NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
|
|
- Anabel Walters
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Filed 4/30/10 Leprino Foods v. WCAB (Barela) CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule (a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule (b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LEPRINO FOODS, Petitioner, F v. WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOEY BARELA, (WCAB No. ADJ ) O P I N I O N Respondents. THE COURT * ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board. James C. Cuneo, Frank M. Brass, and Alfonso J. Moresi, Commissioners. Keigo Obata, Workers Compensation Administrative Law Judge. Grancell, Lebovita, Stander, Barnes and Reubens and David J. Chun, for Petitioner. No appearance by Respondent Workers Compensation Appeals Board. Douglas A. Low, for Respondent Joey Barela. -ooooo- * Before Wiseman, Acting, P.J., Gomes, J., and Hill, J.
2 Leprino Foods (Leprino) petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). (Lab. Code, ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule ) Leprino contends the WCAB erred in awarding an injured employee a higher level of permanent disability after self-procuring a medical surgery legally denied by the employer. Finding no legal prohibition against an injured worker obtaining medical treatment outside the workers compensation system and substantial evidence to support the WCAB s decision the treatment obtained was both reasonable and necessary, we will deny the petition. BACKGROUND Joey Barela injured his low back on August 31, 2005, while working as a dry mixer operator for Leprino. Through its self-insured administrator Matrix Absence Management, Leprino admitted the injury was industrially related, but disagreed with Barela s primary treating physician, E. Scott Conner, M.D., regarding the appropriate course of medical treatment. Leprino objected to Dr. Conner s recommendation to perform discectomy and fusion spinal surgery, initiated a utilization review, 2 and requested a second opinion from Charles Wrobel, M.D. ( 4062, subd. (b).) Agreeing with Leprino s utilization review, Dr. Wrobel recommended in a July 31, 2006, report that the surgery not be performed. The parties engaged Robert D. Ansel, M.D., as an agreed medical evaluator (AME). In his initial March 12, 2007, AME report, Dr. Ansel acknowledged the existence of pros and cons in performing fusion surgery that had already been addressed by Dr. Conner, but concluded that based on minimal clinical findings and 1 Further statutory references are to the Labor Code. 2 Section 4610 requires every employer to establish a utilization review process when reviewing and resolving any and all requests for medical treatment. (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 230, 236, italics removed.) 2
3 Barela s age, such a surgery would not provide [Barela] any long-term relief and indeed, if anything, will serve as the nidus for future increased problems. Dr. Ansel therefore concur[red] at the present time that a two-level surgery [was] neither reasonable nor appropriate. Acknowledging Barela s continued subjective complaints, Dr. Ansel rated Barela at the upper end of the Diagnosis Related Estimates (DRE) Category II with an 8- percent whole person impairment under the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Edition (AMA Guides). 3 Utilizing private health insurance, Barela nevertheless underwent surgery with Dr. Conner on March 23, The parties agree the surgery was self-procured outside the workers compensation system and not authorized by Leprino. Dr. Ansel issued a supplemental medical-legal report on April 9, 2007, reaffirming his opinion that Barela rated at DRE Category II with an 8-percent impairment. But when questioned by counsel at a June 11, 2007, deposition, Dr. Ansel reconsidered his assessment and concluded he should have placed Barela at the lower end of DRE Category III with a 10-percent whole person impairment. On October 22, 2007, after a 40-minute interview with Barela, Dr. Ansel confirmed in a written report that Dr. Conner s surgery had been successfully performed, with Barela s pain greatly reduced, and that he once again would place [Barela] in DRE Category III, providing him a 10% whole person impairment. Dr. Ansel based his conclusion on specific objective findings mentioned in the report. In a November 12, 2007, supplemental report, Dr. Ansel acknowledged spinal fusion surgery is controversial and questioned whether improvement will persist in the 3 As part of the 2004 comprehensive [workers compensation] revisions, the Legislature amended section 4660 to require a new rating schedule incorporating the American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines for the evaluation of permanent disability. (Bontempo v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 689, 695, fn. 6.) 3
