California Supreme Court Watch

#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.