Rivera v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 16, 112 Cal. App. 4th 1124, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 11753, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9345, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1593
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 3, 2003
DocketB163686
StatusPublished

This text of 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 16 (Rivera v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rivera v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 16, 112 Cal. App. 4th 1124, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 11753, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9345, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1593 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Opinion

BOLAND, J.

Petitioner Juan Rivera sustained an industrial injury and entered into a settlement agreement with his employer, respondent Tower Staffing Solutions (Tower). The settlement included accrued and continuing periodic indemnity payments. Rivera also requested commutation of future indemnity payments into a lump sum, which was approved by the Workers’ *1128 Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Tower was late in paying the amounts due and included a 10 percent increase under Labor Code section 4650, subdivision (d). 1

Rivera alleged the payments were late and underpaid, and sought multiple 10 percent increases for unreasonable delay under section 5814. 2 The workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found there was late payment and a greater amount owed under section 4650, and awarded two increases under section 5814.

Tower appealed. The WCAB concluded in an en banc decision, that the timing provisions of section 4650 3 limited the statute to periodic indemnity payments, and that the statute did not apply to periodic indemnity payments reduced to a lump sum by reason of commutation or settlement. The WCAB affirmed a single increase under section 5814 for the late payment of indemnity.

Rivera petitions for writ of review. He contends the plain language of section 4650, subdivision (d) is that the statute is applicable to any payment of indemnity. Rivera further contends he is entitled to multiple increases *1129 under section 5814. Tower answers that the plain language of section 4650 supports the WCAB’s interpretation, and the decision should be affirmed.

We conclude that section 4650 is applicable to payments of periodic and accrued temporary and permanent disability indemnity, but not to payments of future permanent disability indemnity commuted into a lump sum. Accordingly, the decision of the WCAB is annulled and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Juan Rivera, a machine operator for Tower, caught his left hand in a machine at work on March 4, 1999, and suffered a severe crush amputation through the joints of the fingers and a tom forearm muscle. On December 12, 2000, Rivera and Tower entered into Stipulations with Request for Award (Stipulations), which was awarded by the WCJ. The Stipulations provided that all temporary disability indemnity was adequately compensated through April 30, 2000. It further provided that the injury caused 75 percent permanent disability, which totaled $72,295.09 in indemnity payable at $153.33 per week beginning May 1, 2000. In addition, Rivera would receive a life pension at the indemnity rate of $51.75 per week after the payment of permanent disability indemnity. 4 The Stipulations finally provided that $18,000 in attorney’s fees would be commuted from the far end of the award, and no interest 5 or penalties 6 would be imposed if the award were paid within 25 days.

At the same time, Rivera petitioned for commutation into a lump sum all future indemnity payments, including the life pension. 7 The WCJ ordered the commutation, subject to objection within 15 days. Tower did not object.

*1130 On or about January 26, 2001, Tower paid the attorney’s fees and $22.13 to Rivera. An accompanying letter indicated that the payment was based on the Stipulations.

On or about February 14, 2001, Tower paid Rivera $98,209.20. An accompanying letter set forth a series of calculations and indicated that the amount represented all future indemnity payments from February 8, 2001, including the life pension, which was commuted into the lump sum. Also included in the amount was interest and $10,424.84, which was payment under section 4650.

Rivera claimed the amounts paid were incorrect and unreasonably delayed, and he was entitled to multiple increases or penalties under sections 4650 and 5814. The parties proceeded to trial and submitted briefing. Tower provided its calculations and denied liability for multiple increases or penalties under Christian v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 505 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 336, 936 P.2d 115] (Christian) (erroneous decision not to pay benefit followed by 11 demands for payment not separate and distinct acts of unreasonable delay or refusal that involve different classes of benefits, claims for medical or travel expense, delay following penalty award, or other legally significant event such as an admission of liability) and California Highway Patrol v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1201 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 118] (California Highway Patrol) (only one section 5814 increase for failure to include required interest with unreasonably delayed payment).

The WCJ found Tower had unreasonably delayed payment and underpaid the amount owed under section 4650, subdivision (d). The WCJ imposed two separate 10 percent increases under section 5814.

In its opinion, the WCJ explained that Tower’s counsel was personally served with the commutation order after it was approved, and since there was no objection within 15 days, payment was due on January 2, 2001. However, the WCJ viewed the two late payments as a single unreasonable delay under Christian. The WCJ further found that Tower’s calculation of the commuted *1131 value of permanent disability indemnity was correct. Because payment under section 4650 was short $541.07, a second increase under section 5814 was justified.

Tower petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration. Tower conceded the late payment and a single increase under section 5814. However, Tower maintained that the calculation error under section 4650 was part of a single course of conduct under Christian and California Highway Patrol.

The WCAB granted reconsideration and issued an en banc decision. 8 The WCAB noted the timing provisions of section 4650 and reasoned that, “By its own wording, section 4650 applies to periodic payments of temporary and permanent disability indemnity.” The WCAB also cited cases that addressed section 4650, such as Gangwish v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 1] (Gangwish). 9 The WCAB concluded that periodic indemnity payments changed or commuted into a lump sum were no longer periodic and, consequently, the timed payment and penalty provisions of section 4650 were not applicable. 10

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Arriaga v. County of Alameda
892 P.2d 150 (California Supreme Court, 1995)
Gallamore v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
591 P.2d 1242 (California Supreme Court, 1979)
Kerley v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
481 P.2d 200 (California Supreme Court, 1971)
Christian v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
936 P.2d 115 (California Supreme Court, 1997)
DuBois v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
853 P.2d 978 (California Supreme Court, 1993)
Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
514 P.2d 1224 (California Supreme Court, 1973)
Chavira v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
235 Cal. App. 3d 463 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)
Gangwish v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 2001)
Western Growers Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
16 Cal. App. 4th 227 (California Court of Appeal, 1993)
Moulton v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 175 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)
Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
38 Cal. App. 4th 820 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)
Boehm & Associates v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 486 (California Court of Appeal, 1999)
California Highway Patrol v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
89 Cal. App. 4th 1201 (California Court of Appeal, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 16, 112 Cal. App. 4th 1124, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 11753, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9345, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-workers-compensation-appeals-board-calctapp-2003.