4 future, but concluded, Clearly, in hindsight, at least to date, Mr. Barela s surgery, if one were to use this criteria, was both reasonable and necessary. He also mentioned that given the two levels of surgical fusion that Barela underwent, it was more likely than not there would be a loss of integrity, which in and of itself would warrant a Category IV WPI rating. In a February 15, 2008, follow-up report, Dr. Ansel concluded Barela should be rated at a 23-percent whole person impairment based on his loss of motion resulting from the surgery, level of pain, need for medication, and impairment of the activities of daily living. On August 12, 2008, nearly 15 months after surgery, Dr. Ansel conducted another medical examination of Barela and confirmed that as a result of the successful fusion surgery, he would rate Barela s disability as to his lumbar spine under DRE Category IV with a 23-percent whole person impairment. In the end, Dr. Ansel concluded Barela had obtained excellent results to date as a result of both surgeries [with] his medical care and treatment and temporary disability all being reasonable and appropriate. The matter proceeded to a workers compensation hearing in April Based on Barela s credible testimony that the surgery had provided continued relief and on Dr. Ansel s conclusion that Barela should be rated under DRE Category IV under the AMA Guides with a 23-percent whole person impairment, the WCJ awarded Barela a 34- percent permanent disability rating as calculated by the Division of Workers Compensation Disability Evaluation Unit. The award amounted to $34,980 paid in 159 weekly installments of $220, plus further medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of the low back injury. Leprino petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending Barela s permanent disability rating should have been based on an 8-percent, rather than 23-percent, whole person impairment because the increase was based on unauthorized medical treatment and on Barela s subjective complaints of improvement. In a September 25, 2009, opinion 4
5 and order denying reconsideration, the WCAB found the authorization or payment of medical treatment irrelevant in assessing permanent disability otherwise supported by Dr. Ansel s findings, Barela s credible testimony, and the unrebutted application of the AMA Guides. DISCUSSION Leprino contends the WCAB s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that it circumvents and undermines the medical treatment dispute provisions regarding utilization review ( 4610), second opinions for spinal surgery ( 4062, subd. (b)), and AME opinions ( ). We agree with the WCAB and find nothing in the language of these provisions evidencing a legislative intent to restrict the level of permanent disability awards to that resulting only from treatment obtained under the workers compensation system. The findings and conclusions of the appeals board on questions of fact are conclusive and final and are not subject to review. ( 5953.) In reviewing an order, decision, or award of the WCAB, an appellate court must determine whether, in view of the entire record, substantial evidence supports the WCAB s findings. ( 5952, subd. (d); Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion... (Braewood Convalescent Hospital, supra, at p. 164.) In reviewing workers compensation statutes, we give great weight to the WCAB s interpretation unless it contravenes legislative intent as evidenced by clear and unambiguous statutory language. (Signature Fruit Co. v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 790, 795.) We must also look to the overall statutory scheme and consider fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality of an enactment and the purposes sought to be achieved. (Ibid.) We nevertheless accord significant respect 5
6 to the WCAB s interpretation of workers compensation statutes unless clearly erroneous. (Brooks v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1528.) The parties agree that Dr. Ansel rated Barela with a higher level of physical impairment as a result of the fusion surgery than Barela would have been entitled to without the surgery under the AMA Guides, notwithstanding Barela s testimony that the surgery improved his back and enabled him to return to work. Leprino thus argues it should not be liable for the increase in Barela s permanent disability given Barela s admission at trial that he was aware that the utilization review, Dr. Wrobel s second opinion, and AME Dr. Ansel all recommended against performing the surgery and provided Leprino with legal grounds to deny authorization for the procedure. Leprino contends instead that if the surgery indeed improved Barela s condition, then a logical conclusion would be that applicant s post-surgery impairment should be less than 8% [whole person impairment]. Leprino concedes the AMA Guides mandate this result, but argues they do not apply here because Barela should not be allowed to reap the benefits that he otherwise would not have received had he followed the established rules and not undergone surgery with Dr. Conner. Although Leprino offers policy arguments as grounds to override the application of the AMA Guides, it does not present a legal basis to suggest payment and authorization for a particular treatment is a prerequisite to permanent disability. As the WCAB found, Leprino appropriately exercised its authority to conduct a utilization review and obtain a second medical opinion, which both disagreed with Barela s treating physician. Specifically referring to spinal surgery recommendations, section 4062, subdivision (b) provides that a contrary second opinion shields an employer from liability for the treatment costs for the disputed procedure. And while that provision also shields an employer from liability from a self-procured spinal procedure for periods of 6
