§Why CasetextPricing

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

Respondents, Warehouse Demo Services and Zurich North America, Petition for Review

34 Cited authorities

  1. Nken v. Holder

    556 U.S. 418 (2009)   Cited 3,292 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"

  2. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment Housing Com

    43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 888 times
    Holding that the statute did not extend to cover remedies that were “different in kind from the enumerated remedies,” because “ more reasonable reading of the phrase ‘including, but not limited to,’ ... permitting only additional corrective remedies comports with the statutory construction doctrines of ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius and noscitur a sociis.”

  3. Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

    127 Cal.App.4th 274 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 424 times
    In Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 448] (Kleemann), the court examined the legislative intent in the application of the then newly enacted sections 4663 and 4664 to pending cases for injuries that predated the enactment of those sections.

  4. Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital

    31 Cal.4th 709 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 288 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Considering this issue in the context of statutory interpretation

  5. Neighbours v. Buzz Oates Enterprises

    217 Cal.App.3d 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 319 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Neighbours, the court noted that section 2750.5 may occasionally "create a dual employment situation in which one employer is granted immunity from a personal injury action at law even though the employer's insurer is not responsible for payment of workers' compensation benefits to the injured employee...."

  6. DuBois v. W.C.A.B.

    5 Cal.4th 382 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 230 times
    Noting general rule that statutory penalty provisions do not apply to public entities

  7. E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

    145 Cal.App.4th 922 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 77 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 (E.L. Yeager), the Court of Appeal considered a claim by a construction worker who fell and injured his lower back.

  8. Chevron U. Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

    19 Cal.4th 1182 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 90 times

    S059214 Ct. App. 1/2 A070558 WCAB Case No. 76 OAK 61329 Filed January 25, 1999 Harbinson, Carlson Tune, Joel D. Tondreau and Mark H. Tune for Petitioner. Bryce C. Anderson; Kazan, McClain, Edises, Simon Abrams, Victoria Edises, Anne Burr and Dianna Lyons for Respondent Lucille Steele. BROWN, J. Under the Workers' Compensation Act, an employer must pay a death benefit to the dependents of an employee who dies as a result of a work-related injury. (Lab. Code, § 4701, subd. (b); all further statutory

  9. Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey

    24 Cal.4th 301 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 81 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding statute of limitations under Probate Code section 13554 more specific than section 914 and thus controlling; "Those provisions [in Probate Code section 13554 ] specifically address the liability of a married person for the debts incurred by the other spouse upon the death of that spouse , whereas Family Code section 914 merely addresses the general liability of a spouse for the debts of the other spouse incurred during marriage."

  10. 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).

  11. Section 4

    Cal. Const. art. XIV § 4   Cited 279 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing California Legislature "to create, and enforce a complete system of workers' compensation"

  12. Section 9785 - Reporting Duties of the Primary Treating Physician

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 9785   Cited 48 times

    (a) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: (1) The "primary treating physician" is the physician who is primarily responsible for managing the care of an employee, and who has examined the employee at least once for the purpose of rendering or prescribing treatment and has monitored the effect of the treatment thereafter. The primary treating physician is the physician selected by the employer, the employee pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with section 4600) of Chapter

  13. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,846 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  14. Rule 8.486 - Petitions

    Cal. R. 8.486   Cited 72 times

    (a)Contents of petition (1) If the petition could have been filed first in a lower court, it must explain why the reviewing court should issue the writ as an original matter. (2) If the petition names as respondent a judge, court, board, or other officer acting in a public capacity, it must disclose the name of any real party in interest. (3) If the petition seeks review of trial court proceedings that are also the subject of a pending appeal, the notice "Related Appeal Pending" must appear on the