#23-246 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., S282013. (E079076; 94 Cal.App.5th 464; Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board; ADJ1360597.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal annulled and remanded the decision in a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Should the calculation of enhanced workers’ compensation benefits for an employer’s serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553 be based on temporary disability payments available under the Labor Code?
Petition for review granted: 12/13/2023
Case fully briefed: 3/14/2024
Cause argued and submitted: 12/04/2024
Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full: 2/20/2025
See the Court of Appeal Opinion.
See the Petition for Review.
See the Oral Argument.
See the California Supreme Court Opinion. (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) __ Cal.5th __.)
“California’s workers’ compensation law guarantees a certain level of recovery for employees who are injured on the job, regardless of whether the employer was at fault. (Lab. Code, § 3200 et seq.; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 16.) If, however, the employee was injured because of the employer’s serious and willful misconduct, the employee is entitled to a 50 percent increase in the ‘amount of compensation otherwise recoverable.’ (Lab. Code, § 4553.) The term ‘”[c]ompensation”‘ is defined specifically to mean ‘compensation under’ the workers’ compensation law. (Id., § 3207.)
The question in this case is whether, for purposes of calculating the 50 percent premium under Labor Code section 4553, ‘compensation otherwise recoverable’ includes industrial disability leave payments, a benefit that the Government Code makes available to certain public employees in lieu of workers’ compensation disability payments. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board answered yes to this question. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed, explaining that the board’s conclusion is plainly inconsistent with the statutory definition of ‘”compensation”‘ as limited to ‘compensation under’ the workers’ compensation law. (Lab. Code, § 3207.) We agree with the Court of Appeal and affirm its judgment.”
Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
© 2025 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.