Nickelsberg?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?288?,?285?Cal.Rptr.?86;?814?P.2d?1328
[No.?S013121.?Aug?30,?1991.]
DIETER?NICKELSBERG,?Petitioner,?v.?WORKERS’?COMPENSATION?APPEALS?BOARD?and?LOS?ANGELES?UNIFIED?SCHOOL?DISTRICT,?Respondents.
(Opinion?by?Panelli,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Arabian?and?Baxter,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Broussard,?J.,?with?Mosk?and?Kennard,?JJ.,?concurring.)
COUNSEL
William?A.?Herreras?and?John?W.?Messer?for?Petitioner.
Rucka,?O’Boyle,?Lombardo?&?McKenna?and?N.?Michael?Rucka?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Petitioner.
Kegel,?Tobin,?Hamrick?&?Truce,?Robert?W.?Gilpin?and?Michael?A.?Ingler?for?Respondents.
Haworth,?Bradshaw?&?Chaney?and?C.?Gordon?Taylor?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Respondents.
OPINION
PANELLI,?J.
We?granted?review?to?determine?whether?a?workers’?compensation?judge?had?jurisdiction?to?award?petitioner?Dieter?Nickelsberg?(Nickelsberg)?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?more?than?five?years?after?the?date?of?his?original?injury.?We?conclude,?as?did?the?Workers’?Compensation?Appeals?Board?(WCAB)?and?the?Court?of?Appeal,?that?the?workers’?compensation?judge?lacked?jurisdiction?to?award?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?to?Nickelsberg.
Facts
Nickelsberg,?a?truck?driver?for?the?Los?Angeles?Unified?School?District,?suffered?industrial?injuries?to?his?back?and?legs?in?1976?and?again?in?1979.?Nickelsberg?stipulated?with?the?school?district?and?with?the?State?Compensation?Insurance?Fund?that?his?injuries?had?resulted?in?temporary?disability?from?January?6,?1979,?through?June?8,?1981,?and?in?permanent?disability?of?66?3/4?percent.?The?parties?also?stipulated?that?Nickelsberg?might?need?further?medical?treatment?to?cure?or?to?relieve?the?injuries’?effects.?Pursuant?to?the?stipulation,?a?workers’?compensation?judge?awarded?Nickelsberg?indemnity?for?temporary?and?permanent?disability?and?further?medical?treatment?on?February?2,?1983.
Nickelsberg?underwent?back?surgery?in?July?1987.?Pursuant?to?the?original?award,?the?school?district?paid?for?Nickelsberg’s?medical?treatment.?He?was?again?temporarily,?totally?disabled?from?March?7,?1987,?to?November?25,?1987.?[54?Cal.3d?292]
On?February?8,?1988,?more?than?nine?years?from?the?date?of?his?1979?injury,?Nickelsberg?filed?a?petition?to?reopen?his?original?award.?He?claimed?that?he?had?suffered?a?”new?and?further?disability”?as?defined?in?Labor?Code?section?5410.?He?also?claimed?that,?because?the?new?period?of?disability?was?caused?by?medical?treatment?provided?pursuant?to?his?existing?award,?he?was?entitled?to?recover?further?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?under?Labor?Code?section?4656,fn.?1?as?amended?in?1978?(see???4656,?as?amended?by?Stats.?1978,?ch.?937,???1,?p.?2913).?In?opposition?to?Nickelsberg’s?claim,?the?school?district?contended?that?an?additional?award?would?be?barred?by?the?time?and?jurisdictional?limitations?of?sections?5804?and?5410.
Accepting?Nickelsberg’s?argument,?the?workers’?compensation?judge?awarded?further?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?on?November?10,?1988,?and?the?school?district?sought?reconsideration?by?the?WCAB.?The?WCAB?determined?that?the?school?district’s?petition?was?untimely.?However,?because?the?WCAB?determined?that?the?workers’?compensation?judge?erred?in?granting?Nickelsberg?further?temporary?total?disability,?it?decided?to?grant?reconsideration?on?its?own?motion.?(??5900,?subd.?(b).)
The?WCAB?rescinded?the?award.?The?WCAB?determined?that?”an?award?of?further?medical?treatment?does?not?implicitly?carry?with?it?a?commensurate?award?of?temporary?total?disability.”?On?that?basis,?the?WCAB?concluded?that?Nickelsberg’s?petition?to?reopen?was?barred?by?section?5804?and?that?the?workers’?compensation?judge?therefore?lacked?jurisdiction?to?award?further?temporary?total?disability?indemnity.?The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed.
Discussionfn.?2
Former?section?4656?provided?that?”[a]ggregate?disability?payments?for?a?single?injury?causing?temporary?disability?shall?not?extend?for?more?than?240?compensable?weeks?within?a?period?of?five?years?from?the?date?of?the?injury.”
