In a published decision posted Friday, the Fifth District Court of Appeal dealt another blow for workers trying to argue exceptions to the 2-year TD cap (to read our other article this week on another published case dealing with the 2-year TD cap rule, CLICK HERE).
This decision dealt with state employees. Under Government Code sections 19869-19877.1, state employees may be entitled to "industrial disability leave" pay (IDL) when injured on the job. This is a separate benefit from temporary disability mandated in the Labor Code.
The facts involve a state correctional employee who received one year of IDL following a work injury. It was paid at a slightly higher rate than the employee's temporary disability rate.
After that one year of IDL, State Fund began paying the employee TD but stopped after only one more year -- even though the employee remained temporarily totally disabled -- on grounds that IDL payments were in the nature of TD and, thus, fell under the 2-year TD cap rule and must be combined with TD for purposes of calculating the two-year TD cap.
At trial, the judge agreed with State Fund, ruling that IDL was the functional equivalent of TD and that the new statutory limit authorized only 104 weeks of combined IDL and TD indemnity.
The appeals court compared both types of benefits (IDL and TD) after noting that nowhere in the Labor Code is "temporary disability" defined. It concluded that both were basically intended for the same purpose and, thus, both fell within the two-year TD cap of Labor Code Section 4656.
"We agree that the statutory scheme is clear, but not with [applicant's] conclusion that IDL and TD are distinct classes of benefits that do not overlap. Despite [her] arguments to the contrary, the Legislature has already answered her inquiry. Located within the IDL provisions, Government Code section 19870 (a) expressly provides that IDL 'means temporary disability.' Because IDL is statutorily defined as the equivalent of TD, then the two-year limitation under section 4656(c)(1), necessarily must apply to both IDL and TD."
The Court got around the "liberality" rule of Section 3202 by finding Section 4656's statutory language "unambiguous." Citing Brodie for authority, the Court ruled that once it finds "the statutory scheme unambiguous, we need not resort to interpreting alternate statutory constructions or to section 3202's requirement to construe benefits liberally towards extending benefits."
This published case is Brooks v. WCAB.
To read the opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.
- Help for the Injured Worker
