Title: Claxton v. Waters

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

Filed 9/15/04 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
CAROLYN CLAXTON, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Appellant, 
) 
 
 
) 
S106106 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 2/8 B141129 
RAY WATERS et al., 
) 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
Defendants and Respondents. ) 
Super. Ct. No. NC 024284 
___________________________________ ) 
BY THE COURT: 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
 
 
The opinion herein, appearing at ___ Cal.4th ___ is modified as follows: 
 
1.  In the first full paragraph on page 5 in the typed opinion, the words 
“See former” are inserted before the words “Lab. Code, § 4646, subd. (a)” in the 
citation at the end of the paragraph.   
 
2.  In the second full paragraph on page 3 of the concurring and dissenting 
opinion in the typed opinion, the second, third, and fourth sentences are deleted. 
 
3.  Following the first sentence of the second full paragraph on page 3 of 
the concurring and dissenting opinion in the typed opinion, the following three 
sentences are added: 
 
“Labor Code former section 4646, subdivision (a), does not support the 
majority’s proposed exception to our long-standing rules of contract interpretation 
because there is no statutory basis for the majority’s holding.  Rodgers v. 
Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 567, 575-576, is also 
inapposite.  In Rodgers, the Court of Appeal applied our rules of contract 
interpretation and found that the language of the preprinted release form, by its 
terms, did not encompass a workers’ compensation claim predicated on a new 
injury suffered during rehabilitation services after the claimant signed the 
release.” 
 
4.  In the third sentence of the second paragraph on page 7 of the 
concurring and dissenting opinion in the typed opinion, the citation at the end of 
that sentence shall be modified to read:  “(See Lab. Code, former § 4646.)” 
 
The modification does not effect a change in the judgment.