Jeffrey Mabe vs. Mike's Trucking California Indemnity Indurance Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 2 STATE OF APPEALS BOARD CALIFORNIA 3 Case No. VEN 105613 4 JEFFREY MABE, 5 Applicant, 6 vs. 7 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION MIKE'S TRUCKING; CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 8 Defendants. 9 10 Defendants Mike's Trucking and California Indemnity Insurance 11 Company 12 Reconsideration of a decision issued March 9, 1998. 13 decision, 14 ("WCJ") found that applicant's claim for workers' compensation 15 benefits 16 notwithstanding prior to 17 reporting his cumulative injury or seeking medical treatment. On 18 June 19 opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this 20 case. 21 decision for the reasons set forth below. 22 2, filed the is a timely, workers' not 1998, we verified compensation barred the properly fact granted by that Labor he administrative Code had review, section quit reconsideration Having completed our Petition we The material facts are not in dispute. his to now for In that law judge 3600(a)(10), job allow affirm sufficient the WCJ's Applicant voluntarily 23 quit his job as a truck driver for defendant Mike's Trucking on 24 February 7, 1997. 25 industrial injury, nor sought medical treatment for such injury. 26 Subsequent to quitting his job, applicant claimed that during the 27 period beginning in 1993 and ending February 7, 1997, he sustained Prior to quitting, he had neither reported an 1 injury to his back arising out of and occurring in the course of 2 his employment with Mike's Trucking. 3 Defendants asserted that 4 Labor 5 applicant's claim was 3600(a)(10)"), which provides: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Code section 3600(a)(10) (hereinafter "(10) Except for psychiatric injuries governed by subdivision (e) of Section 3208.3, where the claim for compensation is filed after notice of termination or layoff, including voluntary layoff, and the claim is for an injury occurring prior to the time of notice of termination or layoff, no compensation shall be paid unless the employee demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the following conditions apply: "(A) The employer has notice of the injury, as provided under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 5400), prior to the notice of termination or layoff. "(B) The employee's medical records, existing prior to the notice of termination or layoff, contain evidence of the injury. "(C) The date of injury, as specified in Section 5411, is subsequent to the date of the notice of termination or layoff, but prior to the effective date of the termination or layoff. "(D) The date of injury, as specified in Section 5412, is subsequent to the date of the notice of termination or layoff. "For purposes of this paragraph, an employee provided notice pursuant to Sections 44948.5, 44949, 44951, 44955, 44955.6, 72411, 87740, and 87743 of the Education Code shall be considered to have been provided a notice of termination or layoff only upon a district's final decision not to reemploy that person. "A notice of termination or layoff that is not followed within 60 days by that termination or layoff shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph, and this paragraph shall not apply until receipt of a MABE, JEFFREY - 2 - barred by "section 1 later notice of termination or layoff. The issuance of frequent notices of termination or layoff to an employee shall be considered a bad faith personnel action and shall make this paragraph inapplicable to the employee." 2 3 4 The WCJ held that applicant's claim was not barred by section 5 3600(a)(10). 6 when the employer gives notice of termination or layoff, but not 7 to those instances when the applicant simply quits. 8 (See also Helmsman Management Services v. WCAB (Kim) (l998) 63 9 Cal.Comp.Cases 858, writ denied). He concluded that that statute applies to instances We agree. 10 Defendants contend that the legislative intent behind section 11 3600(a)(10) is to prevent disgruntled employees from filing false 12 claims 13 those situations in which employees "become so fed up with their 14 employment situation that they simply quit." 15 Defendants further argue that such a legislative intent is evident 16 in the plain language of the statute. 17 against Our employers reading of after section the employment 3600(a)(10) ends, including (Petition, p.3.) differs from that of 18 defendants. The statutory phrase "voluntary layoff" does not have 19 a plain meaning synonymous with the common terms "resignation" and 20 "quit." 21 have clearly expressed it by using one of these common terms. 