California-Western States Life Insurance v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

VAN DYKE, P. J. This is an appeal by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the State Director of Employment from a judgment ordering that a peremptory writ of mandate issue requiring the appeals board to annul and reverse its decision Number 612.

[798]On September 14, 1956, one Tommie Griffin, the claimant for benefits herein, placed himself under the care of a physician for a back injury which he had received about two years before. While under the care of his physician he reported to his union for work and was dispatched to an employer for whom he worked one and one-half days. He was laid off because he was not able to perform the work. He again got work and succeeded in working three and one-half days but again was forced to leave due to his disability. It was found and determined by the administrative agencies involved that his disability commenced September 14, 1956, and was continuous throughout the period with which we are here concerned. When that disability began, Griffin was covered by the State Disability Unemployment Compensation Fund (hereinafter called the Fund) and was entitled to appropriate compensation. The employer for whom he worked one and one-half days and the employer for whom he worked when his disability began were both covered by the Fund. The employer for whom he worked three and one-half days was covered by an approved voluntary plan issued by respondent, California-Western States Life Insurance Company. On October 24, 1956, Griffin filed his claim for disability compensation and the Fund began payments but referred the claim to respondent, requesting that it accept coverage. Respondent offered to accept coverage on a simultaneous coverage basis, benefits to be paid one-half by it and one-half by the Fund. The Fund thereupon sought determination of coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Code, with the result that it was determined that benefits were the sole obligation of respondent. Respondent sought mandate review with the result above stated and this appeal followed.

It is obvious that, Griffin’s disability having begun while he was covered by the Fund, and that disability having caused the entire loss of wages upon which his claim is based, the Fund is responsible for the payment of benefits unless Griffin’s work for the voluntary plan employer has resulted in a shifting of the liability either wholly or partly to respondent. Respondent contends the risk here involved was simultaneously covered by its policy and the Fund’s statutory plan.

There is no statutory definition of simultaneous coverage in that part of the Unemployment Insurance Code devoted to disability benefits. The only reference to it is found in section 3253 of the code, reading as follows: