Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Commission
| Decision Date | 28 November 1962 |
| Citation | 210 Cal.App.2d 267,26 Cal.Rptr. 470 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY and N. Ratkovich Construction Company, Inc., Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION of the State of California and Elmer W. Marlar, Respondents. Civ. 20724. |
Hanna & Brophy, San Francisco, for petitioners.
Everett A. Corten, Rupert A. Pedrin, San Francisco, for Industrial Accident Commission.
Petitioner seeks annulment of an award of maximum compensation for temporary total disability, together with 10% penalty (Lab.Code § 5814). Elmer W. Marlar, a construction worker, was injured November 17, 1961. Petitioner, the insurer of his employer, paid him the maximum compensation of $70 per week until January 19, 1962. On that date, the insurer reduced the payments to $47.54 per week. This reduction was made on the basis of Marlar's return to a questionnaire sent to him by the insurer. The return showed that his earnings at date of injury were at a rate well in excess of the maximum which can be considered under the code (Lab.Code § 4453). The same is true of his average earnings for 22 weeks preceding injury, and if such average is computed over a period of 37 weeks, it is only slightly below the amount required for a maximum temporary disability award of $70. However, his return showed no employment from November 17, 1960 to March 2, 1961. If his total earnings of $4003.11 are averaged over the 52 weeks preceding injury, they show weekly earnings of $76.98. Computing compensation at 65% (Lab.Code § 4653) of 95% (Lab.Code § 4453[d]), of this weekly amount results in the figure of $47.54, the amount paid by petitioner beginning January 19, 1962.
It is apparent that petitioner, to sustain its contention, must argue both that actual earnings are the sole basis for computation of the award, and that weekly earnings are to be computed only by averaging such actual earnings over a full year.
The first of these contentions is untenable. It is clear that the commission 'must make its own estimate of weekly earning capacity at the time of the injury', and that actual pay over a period preceding injury is not the sole element to be considered (Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm., 57 Cal.2d 589, 594, 21 Cal.Rptr. 545, 371 P.2d 281; and see California Comp. & Fire Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm., 57 Cal.2d 598, 21 Cal.Rptr. 549, 371 P.2d 285; California Comp. & Fire Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm., 57 Cal.2d 600, 21 Cal.Rptr. 551, 371 P.2d 287). As pointed out in Argonaut, this view is particularly applicable to awards for temporary disability.
Petitioner argues, however, that it reduced payments to Marlar in reliance upon opinions by a District Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerley v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.
...400, 65 Cal.Rptr. 598; Davison v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 15, 50 Cal.Rptr. 76; Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 267, 26 Cal.Rptr. 470 (hg. den.).) In Davison, supra (241 Cal.App.2d p. 18, 50 Cal.Rptr. p. 77), the court held that section 5814......
-
Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd
...400 [65 Cal.Rptr. 598]; Davison v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 15 [50 Cal.Rptr. 76]; Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 267 [26 Cal.Rptr. 470] (hg. den.).)" (Kerley v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 223, 226-227, 93 Cal.Rptr. 192, 481 P.......
-
Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
...doubt. (Ibid.) A delay is not ordinarily excused by an employer's erroneous view of the law. (See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 267, 268-269, 26 Cal.Rptr. 470.) However, a reasonable interpretation of unsettled law is a valid excuse. (County of Los Angeles ......
-
Reynolds Elec. & Engineering Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com'n
...payment to the applicant of workmen's compensation benefits had been unreasonably delayed or refused. (Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm., 210 Cal.App.2d 267, 26 Cal.Rptr. 470.) On the question of apportionment, the commission had before it the testimony of the applicant wherein he ......