Section?4656?was?amended?in?1978.?(Sen.?Bill?No.?1851?(1977-1978?Reg.?Sess.)?Stats.?1978,?ch.?937,???1,?p.?2913.)?The?1978?amendment?removed?the?240-week?limitation?on?aggregate?temporary?total?disability?within?a?5-year?postinjury?period?for?injuries?occurring?on?or?after?January?1,?1979.?The?statute?now?provides?that?”[a]ggregate?disability?payments?for?a?single?injury?occurring?prior?to?January?1,?1979,?causing?temporary?disability?shall?not?[54?Cal.3d?293]?extend?for?more?than?240?compensable?weeks?within?a?period?of?five?years?from?the?date?of?injury.?[?]?Aggregate?disability?payments?for?a?single?injury?occurring?on?or?after?January?1,?1979,?causing?temporary?partial?disability?shall?not?extend?for?more?than?240?compensable?weeks?within?a?period?of?five?years?from?the?date?of?the?injury.”?(??4656,?italics?added.)
Relying?on?the?current?version?of?section?4656,?Nickelsberg?argues?that?the?workers’?compensation?judge?had?jurisdiction?to?award?further?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?more?than?five?years?after?the?original?injury.?Nickelsberg?assumes?that?an?initial?award?of?”future?medical?treatment”?must?reasonably?be?interpreted?to?include,?as?a?”secondary?consequence,”?an?award?of?future?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?resulting?from?such?treatment?and?that?section?4656,?as?amended,?removes?all?limits?on?awards?for?temporary?total?disability.?Based?on?that?assumption,?Nickelsberg?argues?that?the?workers’?compensation?judge?simply?enforced?his?original?award?under?section?5803.fn.?3?Implicit?in?Nickelsberg’s?argument?is?the?understanding?that?the?provisions?in?section?5804?for?the?amendment?of?an?awardfn.?4?and?in?5410?for?an?award?of?”new?and?further?disability”fn.?5?are?inapplicable.
- The?Workers’?Compensation?Judge?Was?Not?Merely?Enforcing?Nickelsberg’s?Original?Award?Pursuant?to?Section?5803
Hence,?Nickelsberg?errs?in?assuming?that?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?is?merely?a?secondary?consequence?of?an?award?of?further?medical?treatment.?Based?on?this?mistaken?assumption,?Nickelsberg?further?argues?that?when?future?medical?treatment?is?included?in?an?original?award,?section?4656,?as?amended,?allows?an?applicant?to?recover?temporary?total?disability?benefits?whenever,?and?for?as?long?as,?they?are?required.?He?is?entitled?to?these?benefits,?he?contends,?as?a?mere?enforcement?of?his?original?award?under?section?5803.?We?disagree.
The?plain?language?of?section?4656?does?not?support?Nickelsberg’s?interpretation.?[3]?”The?fundamental?purpose?of?statutory?construction?is?to?ascertain?the?intent?of?the?lawmakers?so?as?to?effectuate?the?purpose?of?the?law.?[Citation.]?In?order?to?determine?this?intent,?we?begin?by?examining?the?language?of?the?statute.?[Citation.]”?(People?v.?Pieters?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?894,?898?[276?Cal.Rptr.?918,?802?P.2d?420].)?[1c]?The?1978?amendment?of?section?4656?removed?the?240-week?limitation?on?aggregate?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?within?a?5-year?postinjury?period.?The?removal?of?this?limitation,?however,?does?not?imply?that?temporary?total?disability?can?now?be?awarded?at?any?time?and?for?any?period?as?a?result?of?an?original?award?of?future?medical?treatment.?Such?a?broad?interpretation?of?the?amendment?would?abrogate?the?time?and?jurisdictional?limitations?of?sections?5410?and?5804.?(See,?post,?pp.?297-299.)?[54?Cal.3d?295]
Nickelsberg?bases?his?interpretation?of?the?amendment?to?section?4656?on?the?preenactment?comments?of?various?participants?in?the?legislative?process.?For?example,?the?Department?of?Industrial?Relations?in?its?enrolled?bill?report?stated?that?”[p]resent?law?provides?that?payment?of?temporary?disability?indemnity?shall?not?be?paid?for?more?than?240?weeks?within?a?period?of?5?years?from?the?date?of?injury.?In?most?instances,?temporary?disability?is?concluded?long?before?this?point?is?reached.?There?are?however?cases?which?create?a?hardship?situation?where?an?industrial?injury?results?in?the?need?for?surgery?more?than?5?years?after?the?date?of?injury.?Due?to?the?arbitrary?time?limit,?the?employee?is?then?only?entitled?to?receive?medical?benefits?and?is?precluded?from?receiving?temporary?disability?indemnity?resulting?from?the?hospitalization?and?surgery.?Although?occurring?rarely,?these?situations?create?an?obvious?hardship?that?is?difficult?to?defend.”?(Agr.?&?Services?Agency,?Sen.?Industrial?Relations?Com.?Enrolled?Bill?Rep.?and?Recommendations?to?Governor?on?Sen.?Bill?No.?1851?(1977-1978?Reg.?Sess.)?as?amended?Aug.?14,?1978,?p.?1.)
