§Why CasetextPricing

VALDEZ v. W.C.A.B. (WAREHOUSE DEMO SERVICES)

Petitioner’s Answer to Petition for Review

11 Cited authorities

  1. Cruzan ex rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health

    497 U.S. 261 (1990)   Cited 854 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment"

  2. Doe v. City of Los Angeles

    42 Cal.4th 531 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 257 times
    Holding courts construing California statutes "may not broaden or narrow the scope of the provision by reading into it language that does not appear in it or reading out of it language that does."

  3. Vasquez v. State

    45 Cal.4th 243 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 151 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Vasquez, the California Supreme Court clarified its ruling in Graham and held that the catalyst theory is not applicable when a party "successfully obtain[s] a stipulated injunction that was entered as a judgment and thus brought about a judicially recognized change in the parties' legal relationship."

  4. Brodie v. Workers' Comp

    40 Cal.4th 1313 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 119 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting the Board's “extensive expertise in interpreting and applying the workers' compensation scheme”

  5. Rio Linda Union School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

    131 Cal.App.4th 517 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Rio Linda Union School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 517, a third case cited by the People, the appellate court reviewed a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).

  6. Perrillo v. Picco & Presley

    157 Cal.App.4th 914 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that a lien claimant's rights to medical-legal costs are “derivative” of the injured worker's rights

  7. Donaldson v. Lungren

    2 Cal.App.4th 1614 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 15 times
    In Donaldson v. Lungren, 2 Cal.App.4th 1614, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 59 (1992), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District engaged in a balancing of the competing concerns and held that "We cannot expand the nature of Donaldson's right to privacy to provide a protective shield for third persons who end his life."

  8. Bell v. Samaritan Medical Clinic, Inc.

    60 Cal.App.3d 486 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 15 times

    Docket No. 37529. July 26, 1976. Appeal from Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 327235, William A. Ingram, Judge. COUNSEL Finch, Castello Tennant and David R. Finch for Defendants and Appellants. Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Robert L. Leberman, Richard L. Mayers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OPINION KANE, J. In this appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction we are presented basically with one fundamental question: In rendering medical services

  9. Heath v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.

    254 Cal.App.2d 235 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 8 times

    Docket No. 31552. September 8, 1967. PROCEEDING to review and annul an award of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board as allegedly inadequate. Award annulled with directions. Virgil V. Becker for Petitioner. Everett A. Corten, Edward A. Sarkisian and Nathan Mudge for Respondent board. McCOY, J. pro tem.[fn*] [fn*] Assigned by the Chairman of the Judicial Council. Clyde E. Heath, an applicant, petitions for review and annulment of an award of the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board. Applicant

  10. City of L.A. v. Industrial Acc. Com

    215 Cal.App.2d 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 1 times
    In City of Los Angeles v. Industrial Acc. Com., 215 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 75], referring to the expert testimony necessarily given by an examining doctor, the court states: "When the services of an expert witness are engaged, and there is no express agreement as to his compensation, the obligation to pay for the service rendered is implied.