Court Opinion

ID: 9570344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:22:30.40486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:28.115372
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I prefer the rationale of the Court of Appeal, i.e., that neither article XIII B, section 6, of the Constitution nor Revenue and Taxation Code sections 2207 and 2231 require state subvention for increased workers’ compensation benefits provided by chapter 1042, Statutes of 1980, and chapter 922, Statutes of 1982, but only if the increases do not exceed applicable cost-of-living adjustments because such payments do not result in an increased level of service.
Under the majority theory, the state can order unlimited financial burdens on local units of government without providing the funds to meet those burdens. This may have serious implications in the future, and does violence to the requirement of section 2231, subdivision (a), that the state reimburse local government for “all costs mandated by the state.”
In this instance it is clear from legislative history that the Legislature did not intend to mandate additional burdens, but merely to provide a cost-of-*63living adjustment. I agree with the Court of Appeal that this was permissible.
Appellants’ petition for a rehearing was denied February 26, 1987.