Rowland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

Opinion

FRANSON, J.

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board awarding a lien to respondent, Republic

[450]

National Life Insurance Company, against compensation benefits, awarded to petitioner.

Petitioner is a 28-year-old janitor employed with a newspaper in Bakersfield, California. On September 28, 1974, he was injured while on the job. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

The respondent insurance company insured petitioner against loss of income under a group disability insurance policy carried by petitioner’s employer for its employees. The insurance policy provided that the monthly indemnity payable shall be “less any amount paid or payable under any workmen’s compensation, occupational disease act or law.” Following petitioner’s injury ánd during the pendency' of his claim for compensation benefits, the respondent insurance company paid disability benefits to petitioner under the insurance policy of $326.70 per month from April 12, 1975, through March 11, 1976, representing two-thirds of petitioner’s wage loss for said period.

Petitioner’s claim for workers’ compensation was initially disallowed by the workers’ compensation judge but was subsequently allowed by the appeals board on a petition for reconsideration. The appeals board awarded petitioner temporaiy and permanent disability indemnity, medical expenses, litigation expenses, and interest in favor of petitioner against his employer’s insurer, the Industrial Indemnity Company.

During the pendency of petitioner’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits, respondent insurance company filed a claim of lien under Labor Code section 4903, subdivision (c).

1

After the board had awarded petitioner the compensation benefits described above, the workers’ compensation judge granted respondent’s claim of lien, finding only that the purpose of a disability policy “is to provide income replacement to meet living expenses of a disabled policy holder [sic].” However, no findings were made and no evidence was received to show that the disability payments under the insurance policy were furnished for the purpose of paying the reasonable value of the living expenses of petitioner or his^ dependents subsequent to the injury or that the payments bore any relation to such living expenses.