7 temporary disability resulting from the surgery, it does not place any limits on a resulting permanent disability award. Moreover, Leprino fails to cite to any statutory language or case law suggesting that a contrary utilization review, second medical opinion, or AME medical opinion affects the level of permanent disability an injured worker may receive. Nor does Leprino offer any basis to suggest an injured employee is somehow prevented from obtaining medical treatment not authorized by an employer. In focusing on the various recommendations against surgery, Leprino overlooks the recommendation of Barela s own primary treating physician, Dr. Conner, who recommended and successfully performed the surgery. Leprino also overlooks Dr. Ansel s admission, albeit after the surgery was performed, that the procedure was a success and was both reasonable and necessary. (See White v. Workmen s Comp. App. Bd. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 447, 451 [ employee has the benefit of hindsight in proving reasonableness of a successful self-procured surgery].) Leprino s underlying implication that Barela obtained the surgery against medical advice as a means to obtain a higher permanent disability award is unpersuasive, particularly given that Barela s regular health insurance coverage authorized the treatment and did not view it as either an unnecessary or dangerous course of treatment. We similarly are not persuaded that this court must act, based on Leprino s speculative fears, to prevent future injured workers from demanding rogue spine surgeries and sticking employers and insurance carriers with all the negative consequences, as the question presents a matter better presented to the Legislature. In the case before this court, the surgery in fact relieved Barela from the effects of his industrial injury. (See 4600, subd. (a).) Leprino s fundamental complaint is with the accuracy and applicability of the AMA Guides. Among the 2004 workers compensation reforms, however, the Legislature mandated their incorporation into the permanent disability rating schedule so 7
8 as to promote consistency, uniformity, and objectivity. ( 4660, subds. (b)(1), (d).) This rating schedule, effective January 1, 2005, constitutes prima facie evidence of the percentage of permanent disability to be attributed to each injury covered. ( 4660, subd. (c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 9805.) Other than the statutory relief from liability for payment of the surgery under the medical dispute procedures, Leprino offers no basis to disregard the application of the AMA Guides and resulting level of permanent disability. Leprino does not dispute the calculation of the award itself under the AMA Guides, as adopted by Dr. Ansel s AME medical reporting, and Barela, his treating physician, and Dr. Ansel all agreed the surgery was reasonable, necessary, and successful. Accordingly, the WCAB s permanent disability award was based on substantial evidence. DISPOSITION The petition for writ of review is denied. Respondent s request for attorney fees is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court. 8
Trovillion, Inveiss & Demakis
Trovillion, Inveiss & Demakis Trovillion, Inveiss & Demakis, APC has grown in reputation as one of Southern California's premier law firms specializing in representation of employers, insurance carriers
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT H036724
Filed 11/10/11; pub. order 12/1/11 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, H036724 (W.C.A.B. Nos. ADJ584277,
More informationWORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
1 1 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SRO 01 DANNY NABORS, SRO 0 Applicant, vs. PIEDMONT LUMBER & MILL COMPANY; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants. OPINION
More informationWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUAN A. RIVERA, Case No. POM 00 Applicant, vs. TOWER STAFFING SOLUTIONS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). OPINION AND DECISION AFTER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A135889
Filed 1/30/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, v. Petitioner, THE WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ----
Filed 7/22/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ---- DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Petitioner, C078345 (WCAB No. ADJ7807167)
More informationANOTHER INSTALLMENT IN THE GEORGE THE BARTENDER SERIES
ANOTHER INSTALLMENT IN THE GEORGE THE BARTENDER SERIES For past installments of the George the Bartender series, please visit our web site at http://www.kttlaw.us/memos.html RE: GEORGE THE BARTENDER AND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 11/14/18 City of Brisbane v. Cal. Dept. of Tax & Fee Admin. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A127482
Filed 2/16/11 Fung v. City and County of San Francisco CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jeffrey D. Bertasavage, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 848 C.D. 2015 : Submitted: October 9, 2015 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Wal Mart Stores, Inc.), : Respondent
More informationFiled 9/19/17 Borrego Community Health Found. v. State Dept. of Health Care Services CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Filed 9/19/17 Borrego Community Health Found. v. State Dept. of Health Care Services CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 11/14/17; Certified for Publication 12/13/17 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE DENISE MICHELLE DUNCAN, Plaintiff and Respondent,
More informationSB (b)(8) & (9) January 1, 2013 Minimum weekly benefit increased from $130 to $160 for injuries on/after January 1, 2013
SB863 The following is a quick summary sheet of changes with selected cited provisions of the Labor Code changes and amendments effectuated by the passage of SB 863 by the California Legislature. This
More informationNICHOLAS HONCHARIW, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS et al., Defendants and Respondents. F060788
Page 1 NICHOLAS HONCHARIW, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS et al., Defendants and Respondents. F060788 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 200 Cal.
More informationWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
0 MANUEL MANZANO, WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Applicant, vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA FLAVURENCE CORPORATION; FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE, SAROJINI SINGH, Defendants. Applicant, vs. AMERICAN SHOWER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 36 February 4, 2015 761 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Compensation of Tommy S. Arms, Claimant. Tommy S. ARMS, Petitioner, v. SAIF CORPORATION and Harrington Campbell,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-14-00244-CV NINA MENDOZA, APPELLANT V. INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 47th District Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 8/16/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE ALUMA SYSTEMS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION OF CALIFORNIA, v. Plaintiff and Appellant,
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JUNE 26, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2014-CA-001504-WC MICHAEL EVANS APPELLANT PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION v. OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F COOPER ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO.
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F005412 MELANIE KELLEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT COOPER ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 CROCKETT ADJUSTMENT, INC., INSURANCE
More informationMorris, Jimmy v. Spec Personnel, LLC
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 9-21-2017 Morris, Jimmy v.
More informationNo. 50,291-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered November 18, 2015. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 50,291-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * *
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBIN MOORE, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 433 C.D. 2000 : Submitted: June 2, 2000 WORKERS COMPENSATION : APPEAL BOARD (AMERICAN : SINTERED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. : and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A118155
Filed 2/29/08 P. v. Campos CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA John Andrew Hart, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1497 C.D. 2015 : Submitted: December 18, 2015 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Dominion Transmission, Inc. : and
More informationFiled 10/12/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 10/12/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Petitioners, No. B215486 (W.C.A.B.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A116302
Filed 5/20/08; reposted to correct caption and counsel listing CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO DEVONWOOD CONDOMINIUM OWNERS
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Sekou Thiams, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1039 C.D. 2017 : SUBMITTED: January 5, 2018 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Canada Dry Delaware : Valley), : Respondent
More informationCase No. C IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Case No. C081929 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, Respondent,
More informationNO. 43,952-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *
Judgment rendered February 4, 2009. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. NO. 43,952-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA MARY JOHNSON
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ] ] NO. H023838 Plaintiff and Respondent, ] vs. MICHAEL RAY JOHNSON, ] ] Defendant and Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN REHABILITATION CLINIC, INC., P.C., and DR. JAMES NIKOLOVSKI, UNPUBLISHED January 4, 2007 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 263835 Oakland Circuit Court AUTO CLUB
More information119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4789-00. Filed September 16, 2002. This is an action
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF BOARD NO INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS. SMCS Trugreen Landcare Zurich American Insurance
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF BOARD NO. 029930-08 INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS SMCS Trugreen Landcare Zurich American Insurance Employee Employer Insurer REVIEWING BOARD DECISION (Judges Fabricant,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME: JUDGE: 1:30 p.m. 08/12/2011 HON. ALLEN SUMNER DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 42 M. GARCIA DANIEL E. FRANCIS, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Karen Hansen, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 524 C.D. 2008 : Workers' Compensation Appeal : Submitted: August 1, 2008 Board (Stout Road Associates), : Respondent :
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/29/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE WANDA OGILVIE, v. Petitioner, WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD et al.,
More information! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS October 13, 2011
! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS October 13, 2011 INSURER MAY INTERVENE IN PENDING LAWSUIT WHEN ANSWER OF INSURED HAS BEEN STRICKEN AND DEFAULT ENTERED AND MAY ASSERT ALL DEFENSES
More informationSOUTHWEST DESERT IMAGES, LLC, Petitioner Employer, COLORADO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner Insurer,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO SOUTHWEST DESERT IMAGES, LLC, Petitioner Employer, COLORADO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner Insurer, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 4/30/15 P. v. Gracy CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F MERIDIAN AGGREGATES, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F004974 MICHAEL POLLARD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT MERIDIAN AGGREGATES, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: February 18, 2014 Document No. 32,815 VICTORIA ESCKELSON, v. Worker-Appellee, MINERS COLFAX MEDICAL CENTER and NEW MEXICO