22 our view, in using the less common term "voluntary layoff," the 23 Legislature 24 provides notice that one or more employees will be laid off, but 25 allows 26 specific individual(s) to be laid off. If the Legislature had intended such a meaning, it could some intended mechanism those for situations employees 27 MABE, JEFFREY - 3 - in to which the volunteer to In employer be the 1 Moreover, 2 Cal.Comp.Cases 3 construing a statute: in DuBois v. 289, the 286, WCAB (1993) Supreme 5 Court Cal.4th 382, 58 explained that in 4 "[W]e must consider the . . . quoted sentence in the context of the entire statute . . . and the statutory scheme of which it is a part. We are required to give effect to statutes according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them. [Citations.] . . . If possible, significance should be given to every word, phrase, sentence and part or an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose. [Citation.] . . . . When used in a statute [words] must be construed in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute where they appear. [Citations.] Moreover, the various parts of a statutory enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole. [Citations.]" (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 In applying these principles of construction, we note that section 3600(a)(10) repeatedly employs the phrase "notice of termination or layoff" in contexts limited to notice from the employer to the employee. One such context pertains to notice pursuant to provisions of the Education Code. provision that: Another is the "The issuance of frequent notices of termination or layoff to an employee shall be considered a bad faith personnel action and employee." shall make this paragraph inapplicable to the In no instance does the statute mention such a notice from the employee to the employer. We conclude from the language and structure of the statute that the legislative intent was to prevent employees and former employees from MABE, JEFFREY filing false claims - 4 - in retaliation for being 1 terminated or laid off. 2 those employees personally targeted for termination or layoff, as 3 well as those volunteering to be laid off in an employer-initiated 4 reduction in force directed at a class or category of employees. By its terms, the statute would cover 5 Our conclusion that "voluntary layoff" is not synonymous with 6 "quit" or "resignation" is consistent with similar terminology in 7 Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256, which provides in part: 8 "An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work. . . . 9 10 11 12 "An individual shall be deemed to have left his or her most recent work with good cause if he or she elects to be laid off in place of an employee with less seniority pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement that provides that an employee with more seniority may elect to be laid off in place of an employee with less seniority when the employer has decided to layoff employees." (Emphasis supplied.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 Thus, an employee who simply quits without good cause is not 19 eligible for unemployment compensation, but an employee who is 20 laid 21 eligibility extends to an employee who "elects" to be laid off. 22 In Stanford v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 23 Cal.App.3d 98, an employee elected to be laid of in place of a 24 less senior employee under the terms of a collective bargaining 25 agreement, but was denied benefits because the employer reported 26 the reason for unemployment as a "voluntary layoff." 27 Cal.App.3d at 101. off is MABE, JEFFREY eligible, and under The court stated: - 5 - the prescribed circumstances (1983) 147 Id., 147 1 "We hold the layoff, although in a sense voluntary, was with good cause within the meaning of section 1256. . . . 2 3 "In the instant case, we hold the instigating cause for Stanford's termination of employment was the employer's announced mandatory layoff. Stanford's rights under the collective bargaining agreement to elect a substitutionary layoff did not arise until after the employer had already determined that a mandatory layoff would be made. Then, and only then, did he exercise the limited right, within the bounds of the collective bargaining agreement, to elect a substitutionary layoff." (Id., 147 Cal.App.3d at 102.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 While there is nothing in Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) 11 limiting the phrase "voluntary layoff" to a collective bargaining 12 context, neither is there any language suggesting a legislative 13 intent to include within that phrase every voluntary resignation. 14 Therefore, 15 Legislature intended to make a distinction between layoffs and 16 resignations 17 Unemployment Insurance Code. 18 we conclude similar that to in that enacting expressly that set We will therefore affirm the WCJ's decision. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// MABE, JEFFREY - 6 - statute, forth in the the 1 For the foregoing reasons, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Order filed March 9, 3 1998, be, and it is hereby, AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 4 5 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD 6 7 /s/ Richard P. Gannon______________ 8 9 10 I CONCUR: 11 /s/ Arlene N. Heath_______________ 12 13 14 /s/ Douglas M. Moore, Jr._____ 15 DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 16 October 28, 1998 17 18 SERVICE BY MAIL ON SAID DATE TO ALL PARTIES AS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD EXCEPT LIEN CLAIMANTS. 19 20 21 ncv 22 23 24 25 26 27 MABE, JEFFREY - 7 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
