PETITION FOR REVIEW
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE ASSOCIATED JUSTICES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
 

Petitioner: Charles R. Engel


TABLE OF CONTENTS

 
 
Table of Exhibits  ii
 
Table of Authorities iii
Petition for Writ of Review Pages1-3
Exhibits Page 4
Proof of Service Page 5

 
 

I
TABLE OF EXHIBITS


 


Decision Denying Writ of Review           Exhibit A

 

THE REMAINDER OF THE DOCUMENTATION RELEVANT TO PETITIONER'S CASE IS APPENDED TO PETITIONER'S APPELATE COURT APPEAL.
 
 

ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution   . Page 2

Article 1, Section 7 (a) of the Constitution of the State
of California  . . Page 2

 

Cases

Greener v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (1983) 6 Cal.
4th 1028, 58 Cal. Comp. Cases 783, 798. . . Page 2

 


 

Iii
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


 
CHARLES R. ENGEL 
                          Petitioner, 
v- 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION 
APPEALS BOARD AND UNITED 
PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY 
MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. 
 

                  Respondents. 

____________________________

 ) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)		 WCAB NO: WCK0033454 
Summary of Hearing Judge: 
Christopher Hamilton – 
Workers' Compensation – 
County of Contra Costa 
Civil No: A081728

PETITION FOR REVIEW


TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALIFORNIA AND
THE ASSOCIATED JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
 
 

Petitioner:
Charles R. Engel
Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596

1
INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Charles R. Engel, a Teamster car-washer at United Parcel Service, respectfully requests that the Court grant the petitioner a hearing before the State Supreme Court.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I
Did the Court of Appeal for the First District, Division 4, properly decide to deny petitioner's Petition for Writ of Review?
II

Is California Workers' Compensation Law in violation of Article 1, Section 7(a) of the California State Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution? Is it Constitutional that the Law may severely limit the amount of compensation that an attorney can receive to represent the petitioner? Is it Constitutional that the law makes it impossible for a the petitioner to hire council? Is it Constitutional that an employer and their insurance company may spend an unrestricted amount of money to hire their Council or Councils? Is this not a breach of the petitioner's constitutional rights to equal protection under the law?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

During the Summary of Hearing on 10-7-97, at the Walnut Creek Office of the WCAB, petitioner first moved to declare unconstitutional the Labor Code sections and other provisions governing workers' compensation which resulted in his not being able to obtain an attorney. On October 15, 1997, petitioner filed a Petition for Removal with the WCAB in Walnut Creek. On October 22, 1997, the Walnut Creek Office of the WCAB issued a Report on Petition for Removal. Said report recommended that the Appeals Board "undertake to address the issues applicant is raising in whatever manner it deems appropriate". On December 23, 1997, the San Francisco Office of the WCAB issued a flawed order-denying Petition for Removal. The first denial was attributed, in part, to statements erroneously attributed to the workers' compensation referee. On January 20, 1998, the San Francisco Office of the WCAB issued an Amended Order Denying Petition for Removal informing petitioner that "the Board must comply with the statute until an appellate court upholds a constitutional challenge. (Greener v. Workers' Comp. Appeals BD., (1983) 6 Cal 4th 1028, 58 Cal Comp. Cases 783, 798.)

2

On February 24, 1998 petitioner filed case #A081728 at the California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District. The petitioner's case was summarily denied on May 1, 1998 without explanation.
ARGUMENTS
It is impossible for the petitioner to hire an attorney. Workers' compensation attorneys will not take somewhat complex cases that result in insufficient compensation to cover the cost of representation. This situation results in injured workers being precluded from legal representation based on the complexity of a case rather than lack of merit. The law does not allow the petitioner to adequately pay an attorney. Theoretically, this is done to protect the worker from excessive fees. The negative aspect is that if a case is slightly complicated the attorney is not adequately paid. The resolution of psychiatric injury cases, such as the petitioners, requires extensive attention to detail. Complex work related psychiatric injury cases are often symptomatic of a hostile and/or dysfunctional work environment in dire need of redress. The employer is given the opportunity to avoid judgments ascertaining responsibility for injurious and/or possibly illegal actions when adequate funds for legal representation are denied the injured worker. This system offers maximum protection to the employer and an illusion of justice to the injured worker.
CONCLUSION
Based on the information and arguments above, petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeal, First District, erred by issuing its decision of denial. It is respectfully requested that your Honors hear this case before the Supreme Court of the State of California.



2


 
 
 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
FILED

Court of Appeal – First App. Dist.
May – 1 1998
Ron D. Harrow, Clerk
CHARLES R. ENGEL,

Petitioner,

  1. A081728
(WCAB Case No. WCK 33454)

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS
BOARD and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,

Respondents.

_________________________________

THE COURT:

        Petitioner seeks review of the Amended Order Denying Petition for

Removal of lthe Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued on January 20,

1998, whallenging the constitutionality of the Californiak Workers' Compensation

laws. The petition for writ of review (and/or writ of mandate) filed with this court

on February 24, 1998, is denied.

        (Hanlon, P.J., Reardon, J. and McGuiness, J. participated in the decision.)
 
      _____________________
Date: May 1, 1998 HANLON, P. J.

Exhibit A
THIS IS A TRANSCRIBED DOCUMENT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
(CCP 1013a, 2015.5)

I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled action. I am a

resident of Contra Costa County. My home address is Walnut

Creek, California. On this date, I served the following:

PETITION FOR REVIEW
By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage

prepaid in the United States mail at Contra Costa, California, addressed as

shown below.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that

the foregoing is true and correct.
 

Executed at Walnut Creek, California, on May 11, 1998.
 

___________________________
Charles W. Engel
The Supreme Court of
The State of California
Marathon Plaza, South Tower
303 Second Street, Room 8023
San Francisco, CA 94107
(Original and 13 Copies,
Hand Delivered By Petitioner)

State Court of Appeal
First Appellate District
Marathon Plaza, South Tower
303 Second Street, Room 600
San Francisco, CA 94107
(Hand Delivered by Petitioner)

Mr. John Naddy
United Parcel Service
8400 Pardee Drive
Oakland, CA 94621
 

Bruce D. Parker, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF B. SUE WARD
525 Market Street, Suite 2320
San Francisco, CA 94105

Judge Christopher Hamilton
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
175 Lennon Lane, 2nd Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94598

RECON Panel
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
P.O. Box 429459
San Francisco, CA 94142-9459
(Two Copies)

Top of Page
Back to THE STEWARD Home Page