More informationHOSPITAL APPEAL BOARD. In the matter of DR. IMRAN SAMAD. And
HOSPITAL APPEAL BOARD In the matter of DR. IMRAN SAMAD And PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY and THE CHILDREN S AND WOMEN S HEALTH CENTRE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DECISION ON DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS On January
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2008 PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D07-2495 STAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, as assignee of EUSEBIO
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY
[Cite as Sturgill v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2013-Ohio-688.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY DENVER G. STURGILL, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : Case No. 12CA8 : vs. :
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA John Galizia, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1527 C.D. 2014 : SUBMITTED: January 30, 2015 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Woodloch Pines, Inc.), : Respondent :
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO
[Cite as Wright v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2003-Ohio-4201.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO CECILIA E. WRIGHT, EXECUTRIX OF : THE ESTATE OF JAMES O. WRIGHT, JR., DECEASED, et al. : Plaintiffs-Appellants
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Michael Romanowski, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1174 C.D. 2007 : Workers' Compensation Appeal : Submitted: January 18, 2008 Board (Precision Coil Processing), :
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED January 27, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 242967 Oakland Circuit Court EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Joseph R. Gaudet, : Petitioner : : No. 1381 C.D. 2014 v. : : Submitted: December 26, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (American Lenders), : Respondent
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Walter T. Currie, Petitioner v. No. 2079 C.D. 2007 Workers Compensation Appeal Board Submitted February 8, 2008 (Wheatland Tube Co.), Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Shanada Gilliard, : Petitioner : : No. 8 C.D. 2016 v. : : Submitted: August 5, 2016 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Protocall, Inc.), : Respondent : BEFORE:
More informationCircuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C-01-000768 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 00047 September Term, 2017 WILLIAM BENNISON v. DEBBIE BENNISON Leahy, Reed, Shaw Geter,
More informationALAN FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. WALTER C. PETERSON, as City Clerk etc., et al., Respondents
87 Cal. App. 2d 727; 197 P.2d 788; 1948 Cal. App. LEXIS 1385 ALAN FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. WALTER C. PETERSON, as City Clerk etc., et al., Respondents Civ. No. 16329 Court of Appeal of California, Second
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F OPINION FILED DECEMBER 30, 2005
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F502651 JEFFREY CALLAHAN QUICK LAY PIPE COMPANY COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Pierson v. Wheeland, 2007-Ohio-2474.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) ROBERT G. PIERSON, ADM., et al. C. A. No. 23442 Appellees v. RICHARD
More information: : : : : : : : : : : Reversed and Remanded. July 22, 2002
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT KENNETH CANTRELL -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, ET AL Defendants-Appellees JUDGES Hon. William B. Hoffman,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Dominic Marian, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1616 C.D. 2009 : Submitted: December 24, 2009 Workers' Compensation : Appeal Board (Scott Township), : Respondent : BEFORE:
More informationCircuit Court for Montgomery County Case No V UNREPORTED
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 423509V UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 00768 September Term, 2017 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND v. PETER GANG Eyler, Deborah S., Shaw
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F KAREN ASHCRAFT, EMPLOYEE ARVEST BANK GROUP, EMPLOYER OPINION FILED MAY 8, 2006
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F106463 KAREN ASHCRAFT, EMPLOYEE ARVEST BANK GROUP, EMPLOYER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Joseph Cucchi, No. 108 C.D. 2014 Petitioner Submitted May 30, 2014 v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Robert Cucchi Painting, Inc.), Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE
More informationJ cj g f NUMBER 2007 CA 1493
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT J cj g f NUMBER 2007 CA 1493 HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO I OF EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH LOUISIANA DB A LANE REGIONAL MEDICAL
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 2/6/12 Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. WCAB CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
LESTER EDWARDS VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 06-1229 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING ********** APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION - DISTRICT 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES,
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY MARGARET BONEY-NEARHOS, ) ) C.A. No. 00A-07-005 - JTV Claimant Below- ) Appellant, ) ) 5. ) ) SOUTHLAND CORP., ) ) Employer Below-
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 5/23/18 P. v. Morgan CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationS17G1256. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: April 16, 2018 S17G1256. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al. MELTON, Presiding Justice. This case revolves around a decision
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Charles M. Hill, III, Judge.
