 12 L.Ed.2d at pp. 537-539] ; Griffin v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 60 Cal.2d at pp. 754-755.)

Petersen v. Social Welfare Board

190 Cal. App. 2d 652 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1961

Petitioners were among the successful parties in the case of Bertch v. Social Welfare Dept., 45 Cal.2d 524 [ 289 P.2d 485 ]. … Petitioners’ appeals to the respondent Social Welfare Board were denied and they thereupon sought review in the superior court. That court sustained the action of the board and their appeals to this court followed.

Board of Pension Commissioners v. Hurlburt

7 Cal. App. 2d 568 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 1935

The effect and interpretation of sections 94 and 95 of the Land Title Act were considered in the case of Rutledge v. … Section 94 can only be given the effect to which it is entitled when read in connection with the rest of the act, which leads inevitably to the conclusion that its provisions are directory only (Rutledge v.

Jones v. California Horse Racing Board

185 Cal. App. 3d 984 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1986

Section 19573 entitles an excluded patron to an administrative hearing before the Board. (See Morton v. Hollywood Park, Inc. (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 248, 254 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 584 ].) … Aroney v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 928 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 708 ] considered a racetrack patron’s mandamus challenge of the Board’s decision upholding his exclusion from the track.

Smith v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

186 Cal. App. 3d 1451 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 1986

WCAB 37 CCC 674 (1972) (writ denied); Hancock v. WCAB 37 CCC 518 (1972) (writ denied, Hearing denied); Belt v. WCAB 36 CCC 466 (1971) (writ denied); Manning v. … In Gallamore v. Workers’ Comp.

Silberberg v. Franchise Tax Board

107 Cal. App. 2d 826 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1951

The legal question presented for decision in this case is the same as stated in Francis v. McColgan, this day decided by this court, No. 18504, ante, p. 823 [ 238 P.2d 70 ].