DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL– The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply only to final judgments or orders that bar the relitigation of a claim or issue on the merits, but the doctrines do not apply to interim orders such as a consolidation order or a stay order. (See Busick v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 967, see also Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335.) Scheffield Medical Group, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Luis Aceituno), State Compensation Insurance Fund. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,056

CREDIT FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS PLAN PAYMENTS– An employer is entitled to credit against its workers' compensation liability for payments in excess of compensation liability, which payments are the same general character and the functional equivalent of benefits provided by the workers' compensation system. (See Appleby v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 184.) [In this case, the employer's disability plan expressly provided that any benefits paid under the plan were intended to offset workers' compensation benefits.] John Mastrangelo v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd., Pacific Bell Telephone Company. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,321

STATUTORY OFFER TO COMPROMISE PROCEDURE IN CIVIL ACTIONS– Award of prejudgment interest– Code of Civil Procedure §998– Prejudgment interest cannot be awarded in a FELA case when the plaintiff made a statutory offer to compromise that was rejected by the defendant and at trial the plaintiff obtained a judgment in excess of the offer to compromise, because federal law prohibits such an award. Ronald G. Lund v. San Joaquin Valley Railroad. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,223

HOUSEHOLD DOMESTIC SERVICE ESCLUSION FOR PURPOSES OF OSHA– Labor Code §6303(b)– OSHA does not apply to all places of employment or types of employment. Employment for OSHA purposes does not apply to any person engaged in "household domestic service." The term "household domestic service" implies duties that are personal to the homeowner, not those that relate to a commercial or business activity on the homeowner's part. [In this case, trimming a 50-foot palm tree was found to be within the household domestic service exclusion as a matter of law.] Miguel Fernandez v. Truman Lawson, Jr. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,221

ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP– Labor Code §3755–After the employer has been dismissed from a workers' compensation proceeding and the workers' compensation carrier has been substituted for the employer pursuant to Labor Code §3755, the attorney assigned to defend the proceeding no longer has an attorney-client relationship with the employer. Canton Poultry & Deli, Inc. v. Stockwell, Harris, Widom & Woolverton 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,206

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL– While collateral estoppel has been found to be applicable in workers' compensation cases (See Nash v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 532), it will arise only when: (1) the issues presented in the subsequent proceeding are identical to the issues actually litigated and finally determined in the prior proceeding, (2) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted in the subsequent proceeding was a party to, or is in privity with, a party to the prior proceeding, (3) there was a final determination of the merits in the prior proceeding, (4) the prior hearing was a judicial-like adversarial proceeding, (5) the prior hearing resolved disputed issues of fact, and (5) the parties to the prior hearing had an adequate opportunity to litigate. (See Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807.) [In this case, a summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds in a civil action against the manufacturers of toxic material used at work by the injured party was not collateral estoppel on the issue of the statute of limitations in the workers' compensation toxic exposure claim.] Joseph Hawkins v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Levitz Furniture. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,148

CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT– Government Code §12945.2– A request for family care and medical leave must provide at least verbal notice sufficient to make the employer aware that the employee needs California Family Rights Act [CFRA] qualifying leave, although the employee need not specifically assert rights under the CFRA or its federal counterpart, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. [In this case, the employee's request for vacation time over the Christmas holiday to visit his ailing parents did not constitute sufficient notice that the employee needed leave to care for his parents.] Keeley A. Stevens v. California Department of Corrections. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,109

HOSPITAL LIENS IN CIVIL CASES– Civil Code §3045.1– A hospital, which has received full payment for services under the terms of its contract with a medical insurance provider, is not entitled to file a lien to recover the difference between that payment and the hospital's "usual and customary" charges for similar services. Joel K. Parnell v. Adventist Health System/West. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,091

DISABILITY RETIREMENT– Government Code §31725– If an employee's petition for disability retirement is rejected by the county retirement board and the employer has dismissed the member for disability, the employer must reinstate the member to his employment as of the day following the effective date of the dismissal. [In this case, the injured worker voluntarily placed herself on disability due to work-related injuries and was not dismissed by her employer.] Celia Kohagen v. County of Santa Barbara 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,078

THIRD-PARTY CIVIL ACTIONS– Labor Code §6304.5– Evidence of Cal-OSHA safety standards or orders in employee third-party personal injury actions– Labor Code §6304.5 does not permit the introduction of Cal-OSHA safety standards or orders in evidence in employee third-party personal injury actions. Cal-OSHA standards and safety orders are admissible only in actions between an employee and his or her own employer. (See generally Brock v. State of California (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 752.) Rowdy Elsner v. Carl Uveges, State Compensation Insurance Fund. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,062

SETTLEMENTS IN CIVIL ACTIONS– Code of Civil Procedure §664.6– Once a case has been dismissed, the court does not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.5, despite the fact that the settlement agreement provided that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. Prior to filing a dismissal, if the parties properly request the court to retain jurisdiction, the jurisdiction continues notwithstanding a dismissal of the action. (See Wackeen v. Malis (202) 97 Cal.App.4th 429.) Hagan Engineering v. Daniel G. Mills. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,060

THIRD-PARTY CIVIL ACTIONS– Doctrine of respondeat superior– An employer is ordinarily liable for the injuries its employees cause others in the course of their employment. The fact that an employee is not engaged in the ultimate object of his employment at the time his wrongful act does not preclude attribution of liability to an employer. [In this case, the employee suffered pesticide exposure at work, which the employee attributed to illness and impaired driving. The employer was liable for injuries to a third-party in an automobile accident while the employee was driving home from work because the accident was a foreseeable result from the conduct of the employer's business.] Barbara Bussard v. Minimed, Inc. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,043

DISABILITY RETIREMENT– Government Code §21156– In determining whether a police officer is mentally incapacitated and entitled to a disability retirement, it must be shown that the police officer is unable to perform the usual duties of a police officer. (See generally Pearl v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 189, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,211.). [In this case, the court applied the wrong standard for mental incapacity, finding that it was enough that the officer feared retaliation from former police department colleagues.] City of Anaheim v. Steven W. Nolan. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,032

COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE– Even if a plaintiff may recover for reduction in his pension benefits, he cannot use the collateral source rule to prevent the defendant from introducing in evidence that the plaintiff is receiving a disability pension. Rotolo Chevrolet v. Superior Court of San Bernardino. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,031

CIVIL ACTION SETTLEMENTS– Under Code of Civil Procedure §664.6, a trial court may enforce a settlement agreement made during pending litigation if the parties entered into the agreement either orally before the court or in writing outside the presence of the court. If a party agrees to a settlement in writing outside the presence of the court, the settlement may be enforced by the court against a party who agreed to the same settlement orally before the court. Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement agreement without the need for a new lawsuit. (see Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793.) Morad Elyaoudayan v. Leo Hoffman. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,029