Nickelsberg?also?highlights?a?somewhat?different?interpretation?of?the?amendment?of?section?4656?contained?in?an?Assembly?Ways?and?Means?Committee?staff?analysis?of?Senate?Bill?No.?1851.?The?analysis?states?that?the?intent?of?the?bill?was?”to?provide?disability?benefits?for?temporary?totally?disabled?persons?beyond?the?existing?240?week?limit.?Proponents?contend?that?often?surgery?or?other?treatment?is?required?years?after?an?injury?to?remove?sergically?[sic]?implanted?devices?(plates,?pins,?etc.).”?(Assem.?Ways?and?Means?Com.,?Staff?Analysis?of?Sen.?Bill?No.?1851?(1977-1978?Reg.?Sess.)?as?amended?Aug.?14,?1978,?p.?1.)
However,?other?portions?of?the?legislative?history?contradict?Nickelsberg’s?interpretation?of?Senate?Bill?No.?1851.?For?example,?an?Assembly?Finance,?Insurance,?and?Commerce?Committee?analysis?of?the?bill?states?that?the?removal?of?the?limitation?on?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?”would?provide?for?the?payment?of?the?workers’?compensation?temporary?total?disability?benefits?for?as?long?as?the?temporary?total?disability?continues.”?(Assem.?Finance,?Insurance,?&?Commerce?Com.,?Analysis?of?Sen.?Bill?No.?1851?(1977-1978?Reg.?Sess.)?as?amended?May?10,?1978.)
This?analysis?of?the?bill?indicates?that,?in?amending?section?4656,?the?Legislature?intended?to?remove?the?cap?of?240?weeks?in?a?5-year?period?for?the?payment?of?temporary?total?disability?and?to?allow?an?applicant?who?is?continuously?temporarily?totally?disabled?to?continue?to?receive?benefits?without?an?arbitrary?cutoff?date.?Such?an?interpretation?is?also?supported?by?a?consultant’s?report?to?the?Senate?Industrial?Relations?Committee.?The?report?states?that?the?proposed?amendment?to?section?4656?”would?eliminate?the?240-week?limitation?on?the?payment?of?temporary?disability?benefits?for?[54?Cal.3d?296]?a?single?injury,?and?instead?provide?that?such?benefits?shall?continue?as?long?as?the?temporary?disability?continues.”?(Rep.?of?Consultant?Casey?L.?Young?to?the?Sen.?Industrial?Relations?Com.?(Apr.?27,?1978)?p.?1,?italics?added.)
Furthermore,?the?mandated?cost?estimate?of?the?bill?prepared?by?the?Department?of?Finance?states:?”Although?data?is?not?available?to?predict?the?number?of?cases?affected?[by?the?amendment]?and?the?additional?losses?per?case,?we?believe?that?such?cases?will?be?quite?rare.?In?most?cases,?either?the?disability?becomes?permanent?and?stationary?and?thus?no?longer?temporary,?or?the?worker?recovers?long?before?240?weeks?of?temporary?disability?benefits?are?paid.”?(Dept.?of?Finance,?Mandated?Cost?Estimate?(May?10,?1978)?p.?2,?italics?added.)
As?indicated,?these?statements,?consistent?with?the?language?of?the?statute,?suggest?that?the?amendment?to?section?4656?was?intended?to?permit?an?applicant?to?receive?temporary?total?disability?for?as?long?as?he?or?she?is?continuously?disabled?without?an?arbitrary?cutoff?date.?These?statements,?however,?do?not?suggest?the?Legislature?intended?to?permit?an?applicant,?based?on?an?award?of?future?medical?benefits,?to?be?able?to?invoke?the?WCAB’s?jurisdiction?to?award?temporary?total?disability?benefits?whenever?he?or?she?requires?medical?treatment?for?a?previous?injury.
Moreover,?the?Department?of?Finance,?in?estimating?the?financial?impact?of?the?amendments?to?section?4656,?indicated?that?the?amendments?would?affect?”very?few?cases”?and?that?the?costs?of?the?amendment?would?be?quite?small.?”Losses?will?increase?less?than?0.1?percent?and?thus?no?premium?increase?will?be?necessary.?Thus?insured?local?governmental?entities?will?incur?no?additional?costs.”?(Dept.?of?Finance,?Mandated?Cost?Estimate,?supra,?at?p.?1.)?The?mandated?cost?estimate?of?the?amendment?prepared?by?the?Department?of?Finance?further?states:?”We?do?not?anticipate?significant?increases?in?loss-experience?to?result?from?this?bill.”?(Id.?at?p.?2.)?These?conservative?cost?estimates?are?inconsistent?with?an?interpretation?of?section?4656?that?would?allow?unlimited?awards?of?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?in?every?case?in?which?future?medical?benefits?have?been?awarded.?The?cost?estimates?are?consistent,?however,?with?an?interpretation?of?the?amendment?as?only?affecting?applicants?who?are?continuously?disabled.
