Granado v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd., S.F. 22599

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Writing for the Court: PETERS; TRAYNOR; McCOMB
• Citation: 445 P.2d 294,71 Cal.Rptr. 678,69 Cal.2d 399
• Parties: , 445 P.2d 294 Henry GRANADO, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Haslett Warehouse, et al., Respondents.
• Decision Date: 04 October 1968
• Docket Number: S.F. 22599

Page 678

71 Cal.Rptr. 678 69 Cal.2d 399, 445 P.2d 294 Henry GRANADO, Petitioner,
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Haslett Warehouse, et al., Respondents. S.F. 22599. Supreme Court of California,
In Bank. Oct. 4, 1968.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 1968.

Page 680

[445 P.2d 296] [69 Cal.2d 401] Marcus, Sherbourne & Rucka and N. Michael Rucka, Pleasant Hill, for petitioner.

Morgan, Beauzay & Hammer and Victor H. Beauzay, San Jose, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioner.

Everett A. Corten, Selma Mikels and John W. Moore, San Francisco, for respondents.

PETERS, Justice.

Petitioner seeks annulment of a decision after reconsideration by the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board which apportioned liability for temporary disability compensation and medical treatment subsequent to April 1, 1966, 50 percent to respondent carrier and 50 percent to petitioner. The basis of the apportionment was a neck injury not industrially related suffered August 1961 and a subsequent industrial injury to the neck suffered April 13, 1965.

Petitioner urges: (1) Temporary disability is not apportionable; (2) medical treatment is not apportionable; and (3) even assuming that in a proper case apportionment might be permitted, the record does not support apportionment here. The first two contentions are meritorious.

Section 4663 of the Labor Code provides: 'In case of aggravation of any disease existing prior to a compensable injury, compensation shall be allowed only for the proportion of the disability due to the aggravation of such prior disease which is reasonably attributed to the injury.' In cases involving Permanent disability, it is settled that the section must be read in light of the rule that an employer takes the employee as he finds him at the time of employment; that, when subsequent injury lights up or aggravates a previously existing condition resulting in disability, liability for the full disability without proration is imposed upon the employer, and that the appeals board may apportion the disability under the section 'only in those cases in which part of the disability would have resulted, in the absence of the industrial injury, from the 'normal progress" of the preexisting disease. (E.g., Zemke v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 68 A.C. 835, 837 et seq., 69 Cal.Rptr. 88, 90, 441 P.2d 928, 930; Berry v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 68 A.C. 828, 831 et seq., 69 Cal.Rptr. 68, 441, P.2d 908; Reynolds Elec., etc., Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 65 Cal.2d 438, 442--443, 55 Cal.Rptr. 254, 421 P.2d 102.) The board's position is that this rule should be applied to Temporary disability cases.

[69 Cal.2d 402] This court has not squarely decided whether there may be apportionment of temporary disability liability between industrial injuries and nonindustrial injuries although it has hinted that it cannot. In Fred Gledhill Chevrolet v. Industrial Accident Commission, 62 Cal.2d 59, 63, 41 Cal.Rptr. 170, 396 P.2d 586, an award denying apportionment was supported by substantial evidence, and we found it unnecessary to decide whether the apportionment provisions apply 'at all' to compensation for temporary disability. (See also American Can Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 196 Cal.App.2d 445, 449, 16 Cal.Rptr. 424.) In Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 63 Cal.2d 60, 45 Cal.Rptr. 1, 403 P.2d 129, we were concerned with the apportionment of liability between Insurers for temporary disability where the disability was caused by successive industrial injuries. Thus we were not directly confronted with the question whether temporary disability may be apportioned as between industrial and nonindustrial injuries. There is a substantial difference between the rules governing apportionment between industrial injuries and those governing apportionment between industrial and nonindustrial injuries. Thus, in cases of progressive occupational diseases, the employee may at his option obtain an award for the entire disability against any one or more of the successive employers or successive insurance carriers, but the employers or carriers are entitled to apportionment among themselves, and apportionment for them is proper

Page 681

[445 P.2d 297] not merely where the disability would result from the normal progress of the preexisting disease but also in cases of aggravation wherever the successive employments contributed in part to the disability even though the prior employment alone would not have resulted in any disability. (Fireman's Fund Indem. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 39 Cal.2d 831, 835, 250 P.2d 148; Colonial Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 29 Cal.2d 79, 82 et seq., 172 P.2d 884.)

Although Royal Golobe Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, supra, 63 Cal.2d 60, 45 Cal.Rptr. 1, 403 P.2d 129, did not directly involve the question of apportionment of temporary disability between industrial and nonindustrial injuries, the language of the opinion and much of its reasoning bears significantly on that question. A footnote states: 'It should be noted that we are here involved only with apportionment between insurance carriers. There can be no apportionment as to the injured worker. Both Royal Globe and State Fund may be held fully liable (jointly and severally) to him (Fireman's Fund Indem. Co. v. Industrial [69 Cal.2d 403] Acc. Comm., supra, 39 Cal.2d 831, 835, 250 p.2d 148; Colonial Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm., supra, 29 Cal.2d 79, 82, 172 P.2d 884).' (63 Cal.2d at p. 62, fn. 1, 45 Cal.Rptr. at p. 3, 403 P.2d at p. 131.) In considering the commission's argument that the injured worker should not have to wait for the termination of protracted hearings on technical questions of apportionment to recover his temporary disability payments, we pointed out that the employee need not be required to wait for determination of the apportionment question to receive his award and that the proper procedure was for the commission to hold at...