Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. S147030.,No. S146979.,S146979.,S147030. |
| Citation | 40 Cal.4th 1313,156 P.3d 1100,57 Cal.Rptr.3d 644 |
| Parties | Stan BRODIE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, Respondents. Kenneth Dee Welcher, Petitioner, v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Hat Creek Construction, Inc., et al., Respondents. Jack Strong, Petitioner, v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and City and County of San Francisco, Respondents. Aurora Lopez, Petitioner, v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Department of Social Services et al., Respondents. Henry L. Williams, Jr., Petitioner, v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and United Airlines, Respondents. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel (Los Angeles), Patrick A. Wu, Assistant County Counsel, and Leah D. Davis, Deputy County Counsel, for County of Los Angeles as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondents.
Jones Day, Ellwood Lui, Los Angeles, Peter E. Davids, San Francisco; Raymond G, Fortner, Jr., County Counsel (Los Angeles), Charles Safer, Assistant County Counsel, and Rosanne Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondents.
These consolidated cases present the following question: When a worker suffers an industrial injury that results in permanent disability, how should the compensation owed based on the current level of permanent disability be discounted for either previous industrial injury or nonindustrial disabilities? The issue was originally settled by this court in Fuentes v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1, 128 Cal.Rptr. 673, 547 P.2d 449 (Fuentes ), but the 2004 omnibus reform of California's workers' compensation scheme created doubt as to whether the apportionment formula we adopted in Fuentes had been superseded and a different formula should now be employed. We conclude it has not been superseded and the Fuentes formula remains the correct one to apply in apportioning compensation between causes of disability.
These cases arise from five workers' compensation proceedings with widely differing facts but two unifying aspects. First, in each the injured worker's current permanent disability level could be attributed in part to one or more previous industrial injuries or to nonindustrial causes. Second, in each the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) applied the Fuentes apportionment method, under compulsion of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (Board) divided en banc decision holding that notwithstanding the 2004 legislation, the Fuentes method of calculating apportionment was still correct. (See Nabors v. Piedmont Lumber & Mill Co. (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 856, 862 (en banc) (Nabors I).)
Stan Brodie, a firefighter for the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, sustained an industrial injury to his back, spine, and right knee in December 2000 and subsequent cumulative trauma to his back and spine that resulted in 74 percent permanent disability. Over the previous 30 years of his career as a firefighter, Brodie had sustained several industrial injuries to the same body parts for which he was awarded compensation based on a 44.5 percent permanent disability rating.1 The WCJ awarded him $20,867.50 in compensation based on the difference between these ratings, 29.5 percent, and the Board denied reconsideration.
Kenneth Dee Welcher sustained an industrial injury in July 1990 when his right arm and leg were caught in a conveyor belt. His permanent disability level was stipulated at 62.5 percent. His current claim arose from cumulative injury to his right leg sustained as a laborer for Hat Creek Construction, Inc. Welcher had his right leg amputated below the knee, and the parties stipulated to a 71 percent permanent disability rating. The WCJ awarded Welcher $3,360 in compensation based on the difference between these ratings, 8 percent (rounding down), and the Board denied reconsideration.
Jack Strong, a City and County of San Francisco engineer, suffered a 1995 industrial left knee injury and received a 34.5 percent permanent disability rating. In 1999, he sustained additional industrial injuries to his left shoulder, left knee, left ankle, and right wrist, resulting in permanent disability of 42 percent. In 2002, he sustained a third industrial injury while working for the city, this time to his back. The parties stipulated that Strong's overall level of permanent disability was now 70 percent. Based on evidence from a disability evaluation specialist, the WCJ determined the current injury caused permanent disability of 10 percent, with the remaining 60 percent attributable to the previous injuries, and awarded $4,235. The Board granted reconsideration but thereafter affirmed the award. (Strong v. City & County of San Francisco (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1460 (en banc).)
Aurora Lopez, a Department of Social Services employee, injured her back and lower extremities; the parties stipulated she was 100 percent permanently disabled and stipulated further that 79 percent of this was attributable to the industrial injury and 21 percent to nonindustrial causes. The WCJ awarded Lopez permanent disability benefits of $80,910.73, plus a small life pension based on disability in excess of 70 percent, and the Board denied reconsideration.
Henry L. Williams, Jr., a United Airlines mechanic, injured his lumbar spine and received a 28 percent permanent disability rating. Thereafter, in 2003 Williams injured his spine again, and the parties stipulated to a 43 percent permanent disability rating. The WCJ awarded $9,296.25 in permanent disability benefits based on the difference, 15 percent, and the Board denied reconsideration.
In Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., the First District Court of Appeal, Division Three, granted writ review and annulled the Board's decision. It agreed with earlier Court of Appeal decisions from the Fifth District and First District, Division Two, insofar as they held that the 2004 legislation superseded Fuentes. (E & J Gallo Winery v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 134 Cal.App:4th 1536, 1548-1550, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 208 (Dykes);2 Nabors v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 217, 228, 44 Cal. Rptr.3d 312 (Nabors II).) As we shall discuss, it disagreed in other respects, concluding that the correct method for calculating an award was a third approach different from that adopted either in Fuentes or in Dykes and Nabors II.
In Welcher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., the Third District consolidated the cases of Welcher, Strong, Lopez, and Williams and affirmed, expressly disagreeing with Dykes and Nabors II and holding, in agreement with the Board majority in Nabors I, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at page 862, that the Fuentes formula was still correct.
We granted review to resolve the split of authority.
We take as a given that each injured worker in these cases has a level of permanent disability and that some but not all of that current level of permanent disability is properly apportioned to the most recent industrial injury. The common question we must answer is: How should compensation for that portion be computed?
California's workers' compensation system was established to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of workers in the event of industrial injury by "`relieving [them] from the consequences of any injury incurred by employees in the course of their employment.'" (Mathews v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 719, 731, fn. 8, 100 Cal.Rptr. 301, 493 P.2d 1165, quoting Stats.1917, ch. 586, § 1, p. 832; see also Claxton v. Waters (2004) 34 Cal.4th 367, 372, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 246, 96 P.3d 496.)
The panoply of benefits the system provides includes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Siry Inv., L.P. v. Farkhondehpour
-
Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour
...implied." ’ " ( Siry , supra , 45 Cal.App.5th at p. 1135, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 466, quoting Brodie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd . (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1325, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 156 P.3d 1100 ( Brodie ), and citing Van Horn v. Watson (2008) 45 Cal.4th 322, 333, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 350, 197 P.3d 164......
- Siry Inv., L.P. v. Farkhondehpour
- Leider v. Lewis
-
Table of Cases
...§7:36 Brock v. State of California, 81 CA3d 752, 43 CCC 1486 (1978), §12:11 Brock v. WCAB, 64 CCC 553 (W/D-1999), §6:206 Brodie v. WCAB, 40 Cal.4th 1313, 72 CCC 565 (2007), §§8:42, 8:132, 8:134 Broisus v. Orpheum Theater Co., 16 CA2d 61, 1 CCC 207 (1936), §3:198 Brome v. California Highway ......
-
Permanent disability
...of their future earnings capacity.” [LC §4660(a); Livitsanos v. Superior Court , 2 Cal4th 744, 753, 57 CCC 355 (1992); Brodie v. WCAB , 40 Cal4th 1313, 1320, 72 CCC 355 (2007).] The 2005 PDRS is prima facie evidence of an injured employee’s percentage of permanent disability. According to t......
-
Walking on Eggshells: Properly Apportioning to Causation of Permanent Disability and Not Causation of Injury
...and causation of disability, we must first turn to the Supreme Court decision in Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brodie) (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313. A significant paragraph in Brodie is the historical definition of permanent disability, as follows: Permanent disability is understood as th......