State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
201 Cal. App. 4th 443
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dorsett sustained a March 21, 2000 specific cervical spine injury as a South Valley Glass employee, followed by a cumulative trauma injury to the same region from November 15, 2002 to June 8, 2004 as an A-Tek Glass employee; both employers were insured by SCIF.
- Dorsett filed separate workers’ compensation applications for the two injuries.
- The WCJ ruled for a 100% overall combined permanent disability, found only one injury, and held no apportionment under Benson.
- SCIF filed petitions for reconsideration on behalf of both employers; the Board denied reconsideration.
- SCIF sought review in this court, arguing the WCJ erred by not apportioning permanent disability under §4663 and §4664 and Benson; the court now annuls the Board’s order and remands for apportionment.
- The AME, Dr. Izzo, opined that the cumulative trauma injury is a compensable consequence of the specific injury and that the two injuries are inextricably intertwined, suggesting equal apportionment, while the WCJ ultimately awarded joint and several liability against both employers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether apportionment is required between the two injuries under SB 899 §4663/4664. | SCIF: apportionment is required; current disability must be allocated to current injury and prior factors. | Dorsett: Benson/AMe findings complicate apportionment; may be no apportionment if injuries are compensable consequences. | Yes; apportionment must be determined on remand. |
| Whether Benson controls and allows a non-apportioned joint award in this case. | SCIF argues Benson does not apply or supports apportionment. | Dorsett argues Benson applies to compel apportionment when injuries are compensable consequences. | Benson does not foreclose apportionment here; remand for apportionment is required. |
| Whether an AME finding that one injury is a compensable consequence of the other forecloses apportionment. | SCIF relies on SB 899’s causation framework to require apportionment. | Dorsett asserts compensable-consequence status does not automatically prevent apportionment. | Ambiguity resolved in favor of apportionment: WCJ must apportion per §4663(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- Benson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 170 Cal.App.4th 1535 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (apportionment required when injuries are compensable consequences; SB 899 framework)
- Brodie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.4th 1313 (Cal. 2007) (SB 899 reform; apportionment based on current injury causation)
- Marsh v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 130 Cal.App.4th 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (pre-SB 899 context; apportionment concepts cited)
- Wilkinson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 19 Cal.3d 491 (Cal. 1977) (two mutually permanent injuries may yield a combined award before SB 899; Wilkinson contrasted with SB 899 intent)
- E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 145 Cal.App.4th 922 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (apportionment determination under §4663 requires numerical attribution)