Although?Nickelsberg?contends?his?interpretation?of?the?bill?would?effect?only?a?limited?number?of?cases,?the?implications?of?his?proposed?interpretation?are?broad.?Settlements?of?workers’?compensation?claims?often?include?an?award?of?future?medical?care.?Under?Nickelsberg’s?interpretation,?each?of?these?cases?would?implicitly?also?include?an?award?of?future?temporary?total?[54?Cal.3d?297]?disability.?As?a?result,?employers?would?be?liable?for?this?further?temporary?total?disability?indemnity,?although?it?was?not?contemplated?in?the?original?award.
As?shown,?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?and?future?medical?benefits?serve?distinct?and?different?roles?in?the?workers’?compensation?system.?The?different?roles?of?the?two?classes?of?benefits?negate?Nickelsberg’s?conclusion?that?an?award?of?future?medical?treatment?implicitly?includes?an?award?of?future?temporary?total?disability.?Furthermore,?the?legislative?history?of?Senate?Bill?No.?1851?does?not?conclusively?support?an?interpretation?of?section?4656?as?allowing?a?workers’?compensation?judge?to?award?unlimited?further?temporary?total?disability?as?a?secondary?consequence?of?an?award?of?further?medical?benefits.?Hence,?it?is?incorrect?to?characterize?the?award?of?further?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?to?Nickelsberg?as?a?mere?enforcement?of?his?original?award?under?section?5804.
Moreover,?Nickelsberg’s?interpretation?of?Senate?Bill?No.?1851?would?require?us?to?conclude?that?the?bill?somehow?amended?or?altered?the?time?and?jurisdictional?limits?of?sections?5410?or?5804?to?allow?resumption?of?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?whenever?an?award?of?future?medical?benefits?results?in?a?period?of?further?temporary?total?disability.?We?do?not?believe?that?the?Legislature?intended?such?a?broad?result.?Nickelsberg’s?argument?is?contrary?to?both?clear?statutory?construction?and?well-?established?judicial?interpretation?of?sections?5410?and?5804.?Moreover,?it?controverts?the?entire?statutory?scheme?of?workers’?compensation?judicial?administration,?which?provides?for?time?and?jurisdictional?limitations?upon?the?commencement?of?proceedings?and?modifications?of?prior?determinations.
[4]?The?WCAB?is?vested?with?the?authority?and?jurisdiction?to?conduct?proceedings?for?the?recovery?of?compensation.?(??5300?et?seq.)?Concomitantly,?it?is?empowered?with?continuing?jurisdictional?authority?over?all?of?its?orders,?decisions?and?awards.?(??5803.)?However,?this?power?is?not?unlimited.?The?WCAB’s?authority?under?section?5803?to?enforce?its?awards,?including?ancillary?proceedings?involving?commutation,?penalty?assessment?and?the?like,?is?not?to?be?confused?with?its?limited?jurisdiction?to?alter?prior?awards?by?benefit?augmentation?at?a?later?date.?The?latter?action?is?subject?to?the?provisions?of?sections?5410?and?5804.?(General?Foundry?Service?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?331?[228?Cal.Rptr.?243,?721?P.2d?124];?Broadway-Locust?Co.?v.?Ind.?Acc.?Com.?(1949)?92?Cal.App.2d?287,?290-294?[206?P.2d?856];?Ruffin?v.?Olson?Co.?(1987)?52?Cal.Comp.Cases?335.)?[54?Cal.3d?298] [1d]?It?may?not?be?inferred,?as?Nickelsberg?suggests,?that?the?1979?amendment,?removing?the?240-week?limitation?on?aggregate?temporary?total?disability?payments?within?a?5-year?postinjury?period,?in?any?manner?modified?the?time?or?jurisdictional?limitations?of?either?section?5410?or?section?5804.?Nickelsberg?supports?his?conclusion,?relying?on?the?liberal?construction?mandate?of?section?3202.fn.?6?[5]?However,?the?rule?of?liberal?construction?stated?in?section?3202?should?not?be?used?to?defeat?the?overall?statutory?framework?and?fundamental?rules?of?statutory?construction.?[6]?Furthermore,?statutes?should?be?interpreted?in?such?a?way?as?to?make?them?consistent?with?each?other,?rather?than?obviate?one?another.?(People?v.?Pieters,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?894,?899.)?[1e]?It?is?logical?to?presume?that?the?Legislature?was?aware?of?the?existence?of?all?relevant?statutes,?including?sections?5410?and?5804,?when?it?considered?the?change?in?section?4656.?Significantly,?as?observed?by?the?Court?of?Appeal,?the?Legislature?did?not?specifically?amend?sections?5410?and?5804?to?accomplish?the?broad?purpose?Nickelsberg?suggests?motivated?the?change?in?section?4656.Since?the?Legislature?did?not?explicitly?change?the?jurisdictional?limitations?of?the?WCAB?or?the?time?limitations?of?section?5410?(see?Singh?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1987)?52?Cal.Comp.Cases?15),?accepting?Nickelsberg’s?contention?would?require?us?to?conclude?that?the?Legislature?implicitly?repealed?sections?5804?and?5410.?[7]?Repeals?by?implication?are?disfavored?and?are?recognized?only?when?potentially?conflicting?statutes?cannot?be?harmonized.?(Dew?v.?Appleberry?(1979)?23?Cal.3d?630,?636?[153?Cal.Rptr.?219,?591?P.2d?509].)?[1f]?Disharmony,?however,?between?the?provisions?of?section?4656?and?those?of?sections?5410?and?5804?exists?only?if?one?takes-as?does?Nickelsberg-an?overly?broad?view?of?when?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?may?be?awarded.?Such?a?view?ignores?both?the?statutory?classification?of?these?sectionsfn.?7?and?the?Legislature’s?presumed?awareness,?when?it?amended?section?4656,?of?the?long?history?of?judicial?interpretation?of?sections?5410?and?5804.?(People?v.?Hallner?(1954)?43?Cal.2d?715,?719?[277?P.2d?393].)?[54?Cal.3d?299]
