 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mastrangelo v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board10/30/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
THE COURT
John Mastrangelo (Mastrangelo) petitions for a writ of review (Lab. Code, § 5950; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 57) to determine the lawfulness of the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) allowing respondent Pacific Bell Telephone Company (PacBell) a credit against its workers' compensation liability for disability benefit plan payments made under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) (ERISA). We will deny the petition.
BACKGROUND
In June 1999, Mastrangelo filed a workers' compensation claim alleging he injured his hip and spine while working as a splicing technician for PacBell in January 1999. At a September 2002 mandatory settlement conference (MSC), PacBell agreed to provide Mastrangelo with temporary disability benefits between March 8, 1999, and September 30, 1999, and accepted that Mastrangelo sustained an eight percent level of permanent disability beginning October 1, 1999. PacBell also requested credit of $11,817.50 for amounts previously paid under its ERISA employee benefit plan; however, when the parties failed to reach agreement, the parties stipulated that PacBell would defer permanent disability payments "until ERISA issue is resolved." The WCJ granted the parties leave to present additional briefing and documentary exhibits to address the credit issue.
PacBell's credit claim proceeded to a workers' compensation hearing in December 2002. The worker's compensation judge (WCJ) admitted into evidence a copy of the Pacific Telesis Group Comprehensive Disability Benefits Plan (Disability Plan), PacBell's computation of $11,817.50 in excess Disability Plan payments, and a January 13, 1999, letter from the Disability Plan's third party administrator notifying Mastrangelo that PacBell would seek credit for any future workers' compensation liability. Mastrangelo testified that he did not recall receiving a letter warning him he could not receive both Disability Plan and workers' compensation benefits.
On March 29, 2003, the WCJ found PacBell entitled to a credit against its permanent disability liability. On May 23, 2003, the WCAB denied Mastrangelo's timely petition for reconsideration and adopted the reasoning of the WCJ's report and recommendation.
DISCUSSION
Mastrangelo claims the WCAB erroneously concluded PacBell was entitled to a credit for Disability Plan payments in excess of its workers' compensation liability. Specifically, Mastrangelo contends the WCAB: (1) misinterpreted directly applicable caselaw in finding PacBell was entitled to the Disability Plan credit, (2) improperly held discovery open past the MSC, and (3) lacked jurisdiction under ERISA to interpret the Disability Plan. We review the WCAB's interpretations of law de novo and ensure substantial evidence supports any factual determinations. (Cedillo v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 227, 232.)
I. PacBell Disability Plan Caselaw
Appellate courts have twice addressed the issue of whether PacBell may claim a credit against its workers' compensation liability for benefits paid under its employee benefit plans. In Ott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 912, this court held that " n employer is entitled to credit against workers' compensation liability for any wages or
Page 1 2 3 4 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|