Court Opinion

ID: 9720447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:31:08.659352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:18.359226
License: Public Domain

SPARKS, J.
 I agree with the result reached in the lead opinion and with much that is asserted there. I write separately only to emphasize my view that the result is compelled by the lien statute.
This case turns on the interplay between the Victims of Violent Crime Act (Gov. Code, § 13959 et seq.; hereafter the Act) and the lien statute under the Workers’ Compensation Act. (Lab. Code, § 4903.) The question is when a pecuniary loss is deemed to have been reimbursed. As defined in the Act, pecuniary loss “mean[s] any expenses for which the victim has not and will not be reimbursed from any other source. Losses shall include all of the *220following: ... [H] (3) The loss of income or support that the victim has incurred or will incur as a direct result of an injury or death in an amount of more than one hundred dollars ($100) or equal to 20 percent or more of the victims’ net monthly income, whichever is less, except that in the case of persons on fixed incomes from retirement or disability who apply for assistance under this article, there shall be no minimum loss requirement.” (Gov. Code, § 13960, subd. (d).) The board contends that permanent disability payments under the Workers’ Compensation Act constitute reimbursement for “expenses” from another “source” within the meaning of that statute. The board’s general philosophy was recounted at the hearing this way: “It is money [that] the claimant receives as a result of the injury or incident that we’re looking at. And it’s at least been the position of this Board that if it is money, it is compensation____[The victim] got it as a result of the injury. We don’t characterize it____[T]he general philosophy is, if the claimant has received money from another source, all we’re here to do is, to the extent our law allows [it], reimburse them for things they’ve not been reimbursed for; not necessarily categorically but just generally.”
Plaintiff counters by arguing that permanent disability benefits did not reimburse him for his past lost wages and consequently the board erred in denying his application. In view of Labor Code section 4903,1 am persuaded that the board has the better argument.
Labor Code section 4903 provides in relevant part: “The appeals board may determine, and allow as liens against any sum to be paid as compensation, any amount determined as hereinafter set forth in subdivisions (a) through (i)____[11] (h) The amount of indemnification granted pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 13959) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.” As the lead opinion notes, the phrase “any amount to be paid as compensation” means any benefit or payment under the Workers’ Compensation Act and thus includes both temporary and permanent disability awards. (Bryant v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1951) 37 Cal.2d 215, 223 [231 P.2d 32].) Consequently, if the victim here had first applied under the Act for reimbursement for his lost wages in the sum of $6,520.18 and if that application had been granted in full, then the State of California would have been accorded a lien upon any compensation (of whatever form) that the victim was later awarded under workers’ compensation. Thus, if the victim had been awarded $5,198.73 in temporary disability benefits and $2,240 in permanent disability benefits, the state would be entitled to a lien against those awards in the sum of $6,520.18. the amount it paid under the Act. In short, the lien statute draws no distinction between temporary and permanent disability benefits. It follows then that if the victim applies first for workers’ compensation and then files an application under the Act, the set off rights of the state must be equal to its *221lien rights. Stated another way, the amount that the victim is entitled to recover under the Act cannot depend upon the order in which he seeks workers’ compensation benefits. We are enjoined to construe every statute “with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part, so that all may be harmonized and have effect.” (Moore v. Panish (1982) 32 Cal.3d 535, 541 [186 Cal.Rptr. 475, 652 P.2d 32].) That injunction compels a construction which avoids disharmonious results depending upon the happenstance of the order in which benefits are sought.
The upshot of all this is that when a victim receives any money from any source on account of the injuries suffered as the result of a crime, that sum must be deducted from his claim. Only the remainder, if any, is deemed under the statute to be “not ... reimbursed from any other source.” Since the victim here received more from other sources than he sought under the Act, he was not entitled to any reimbursement.
Sims, J., concurred.