 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grupe Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board9/15/2005
ve statutory policy in a particular case is a question which ought to be decided, in the first instance, by the Board. Viewing sections 5900 and 5950 as establishing similar tests of ripeness will permit the appellate court to accord appropriate deference to the Board's judgment." (Safeway, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at p. 535.)
The order at issue in Safeway involved a WCJ's decision against an employee on a coverage issue. The WCAB granted reconsideration and found for the employee, holding the injury was compensable and remanding for further hearing on other issues. The employer sought section 5950 judicial review of the WCAB order on reconsideration.
The court in Safeway examined the policies supporting piecemeal review during compensation proceedings in breach of the usual rule requiring finality. The court noted judicial review of WCAB orders determining threshold issues may better serve the statutory scheme by furthering the objectives of expedition and economy by avoiding unnecessary litigation. In addition, the Safeway court pointed out courts are not obliged to grant every petition for review, and safeguards in the form of monetary sanctions exist to deter abuse of the appellate process. Finally, the court found permitting interim review would avoid prejudice to a party who fails to seek review of an order determined to be final despite a remand by the WCAB. The court then determined the case on the merits, finding the employee's injury arose in the course of employment. (Safeway, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at pp. 533-534, 538.)
Several appellate courts have followed Safeway's reasoning and rationale. (See Kosowski v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [employer entitled to credit the self-employment earnings of employee against section 4850 payments]; Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1260 [validity and effect of section 4628 and discovery relating to medical clinic claim for reimbursement.]
In Maranian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, the appellate court agreed with the analysis and result in Safeway, adopting its holding "that the test under section 5950 is the same as the test under section 5900 -- that is, a petition for review of an order by the WCAB lies when the order conclusively determines, for purposes of the compensation proceeding, a substantial issue basic to the employee's entitlement to benefits. . . . e are persuaded, as was the Safeway court, that the `statutory scheme and its objectives' will be better served by permitting interim appeals of WCAB decisions resolving issues crucial to the employee's right to receive benefits. [Citation.] The early disposition of these core questions will likely promote expedition and frugality by avoiding unnecessary trials or duplicative retrials on the merits." (Id. at p. 1078.)
Finally, the Maranian court addressed the WCAB's objections to adopting the reasoning of Safeway and held: "Though the Legislature well knows how to be specific in setting the standards governing appellate review [citation], section 5950 is cast in general language, and, as we noted earlier, would if read literally authorize petitions for writs of review to be taken from any WCAB order, regardless of the order's subject or effect. Safeway's restriction on this broad language was announced in 1980. In the intervening 20 years the statute has not been amended to negate the Safeway annotation. We take this inaction as an expression of the Legislature's satisfaction with the principles of Safeway. While we agree that a failure to act by the lawmakers in the face of a judicial decision construing a statute is not conclusive in determining the legislative intent behind the statut
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|