California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Compen. App. Bd.

Full title: CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

Date published: Mar 29, 2006

No. B180525 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2006)

Opinion

Page 1221a

137 Cal.App.4th 1221a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HARRY WHITE et al., Respondents. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, FRANSISCO TORRES et al., Respondents. B180525 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Eighth Division March 29, 2006

W.C.A.B. Nos. STK 142091(M), STK 72482

[Modification of opinion (136 Cal.App.4th 1528; _ CaI.Rptr.3d _) on denial of rehearing.]

THE COURT:^*

* COOPER, P. J. RUBIN, J. BOLAND, J.

GOOD CAUSE appearing the opinion filed in the above entitled matter on February 27, 2006, and modified March 14, 2006, is further modified as follows:

1. On page 7, in footnote 7 [136 Cal.App.4th 1537], replace the entire second sentence which begins with: EDD’s contention that the disability . . . .

with the following:

The court in Karaiskos rejected EDD’s contention that the disability fund from which payments were made were “the workers’ own wages” being used to fund the workers’ compensation programs.

2. On page 9, first paragraph [136 Cal.App.4th 1538], partially replace the second sentence which begins: EDD has offered no policy . . .

with the following:

EDD has offered no persuasive policy . . .

3. On page 11, first paragraph after heading 5 [136 Cal.App.4th 1540], replace the second sentence which reads: Judicial estoppel precludes a party from asserting a position in a judicial proceeding that is inconsistent with a position previously successfully asserted, to the detriment of the other side.

with the following:

Judicial estoppel precludes a party from asserting a position in a judicial proceeding that is inconsistent with a position previously successfully asserted, to obtain an unfair advantage.

Page 1221b

4. On page 11, second paragraph after heading 5 [136 Cal.App.4th 1540], replace the entire fourth sentence which reads: Third, even if after the Court of Appeal decision CIGA changed its position on the Viveros issue, EDD can claim no detrimental reliance.

with the following:

Third, we conclude nothing CIGA did gave it an unfair advantage.

The modifications effect no change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.