In The News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[06/17] Southern California Edison Company v. City of Victorville
In a personal injury action arising out of a car accident which caused plaintiff's car hit a light pole owned by defendant Southern California Edison Company (SCE), the trial court's rulings are: 1) reversed, as to the grant of defendant SCE's motion for judgment on pleading as to plaintiff's second amended complaint because the Public Utilities Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the location of street lights; and 2) affirmed, as to order sustaining, without leave to amend, defendant City's demurrer to defendant SCE's first amended cross-complaint, because compliance with the Government Claims Act was necessary, and defendant SCE failed to so comply.

[06/14] Diaz Aviation Corporation v. Airport Aviation Services, Inc.
The district court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit claiming that the defendants wrongfully interfered with its airport fuel business is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof; and 2) plaintiff provided no reliable evidence of damages.

[06/14] Donlen v. Ford Motor Company
The trial court erred in granting defendant a new trial following a jury verdict awarding plaintiff damages in his lemon law action against defendant, and the judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) there was no error in law on which the trial court could grant a new trial because its denial of defendant's motion in limine motion finding that the non-warranty repair evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial, was not error; 2) the new trial order cannot be affirmed on the ground of lack of substantial evidence, as the trial court did not specify that as a ground for granting the motion; and 3) substantial evidence supported the verdict.

[06/13] Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Superior Court of Orange County (Pikerie)
In action in which plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries as a result of ingesting a brand-name drug and its generic equivalents, defendant's petition for a writ of mandate is denied, where: 1) a state cannot require a generic drug manufacturer to provide information on its label in addition to information required on the brand-name drug's label, as that would make it impossible for the generic drug manufacturer to comply with both its duty under federal law to match the brand-name label and any claimed duty under state law to do more; 2) but here, plaintiff alleges that the generic drug labels did not match the brand-name drug label; and thus consequently, 3) plaintiff's claims in this regard are not preempted by federal law.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[06/04] Westmoreland Coal Company v. Cochran
Petition for review of the decision by the Benefits Review Board to award black lung benefits to petitioner's former employee, is denied, where: 1) the award of benefits is supported by the substantial evidence in the record; 2) the Board properly affirmed the ALJ’s finding that the former employee suffers from legal pneumoconiosis; and 3) the ALJ properly placed the burden of proof on the former employee to establish the existence of legal pneumoconiosis.

[05/30] Marine Repair Services, Incorporated v. Fifer
Decision and Order of the Benefits Review Board awarding permanent partial disability benefits to petitioner's former employee, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, is vacated and remanded, where the Administrative Law Judge: 1) made findings unsupported by the record; and 2) demanded more of petitioner than precedent requires to meet its burden of presenting suitable alternative employment for its former employee.

[04/26] CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Board (Moya)
The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act excepts internal workers' compensation fraud investigations from the one-year limitations period established in Government Code section 3304(d)(1).

[04/22] County of Sacramento v. WCAB
An award by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) is annulled and remanded, where the factual basis of the evaluator's opinion, as revealed in her reports and deposition, do not constitute substantial evidence supporting her conclusion that the worker's psychiatric injury was not substantially caused by personnel actions.

Read More