What the panel ordered
The Board's Decision After Reconsideration of August 15, 2022 is rescinded, and the Joint Finding and Order issued by the WCJ on November 13, 2020 is reinstated and affirmed.
Defendant filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the Board's Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration of August 15, 2022, which had reversed the WCJ's November 13, 2020 decision. The Board granted reconsideration to further study the issues and now reverses the August 15, 2022 decision, reinstating and affirming the WCJ's November 13, 2020 Joint Finding and Order.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 15, 2022.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The Board found that the statutory language mandates that life pension payments begin only after the maximum number of weeks of permanent disability payments have been made, and commutation does not accelerate this timing. The WCJ's decision that life pension shall not be accelerated by commutation was correct and is reinstated.
From the decision · page 5Notwithstanding the parties' repeated references to how payments were to be calculated, we are persuaded that the Legislature's use of the word "weeks" in both sections 4658 and 4659 to mark the inception of a life pension, is controlling. This means that applicant is entitled to his life pension after expiration of the time during which the number of weeks of permanent partial disability otherwise would have been payable absent commutation. We therefore conclude that in the Joint Finding and Order of November 13, 2020, the WCJ correctly found that applicant's "life pension shall not be accelerated by the commutation of permanent disability nor the lump sum payment of permanent disability."
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The statutory language in Labor Code sections 4658 and 4659 mandates that life pension payments begin only after the maximum number of weeks of permanent disability payments have been made.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This statutory interpretation controls the timing of life pension payments and supports the decision to not accelerate life pension payments by commutation.
From the decision · page 5Notwithstanding the parties' repeated references to how payments were to be calculated, we are persuaded that the Legislature's use of the word "weeks" in both sections 4658 and 4659 to mark the inception of a life pension, is controlling. This means that applicant is entitled to his life pension after expiration of the time during which the number of weeks of permanent partial disability otherwise would have been payable absent commutation. We therefore conclude that in the Joint Finding and Order of November 13, 2020, the WCJ correctly found that applicant's "life pension shall not be accelerated by the commutation of permanent disability nor the lump sum payment of permanent disability."
The parties stipulated that the life pension was reserved and excluded from commutation in the January 8, 2020 stipulation and addendum.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This shows the parties did not agree to accelerate life pension payments by commutation, supporting the WCJ's decision.
From the decision · page 6Further, there is no evidence that applicant bargained for the additional benefit of having his life pension payments "accelerated." The parties agreed in paragraph (3) of their stipulations that applicant is entitled to a life pension "reserved per terms of this agreement." But the addendum purporting to memorialize this "reservation" only included the stipulations that "WCAB retains jurisdiction over all life pension issues," that "attorney's fees regarding life pension [are] reserved," and that "all residual [permanent disability indemnity] payments shall be commuted/paid...in one lump sum...excluding life pension benefits [...]." (Italics added.) And without resolution of the life pension issue, the applicant risked a lengthy "hiatus" between receipt of the commuted lump sum and commencement of his life pension payments (a hiatus of about ten years, according to defendant).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 4658, 4659, 5100; Baker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 434; Brower v. David Jones Constr. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550
Life pension payments begin after payment of the maximum number of weeks of permanent disability indemnity as specified in Labor Code sections 4658 and 4659; commutation does not accelerate the commencement of life pension payments.
The Board applied these statutes and case law to conclude that commutation of permanent disability indemnity does not accelerate the start of life pension payments, affirming the WCJ's original decision.
From the decision · page 5Notwithstanding the parties' repeated references to how payments were to be calculated, we are persuaded that the Legislature's use of the word "weeks" in both sections 4658 and 4659 to mark the inception of a life pension, is controlling. This means that applicant is entitled to his life pension after expiration of the time during which the number of weeks of permanent partial disability otherwise would have been payable absent commutation. We therefore conclude that in the Joint Finding and Order of November 13, 2020, the WCJ correctly found that applicant's "life pension shall not be accelerated by the commutation of permanent disability nor the lump sum payment of permanent disability."
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.