Furthermore,?sound?public?policy?supports?the?conclusion?that?the?amendment?to?section?4656?does?not?serve?to?abrogate?the?time?and?jurisdictional?limits?of?sections?5410?and?5804.?Those?sections?do?not?express?a?mere?concern?for?barring?stale?claims.?The?statutes?express?legislative?concern?for?certainty?and?finality?in?the?determination?of?compensation?benefit?obligations.?The?WCAB’s?own?interpretation?of?its?limited?power?to?award?temporary?total?disability?more?than?five?years?after?an?original?injury?recognizes?this?need?for?certainty?and?finality.?As?was?stated?in?Broadway-Locust?Co.?v.?Ind.?Acc.?Com.,?supra,?92?Cal.App.2d?at?page?293:?”This?long?continued?interpretation?by?the?commission?of?its?own?powers?has?necessarily?led?industry?to?recognize?and?adjust?itself?to?liabilities?and?responsibilities?consistent?with?well?understood?limitations?as?to?time.?…?It?is?important?…?that?the?overall?cost?of?[workers’]?compensation?insurance?should?be?ascertainable?with?reasonable?certainty?in?order?that?business?operations?may?be?adjusted?accordingly?and?state?agencies?…?may?be?enabled?to?operate?with?the?greatest?measure?of?efficiency?and?competency.?Contingent?liability?unlimited?as?to?time?for?which?the?commission?now?argues?would?result?in?great?confusion.?No?employer?or?his?insurance?carrier?would?know?what?claims?might?emerge?from?cases?long?since?settled?and?written?off.”fn.?8
Finally,?the?WCAB’s?own?determination?that?the?workers’?compensation?judge?lacked?jurisdiction?under?section?4656,?as?amended,?to?award?further?temporary?total?disability?is?entitled?to?significant?respect?on?judicial?review.?In?the?instant?case,?following?the?workers’?compensation?judge’s?award?of?further?temporary?total?disability?indemnity,?the?WCAB?granted?reconsideration?on?its?own?motion.?(??5900,?subd.?(b).)?The?WCAB?found?that?the?original?”award?of?further?medical?treatment?does?not?implicitly?carry?with?it?a?commensurate?award?of?temporary?total?disability,”?and?concluded?that?Nickelsberg’s?petition?was?time?barred.?The?Court?of?Appeal?agreed?with?the?WCAB?that?”the?workers’?compensation?judge?lacked?jurisdiction?to?award?further?temporary?total?disability?indemnity.”?The?WCAB’s?interpretation?of?its?jurisdictional?authority?to?grant?new?and?further?temporary?disability,?as?expressed?in?its?decision?on?reconsideration,?is?not?only?persuasive?on?this?issue,?its?interpretation?and?application?of?these?three?statutes?is?entitled?to?[54?Cal.3d?300]?significant?respect?upon?judicial?review.fn.?9?(See?Nipper?v.?California?Auto.?Assigned?Risk?Plan?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?35,?45?[136?Cal.Rptr.?854,?560?P.2d?743]?[“We?have?generally?accorded?respect?to?administrative?interpretations?of?a?law?and,?unless?clearly?erroneous,?have?deemed?them?significant?factors?in?ascertaining?statutory?meaning?and?purpose.?[Citations.]”];?Mudd?v.?McColgan?(1947)?30?Cal.2d?463,?470?[183?P.2d?10].)?We?conclude?that?the?WCAB’s?interpretation?and?application?of?the?relevant?statutes?was?correct?and?adds?further?support?to?the?conclusion?that?Nickelsberg’s?petition?to?recover?temporary?total?disability?is?barred.?B.?Nickelsberg?Is?Not?Entitled?to?Receive?Further?Temporary?Total?Disability?Indemnity
Having?rejected?Nickelsberg’s?interpretation?of?the?amendment?of?section?4656,?we?still?must?determine?if?the?workers’?compensation?judge?had?jurisdiction?under?another?section?of?the?workers’?compensation?laws?to?award?Nickelsberg?further?temporary?total?disability.?Given?our?interpretation?of?section?4656,?which?precludes?considering?Nickelsberg’s?petition?as?merely?an?enforcement?action?under?section?5803,?Nickelsberg?can?only?recover?for?temporary?total?disability?at?this?point?in?time?if:?(1)?the?WCAB?had?authority?to?amend?its?original?award?under?section?5804;?or?(2)?he?had?suffered?a?”new?and?further?disability”?under?section?5410?and?had?filed?a?timely?claim?for?recovery.?As?will?become?evident,?we?conclude?that?Nickelsberg?cannot?bring?his?petition?within?either?of?these?two?avenues?of?possible?recovery.
