Goldstein v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., H043742

• Decision Date: 30 April 2019
• Docket Number: H043742
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Steven M. GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent.

34 Cal.App.5th 1006

246 Cal.Rptr.3d 720

Steven M. GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent.

H043742

Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.

Filed April 30, 2019

STEVEN M. GOLDSTEIN, Pro Per.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General, Susan M. Carson, Deputy Attorney General, Jennifer Celeste Addams, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendants and Respondents.

ELIA, J.

Steven M. Goldstein appeals following the denial of his petition for writ of administrative mandate to compel the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board) to set aside its decision denying unemployment insurance benefits. We agree with Goldstein that the Board misapplied the governing law, thereby committing an abuse of discretion. However, because Goldstein fails to show that the error was prejudicial, we nevertheless affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Goldstein worked as an IT analyst until March 6, 2013. He filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits (the First Claim) with the Employment Development Department (EDD) the following week.¹ The First Claim was granted, and he received unemployment insurance benefits beginning the week ending on March 23, 2013 through the week ending on August 10, 2013.

Goldstein stopped receiving unemployment insurance benefits because, in August 2013, he successfully applied for disability benefits. He received disability benefits until he exhausted his maximum benefit amount in early September 2014.

Goldstein filed a second claim for unemployment insurance benefits (the Second Claim), which had an effective date of March 23, 2014. On February 3, 2015, the EDD determined that Goldstein’s Second Claim was invalid under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1277² because, during the benefit year of his First Claim (i.e., March 10, 2013 through March 8, 2014), he neither was paid sufficient wages nor performed any work.

Goldstein filed an administrative appeal. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a written decision affirming the EDD’s determination of invalidity. The ALJ reasoned that Goldstein’s claim was invalid under section 1277 because he had not earned sufficient wages during the benefit year of his First Claim. The ALJ noted that disability benefits qualify as wages under section 1277.5, but concluded that Goldstein’s prior "receipt of unemployment insurance benefits preclude[d] the application of" section 1277.5 to the Second Claim.

Goldstein appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Board. In a May 1, 2015 decision, the Board adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and reasons for the decision as its own and affirmed.

On July 1, 2015, Goldstein filed a complaint against the Board in superior court and petitioned for a writ of mandate compelling the Board to reverse its denial of the Second Claim. Following a hearing, the superior court denied the petition in an order dated March 15, 2016, writing: "Petitioner’s claim was not valid under Unemployment Insurance Code Section 1277 because he did receive unemployment insurance benefits during the prior valid claim period. ( Unemp. Ins. Code Sections 1277, 1277.1 ). Unemployment Insurance Code Section 1277.5 does not apply to the facts underlying Petitioner’s claim." The trial court did not address whether Goldstein performed work during the relevant period.

Goldstein, proceeding in propria persona as he has throughout, timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Principles

1. Standard of Review

"Judicial review of benefit decisions of the ... Board is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5." ( Jacobs v . California Unemployment Ins . Appeals Bd . (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1040, 102 Cal.Rptr. 364.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (b) limits the trial court’s inquiry into the propriety of an administrative decision to three grounds: "[ (1) ] whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; [ (2) ] whether there was a fair trial; and [ (3) ] whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion." "Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence." ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) "A writ of administrative mandamus will not be issued unless the court is persuaded that an abuse of discretion was prejudicial. [Citation.] In other words, the reviewing court will deny the writ, despite abuse of discretion, if the agency’s error did not prejudicially affect the petitioner’s substantial rights." (1 Cal. Admin. Mandamus (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2018) Court’s Scope of Review [Under Code. Civ. Proc. § 1094.5 ] § 6.47.)

In mandate proceedings, courts of appeal review legal questions, including questions of statutory interpretation, de novo. ( Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v . Rea (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1313, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 511 ; Fireman’s Fund Ins . Companies v . Quackenbush (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 599, 604, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 732 [on appeal from grant of mandate petition, applying de novo standard of review to "purely legal question" of statutory interpretation].)

