Camper v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1992
• Docket Number: No. S024431,S024431
• Citation: 836 P.2d 888,3 Cal.4th 679,12 Cal.Rptr.2d 101
• Parties: , 836 P.2d 888 Ronald CAMPER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, J.C. Penney Company, Inc., et al., Respondents.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 101

12 Cal.Rptr.2d 101

3 Cal.4th 679, 836 P.2d 888

Ronald CAMPER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, J.C. Penney Company, Inc., et al., Respondents.

No. S024431.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Oct. 5, 1992.

Madeline Scates, Mastagni Holstedt & Chiurazzi, Sacramento, for petitioner.

D. Pat McAleer, Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen, Redding, for respondents.

PANELLI, Justice.

This case presents the question of whether the 45-day period within which to file a petition for writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) specified by Labor Code section 5950 is extended by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Section 1013 extends the time within which certain actions must be taken in response to a document served by mail. We granted review to resolve a conflict in our appellate courts regarding the answer to this question. We conclude that the deadline set forth in Labor Code section 5950 is not extended by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Therefore, we agree with the Court of Appeal that petitioner's petition for writ of review was untimely. Nevertheless, we also conclude that, due to reliance by the petitioner on consistent authority to the contrary at the time he filed his petition, our decision will apply prospectively only. For this reason, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and direct it to consider petitioner's petition for writ of review on the merits.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a workers' compensation claim, alleging specific and cumulative back injuries, filed by Ronald Camper (Camper) in 1989. Because we have limited our review in this case to the procedural question stated above, a review of the facts relating to Camper's injury and the merits of the decision of the WCAB is unnecessary.

On December 12, 1990, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) issued a decision, which contained findings of specific, but not cumulative, injury. Camper moved for reconsideration of the decision on January 4, 1991. The WCAB agreed to reconsider the decision. On July 24, 1991, the WCAB filed its opinion following reconsideration, which was served upon Camper by mail on the same date. The opinion essentially confirmed the decision of the WCJ.

On September 12, 1991, 50 days after the WCAB filed its opinion, Camper filed a petition for writ of review in the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District. The procedure for obtaining judicial review of an opinion of the WCAB is set forth in Labor Code section 5950. That section provides in pertinent part: "The application for writ of review must be made within 45 days after a petition for reconsideration is denied, or, if a petition is granted or reconsideration is had on the appeal board's own motion, within 45 days after the filing of the order, decision, or award following reconsideration." ¹ Since Camper's petition was filed 50, not 45, days after the WCAB's opinion was filed, his petition is untimely unless the deadline set forth in Labor Code section 5950 is extended for at least 5 days for some reason.

Camper relied upon the provisions of section 1013 to extend the deadline. That section provides in pertinent part: "[A]ny prescribed period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any prescribed period or on a date certain after the service of [a] document served by mail shall be extended five days if the place of address [of the party served] is within the State of California...." (Code Civ.Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).) ²

The Court of Appeal, however, found that Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 was not applicable and that Camper's petition was untimely. On December 12, 1991, the Court of Appeal filed an order denying petitioner's writ. In support of its order, the court cited a decision of the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, Division One, Southwest Airlines v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1421, 286 Cal.Rptr. 347 (Southwest Airlines ).

Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d 1421, 286 Cal.Rptr. 347, was decided on October 7, 1991, after Camper filed his petition. Southwest Airlines held that Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 does not operate to extend the time for filing a petition for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950. Prior to Southwest Airlines, the three published decisions that specifically addressed this issue each held that section 1013 does extend the time for filing a petition for writ of review pursuant to section 5950. (Villa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1078, 203 Cal.Rptr. 26 [Villa ] [Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Six]; Hinkle v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 587, 589, 221 Cal.Rptr. 40 [Hinkle ] [Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Two]; Postural Therapeutics v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 551, 554, fn. 4, 224 Cal.Rptr. 860 [Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three].) ³

Shortly after the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District denied Camper's petition, it issued its decision in Malloy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1658, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 820 (Malloy ). Consistent with both the order in Camper's case and Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d 1421, 286 Cal.Rptr. 347, Malloy also held that the 45-day time period for filing a petition for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 is not extended by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.

Camper filed a petition for review in this court seeking to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal. We granted review with the limitation that: "[t]he issue to be argued before this court shall be limited to whether the 45-day period in which to file a petition for writ of review from a [WCAB] decision is extended by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013."

Subsequent to our order granting review, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Six, issued its decision in Paneno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 136, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 461 (Paneno ). This decision explicitly overruled that court's prior decision in Villa, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d 1076, 203 Cal.Rptr. 26, and adopted the holding of Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d 1421, 286 Cal.Rptr. 347. The two remaining decisions holding that section 1013 operates to extend the time limit set forth in Labor Code section 5950 do so without analysis. (Hinkle, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 589, 221 Cal.Rptr. 40; Postural Therapeutics v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. supra, 179 Cal.App.3d 551, 554, fn. 4, 224 Cal.Rptr. 860.)

It is in this posture that the case comes before us for resolution of the narrow issue on which we granted review.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The 45-day Time Period Set Forth in Labor Code Section 5950 Is Not Extended by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013.

The 45-day time period specified in section 5950 runs from the time "a petition for review is denied " or from the "filing of [a]n order, decision, or award following reconsideration." (Lab.Code, § 5950, emphasis added.) There is no reference in this statute to service. The operative trigger of the time period set forth in section 5950 is the filing of the order. ⁴ "[T]he cases have consistently held that where a prescribed time period is commenced by some circumstance, act or occurrence other than service then [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1013 will not apply. [Citations.] [p] On the other hand, where a prescribed time period is triggered by the term 'service' of a notice, document or request then section 1013 will extend the period. [Citations.]" (Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 563, 567, 261 Cal.Rptr. 668, footnote omitted, quoted with approval in Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 1426, 286 Cal.Rptr. 347.) As the most recent appellate court decisions on this subject have recognized, the very language of Labor Code section 5950 renders Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 inapplicable to the 45-day time period for filing a petition for writ of review. (Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1425-1427, 286 Cal.Rptr. 347; Malloy, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1660-1661, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 820; Paneno, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 146-148, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 461.)

Drawing upon the reasoning set forth in Villa, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at page 1078, 203 Cal.Rptr. 26, Camper urges that Labor Code section 5950 must be read in light of other statutes and regulations that require the WCAB to serve its orders upon parties appearing before it and which permit such service to be accomplished by mail. (See Lab.Code, § 5316; Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10500, 10507.) ⁵ The authorities cited by Camper are not dispositive of the issue presented here. "These provisions do not state that the statutory time for filing a petition for writ of review shall run from service of an order, rather than from the filing of an order as expressly set forth in [Labor Code] section 5950." (Southwest Airlines, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 1424, 286 Cal.Rptr. 347, emphasis in original.) In particular, section 10507 of the applicable regulations does not purport to define when a time period is triggered by service; instead, it merely provides that when "service" is the specified trigger, then section 1013 applies. (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10507.) The authorities cited by Camper simply cannot rewrite the trigger expressly set forth by the Legislature in Labor Code section 5950.

Camper also argues that our recent decision in Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 266, 276 Cal.Rptr 321, 801 P.2d 1072, (Poster) supports his contention that, when read in light of the statutes and regulations discussed above, the 45-day period prescribed by Labor Code section 5950 is extended pursuant to ...