- The?WCAB?Correctly?Determined?That?the?Workers’?Compensation?Judge?Lacked?Jurisdiction?Under?Section?5804
The?first?theory?under?which?Nickelsberg?might?be?able?to?recover?on?his?claim?for?temporary?total?disability?is?if?the?WCAB?had?jurisdiction?to?amend?his?original?award.?Section?5804?allows?a?party,?in?certain?circumstances,?to?file?a?petition?to?rescind,?alter,?or?amend?an?original?award.?However,?such?a?petition?must?be?filed?within?five?years?of?the?original?injury.?(??5804;?see,?ante,?p.?293,?fn.?4.)?Nickelsberg’s?suffered?his?original?injury?on?January?5,?1979,?and?filed?his?petition?for?further?temporary?total?disability?on?February?8,?1988.?Because?Nickelsberg’s?petition?to?reopen?his?award?was?filed?more?than?five?years?from?the?date?of?his?original?injury,?the?[54?Cal.3d?301]?WCAB?correctly?determined?that?the?workers’?compensation?judge?lacked?jurisdiction?to?alter?or?amend?the?original?award?under?section?5804?to?provide?for?further?temporary?total?disability.
- “New?and?Further?Disability”
The?second?possible?avenue?of?recovery?is?a?petition?for?”new?and?further?disability”?under?section?5410.?An?employee?may?institute?proceedings,?within?five?years?from?the?date?of?the?original?injury,?for?the?collection?of?compensation?upon?the?ground?that?the?original?injury?has?caused?new?and?further?disability.?(??5410;?see,?ante,?p.?293,?fn.?5.)?In?the?present?case,?Nickelsberg?initially?filed?his?petition?to?reopen?his?award?claiming?that?he?had?suffered?a?new?and?further?disability?pursuant?to?section?5410.?In?his?trial?memorandum?filed?the?same?day?as?the?petition,?however,?Nickelsberg?argued?that?he?was?seeking?enforcement?of?his?original?award?pursuant?to?section?4656.
The?term?”new?and?further?disability”?is?not?defined?by?statute?and?its?meaning?is?not?entirely?clear.?(Pizza?Hut?of?San?Diego,?Inc.?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1978)?76?Cal.App.3d?818,?825?[143?Cal.Rptr.?131].)?However,?one?Court?of?Appeal?has?described?a?”new?and?further?disability”?as?”a?disability?in?addition?to?that?for?which?the?employer?previously?provided?benefits?as?required?by?the?statute.”?(Id.?at?p.?822.)?”The?phrase?’further?disability’?presupposes?that?such?disability?is?in?addition?to?that?disability?for?which?proceedings?were?timely?commenced?or?for?which?compensation?already?was?paid?(Kauffman?v.?Industrial?Accident?Com.?[(1918)]?37?Cal.App.?500,?502-503?[174?P.?690]).?It?has?also?been?recognized?'[s]ome?significance?must?be?given?to?the?word?”new.”?’?(See?Westvaco?etc.?Corp.?v.?Ind.?Acc.?Com.?[(1955)]?136?Cal.App.2d?60,?64-?68?[288?P.2d?300].)”?(Id.?at?p.?825.)
The?Court?of?Appeal?in?Pizza?Hut?further?noted:?”?’New?and?further?disability?can?develop?only?after?a?cessation?of?temporary?disability?or?an?interruption?of?temporary?disability?by?a?period?of?nondisablement.?A?new?period?of?temporary?disability?…?is?a?new?and?further?disability.?…?[?]?Historically,?a?change?in?physical?condition?necessitating?further?medical?treatment?had?been?considered?new?and?further?disability?whether?or?not?accompanied?by?time?lost?from?work.?[Citation.]’?(Cal.?Workmen’s?Compensation?Practice?(Cont.Ed.Bar?1973)???4.21,?pp.?108-109;?see?also?1?Hanna,?[Cal.?Law?of?Employee?Injuries?and?Workmen’s?Compensation?(2d?ed.)]???9.03[2].)?Thus,?'[c]ommonly,?new?and?further?disability?refers?to?a?recurrence?of?temporary?disability,?a?new?need?for?medical?treatment,?or?the?change?of?a?temporary?disability?into?a?permanent?disability.’?(Cal.?Workmen’s?Compensation?Practice?(Cont.Ed.Bar?1973)???12.12,?p.?410.)”?(?Pizza?[54?Cal.3d?302]?Hut?of?San?Diego,?Inc.?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.,?supra,?76?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?825.)