2. Principles of Statutory Construction

When interpreting a statute, "our primary task is to ‘ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.’ [Citation.] The Legislature’s language is the best indicator of its intent. [Citation.]" ( 926 North Ardmore Ave ., LLC v . County of Los Angeles (2017) 3 Cal.5th 319, 328, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 695, 396 P.3d 1036.) Where a "statute is unambiguous on its face ..., courts may always test their construction of disputed statutory language against extrinsic aids bearing on the drafters’ intent." ( Kulshrestha v . First Union Commercial Corp . (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 613 fn. 7, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 793, 93 P.3d 386.) Such extrinsic aids include " ‘ "the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment ...." [Citation.]’ [Citation.]" ( State Comp . Ins . Fund v . Workers’ Comp . Appeals Bd . (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 796, 805, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 506 ; Hughes v . Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1046, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963 ["we [may] look to legislative history to confirm our plain-meaning construction of statutory language"].)

3. The Statutory Scheme

a. Section 1276 and the Benefit Year

Unemployment insurance "[b]enefits are paid during the benefit year" ( Monroe v . Oakland Unified School Dist . (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 804, 812, 170 Cal.Rptr. 867 ), which is statutorily defined as "the 52-week period beginning with the first day of the week with respect to which the individual first files a valid claim for benefits ...." ( § 1276.) The benefit year for Goldstein’s first claim was the 52-week period beginning on March 10, 2013 and ending on March 8, 2014.

b. Section 1275 and the Base Period

The amount of unemployment benefits to which a claimant is entitled is "based on wages paid in the base period." (§ 1275, subd. (a).) Section 1275 defines the "base period" by reference to when a claimant’s benefit year began. Generally, "for benefit years beginning in January, February, or March," the "base period" is "the four calendar quarters ended in the next preceding month of September." (§ 1275, subd. (a).) The base period set forth in section 1275, subdivision (a) excludes earnings in the last three to six months of employment. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 29 (2009-2010 3rd Ex. Sess.) as amended Mar. 25, 2009 at p. 5.)

In 2009, the Legislature enacted section 1275, subdivision (b), which sets forth an alternative base period. (Stats. 2009-2010, 3rd Ex. Sess., ch. 23, § 2.) The section 1275, subdivision (b) alternative base period applies where a claimant "cannot establish a claim under [section 1275] subdivision (a) ...." (§ 1275, subd. (b).) In that circumstance, " ‘base period’ means: ... for benefit years beginning in January, February, or March, the four calendar quarters ended in the next preceding month of December ...." (§ 1275, subd. (b).) The alternative base period set forth in section 1275, subdivision (b) includes "earnings as recent as 1 to 3 months" prior to the filing of a claim, thus enabling more workers, including seasonal workers, to establish eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits.³ (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 29 (2009-2010 3rd Ex. Sess.) as amended Mar. 25, 2009 at p. 5.)

c. Section 1277 and the Lag Period

The time period between the end of the base period and the beginning of the benefit year is commonly referred to as the " ‘lag period.’ " (Sen. Com. on Industrial Relations, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1981 (1989-1990 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 18, 1990 at p. 1.) "Workers who are still unemployed at the end of their 52[-]week benefit year may file a new unemployment insurance claim based on wages paid in the lag period." (Ibid .) Such lag period claims are governed by section 1277, which applies where "the base period of a new claim includes wages which were paid prior to the effective date of, and not used in the computation of the award for, a previous valid claim." ( § 1277.)

Section 1277 provides that a lag period claim is "valid if, during the 52-week period beginning with the effective date of the previous valid claim, either of the following applies: [¶] (a) The individual earned or was paid sufficient wages to meet the eligibility requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 1281 and performed some work. [¶] (b) The individual did not receive benefits under this part, and was disabled and was entitled to receive, wage loss benefits under Part 2 (commencing with Section 2601) of this division [ (i.e., disability benefits) ] or under Division 4 (commencing with Section 3201) of the Labor Code [ (i.e.,...