MIAMI DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD/ GALLAGHER BASSETT, v. Appellants, ONEAL SMITH, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 8/30/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT HCM HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B213373 (Los
More informationNo. 44,189-WCA C O U R T O F A P P E A L S E C O N D C I R C U I T S T A T E O F L O U I S I A N A * * * * * * * * * *
Judgment rendered April 8, 2009. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La.-CCP. No. 44,189-WCA C O U R T O F A P P E A L S E C O N D C I R C U I T S T A T E O F
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA William Gillespie, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1633 C.D. 2016 : Submitted: February 17, 2017 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Aker Philadelphia Shipyard), :
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Betty Bibbus, : Petitioner : : No. 1986 C.D. 2014 v. : : Submitted: March 27, 2015 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Wood Company), : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F OPINION FILED AUGUST 9, 2004
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F001912 PAMELA KILPATRICK, EMPLOYEE SUCCESS STAFFING CORP., EMPLOYER ONE BEACON INSURANCE CO., INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 03-0548 CAJUN WELDING & MACHINE CO. VERSUS TRAVIS DEVILLE ********** APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION - #2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 02-08612
More informationWhite, Paul v. G&R Trucking, Inc.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 8-7-2018 White, Paul v. G&R
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT B Petitioner, Respondent;
Filed 6/2/11; on rehearing CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., B227190 v. Petitioner, (Judicial
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Theodore R. Robinson, : Petitioner : : v. : : State Employees' Retirement Board, : No. 1136 C.D. 2014 Respondent : Submitted: October 31, 2014 BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Rinaldi, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 470 C.D. 2008 : Workers' Compensation : Submitted: June 27, 2008 Appeal Board (Correctional : Physician Services, Inc.),
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Donna S. Remsnyder, Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ALVIN JONES, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D10-1043
More informationFiled: March 31, 2010
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0109 September Term, 2009 MACEO L. NEAL v. CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD Meredith, Matricciani, Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned)
More information[Cite as Copeland v. Bur. of Workers Comp., 192 Ohio App.3d 586, 2011-Ohio-813.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Copeland v. Bur. of Workers Comp., 192 Ohio App.3d 586, 2011-Ohio-813.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COPELAND, JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Appellant, Hon.
More informationSB 863 The New New and Improved Reform Package
From the Legislature that brought you SB 899! SB 863 The New New and Improved Reform Package Changes for Resolving Medical Treatment Disputes and Calculating Permanent Disability Presented by Tom Richard
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Securitas Security Services : USA, Inc., : Petitioner : : No. 349 C.D. 2010 v. : : Argued: December 8, 2010 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Schuh), : Respondent
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : :
[Cite as Day v. Noah's Ark Learning Ctr., 2002-Ohio-4245.] COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DEBRA S. DAY -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant NOAH S ARK LEARNING CENTER, et al. Defendants-Appellees
More informationLimberakis, George v. Pro-Tech Security, Inc.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 9-12-2017 Limberakis, George
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Annville Township, : Petitioner : : No. 716 C.D. 2012 v. : : Submitted: August 31, 2012 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Hutchinson), : Respondent : BEFORE:
More informationAppellant, Lower Court Case No.: CC O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO- MOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: CVA1-06 - 19 vs. CARRIE CLARK, Appellant, Lower Court Case
More informationDownloaded from PDRater.com
WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. ADJ0 (LBO 0) CYNTHIA BLACKLEDGE, Applicant, vs. BANK OF AMERICA; and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s). OPINION AND DECISION AFTER
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D070555
Filed 7/28/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATHAN MINNICK, D070555 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AUTOMOTIVE CREATIONS, INC., et al.,
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/27/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CLARENDON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-complainant and Respondent,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MONIQUE MARIE LICTAWA, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 23, 2004 v No. 245026 Macomb Circuit Court FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 01-005205-NF Defendant-Appellee.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D059282
Filed 11/17/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JANOPAUL + BLOCK COMPANIES, LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. D059282 (San Diego County Super.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL LEMANSKY, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 140 C.D. 1999 : ARGUED: June 14, 1999 WORKERS COMPENSATION : APPEAL BOARD (HAGAN ICE : CREAM COMPANY), : Respondent
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT B191247
Filed 5/31/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT JOHN A. CARR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B191247 (Los Angeles County
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the State of California
In the Supreme Court of the State of California CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Case No. S241948 STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD et al., Defendants and Respondents; NATIONAL
More informationAppeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Action No. 99-CI ; Denise Clayton, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky. WOODWARD, HOBSON & FULTON, L.L.P., Appellant, v. REVENUE CABINET, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellees. No. 2000-CA-002784-MR. Feb. 22, 2002. Appeal from Jefferson Circuit
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ST. JOHN MACOMB OAKLAND HOSPITAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION December 8, 2016 9:00 a.m. v No. 329056 Macomb Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE LC No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----
Filed 5/8/15 In re T.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 3/22/12 Defehr v. E-Escrows CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 1/22/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D065364
More information