Nickelsberg’s?disability?may?indeed?be?a?”new?and?further?disability.”?After?Nickelsberg’s?1979?industrial?injury,?he?received?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?from?January?6,?1979,?through?June?8,?1981.?He?received?a?permanent?disability?rating?of?66?3/4?percent.?After?a?period?of?nondisablement,?Nickelsberg?had?back?surgery?in?July?1987.?As?a?result,?he?now?seeks?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?for?the?period?of?March?7,?1987,?through?November?25,?1987.
In?the?final?analysis,?however,?we?need?not?decide?if?Nickelsberg’s?disability?qualifies?as?a?new?and?further?disability.?If?it?does,?his?petition?would?be?untimely?under?section?5410.?If?it?does?not,?his?action?could?only?be?brought?as?a?petition?to?amend?his?award.?However,?as?previously?noted,?such?an?action?under?section?5804?would?also?be?untimely.
Conclusion
Nickelsberg?seeks?from?this?court?an?interpretation?of?section?4656?that?would?provide?unlimited?temporary?total?disability?when?an?award?of?further?medical?treatment?is?made.?Such?an?interpretation?is?not?justified?by?either?clear?legislative?intent?or?sound?statutory?construction.?Hence,?the?workers’?compensation?judge?lacked?jurisdiction?to?award?temporary?total?disability?to?Nickelsberg.
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?affirmed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?and?Baxter,?J.,?concurred.
BROUSSARD,?J.,
Dissenting.
The?Legislature’s?1978?amendment?of?Labor?Code?section?4656fn.?1?was?expressly?intended?to?allow?workers?in?Nickelsberg’s?position?to?obtain?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?while?recovering?from?surgery.?The?majority?does?not?honor?that?intent,?but?rather?seizes?upon?an?interpretation?of?that?amendment,?supported?in?neither?the?statutory?language?nor?its?history,?that?defeats?the?amendment’s?purpose.?I?respectfully?dissent.
I.
There?are?cases?in?which?we?are?constrained?by?statute?to?accept?outcomes?that?are?manifestly?unjust.?In?those?cases?our?only?recourse?is?to?implore?the?[54?Cal.3d?303]?Legislature?to?enact?a?remedy?when?a?judicially?sanctioned?remedy?lies?beyond?the?courts’?powers.?In?the?instant?case,?however,?the?Legislature?took?action?to?relieve?injured?workers?of?a?burden?the?statutes?had?otherwise?placed?upon?those?workers.
It?is?beyond?question?that?the?Legislature,?in?amending?section?4656,?considered?the?plight?of?workers?in?exactly?the?position?in?which?Nickelsberg?today?finds?himself.?(See?maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?295.)?A?legislative?staff?analysis?accompanying?the?amendment?specifically?stated:?”Proponents?[of?the?amendment]?contend?that?often?surgery?or?other?treatment?is?required?years?after?an?injury?to?remove?[surgically]?implanted?devices?….”?(Assem.?Ways?and?Means?Com.,?Staff?Analysis?of?Sen.?Bill?No.?1851?(1977-1978?Reg.?Sess.)?as?amended?Aug.?14,?1978,?p.?1.)?One?agency,?commenting?on?the?pending?bill,?noted:?”There?are?…?cases?which?create?a?hardship?situation?where?an?industrial?injury?results?in?the?need?for?surgery?more?than?5?years?after?the?date?of?the?injury.?Due?to?the?arbitrary?time?limit?[of?the?prior?statute],?the?employee?is?then?only?entitled?to?receive?medical?benefits?and?is?precluded?from?receiving?temporary?disability?indemnity?resulting?from?the?hospitalization?and?surgery.?Although?occurring?rarely,?these?situations?create?an?obvious?hardship?that?is?difficult?to?defend.”?(Agr.?&?Services?Agency,?Sen.?Industrial?Relations?Com.?Enrolled?Bill?Rep.?and?Recommendations?to?Governor?on?Sen.?Bill?No.?1851?(1977-1978?Reg.?Sess.)?as?amended?Aug.?14,?1978,?p.?1.)
It?is?rare?that?legislative?history?will?give?us?such?explicit?guidance?in?the?interpretation?of?statutes?and,?in?this?instance,?I?am?bewildered?by?the?majority’s?suggestion?that?this?history?is?”contradicted”?or?otherwise?invalid.?The?”other?portions?of?the?legislative?history”?cited?by?the?majority?do?not?support?the?majority’s?suggestion?that?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?was?intended?to?be?limited?to?cases?involving?workers?who?had?suffered?continuous?temporary?total?disability.?Rather,?the?reports?relied?upon?by?the?majority?each?stated?that?indemnity?for?temporary?total?disability?would?continue?for?as?long?as?the?temporary?total?disability?continues.?These?statements?are?indubitably?true.?Yet?the?majority?italicizes?certain?phrases?as?if?to?suggest?that?the?words?in?each?instance?were?intended?to?emphasize?that?the?Legislature?wished?to?limit?recovery?to?temporary?total?disability?suffered?continuously.fn.?2?The?amended?statute?deletes?all?reference?to?temporary?total?disability?occurring?after?1978,?and?therefore?cannot?be?read?to?support?the?proposition?that,?for?temporary?total?disability?to?be?paid?more?than?five?[54?Cal.3d?304]?years?after?the?date?of?injury,?the?disability?must?be?suffered?continuously.?(See???4656.)?Moreover,?such?an?interpretation?is?fundamentally?inconsistent?with?the?legislative?history?recognizing?that,?”where?an?industrial?injury?results?in?the?need?for?surgery?more?than?5?years?after?the?date?of?the?injury,”?an?injured?employee?is?placed?in?a?”hardship?situation”?because?that?employee?”is?precluded?from?receiving?temporary?disability?indemnity?resulting?from?the?hospitalization?and?surgery.”fn.?3
II.
In?many?cases,?as?in?this?case,?future?medical?treatment?is?awarded?in?anticipation?of?major?surgery?at?an?indeterminate?time?in?the?future.?Section?4656?was?amended,?not?to?allow?any?instance?of?temporary?total?disability?to?be?awarded?more?than?five?years?after?an?injury,?but?for?the?particular?case?when?the?disability?arises?as?a?result?of?the?medical?treatment?provided?through?the?initial?award.?Because?the?disability?is,?in?my?view,?inseparable?from?the?treatment,?I?believe?that?an?award?of?future?medical?treatment?implicitly?carries?with?it?a?provision?for?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?should?that?medical?treatment?be?disabling.fn.?4
Preliminarily,?we?must?note?that?the?workers’?compensation?laws’?provisions?for?injured?employees’?medical?treatment?are?unequivocal:?employees?are?entitled?to?whatever?treatment?is?needed?to?cure?and?relieve?from?the?effects?of?the?industrial?injury.?Thus,?article?XIV,?section?4?of?the?California?Constitution?requires?”full?provision?for?such?medical,?surgical,?hospital?and?[54?Cal.3d?305]?other?remedial?treatment?as?is?requisite?to?cure?and?relieve?from?the?effects?of?such?injury?….”?(Italics?added.)?Section?4600,?which?establishes?the?treatments?to?which?injured?workers?are?entitled,?also?requires?employers?to?provide?a?broad?range?of?treatments:?”Medical,?surgical,?chiropractic,?and?hospital?treatment,?including?nursing,?medicines,?medical?and?surgical?supplies,?crutches,?and?apparatus?…?reasonably?required?to?cure?or?relieve?from?the?effects?of?the?injury?shall?be?provided?by?the?employer.”?(Italics?added.)
In?order?to?cure?and?relieve?himself?or?herself?from?the?effect?of?the?injury,?the?injured?employee?has?no?option?but?to?follow?doctor’s?orders?after?surgery.?The?treatment?may?be?essentially?affirmative-e.g.,?to?undergo?rigorous?physical?therapy-or?it?may?be?essentially?negative-e.g.,?to?avoid?strenuous?physical?activity.?In?this?instance,?Nickelsberg?was?required?to?absent?himself?from?work?while?recuperating?from?the?treatments.?As?a?policy?matter,?it?should?be?clear?that?full?provision?for?remedial?treatment?of?an?industrial?injury?should?not?be?artificially?limited?to?medical?expenses?alone,?but?rather?should?provide?the?necessary?resources?for?an?employee?disabled?by?medical?procedures?to?fully?recuperate?from?those?procedures.
The?majority?indulges?in?an?academic?exercise?that?evades?the?issue?and,?accordingly,?sheds?no?light?on?whether?temporary?total?disability?can?be?paid?to?an?employee?pursuant?to?an?award?of?future?medical?treatment.?Typically,?medical?treatment?and?disability?indemnity?are?considered?separate?and?distinct?elements?of?compensation.?(See?maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?294.)?Thus,?for?the?purposes?of?assessing?penalties?(Burton?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1980)?112?Cal.App.3d?85?[169?Cal.Rptr.?72])?or?assuring?that?an?employee?with?asbestosis?may?get?medical?treatment?before?disability?manifests?itself?(J.?T.?Thorp,?Inc.?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1984)?153?Cal.App.3d?327?[200?Cal.Rptr.?219]),?courts?properly?draw?a?distinction?between?these?classes?of?benefits.?However,?the?fact?that?they?are?different?classes?of?benefits?does?not?determine?the?issue?that?has?been?placed?squarely?before?the?court?today:?May?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?that?results?directly?from?covered?medical?treatment?be?awarded?incident?to?an?award?of?future?medical?treatment?
An?injured?worker?sorely?needing?major?surgery?more?than?five?years?after?the?date?of?his?or?her?injury?will?be?assured?that?the?actual?cost?of?the?treatment?will?be?covered,?yet?under?the?majority’s?holding?he?or?she?cannot?be?compensated?under?an?existing?award?(at?least,?without?an?express?reservation?of?jurisdiction)?for?his?or?her?time?out?of?work.fn.?5?For?treatments?[54?Cal.3d?306]?like?Nickelsberg’s,?the?prospect?of?being?off?work?for?several?months?without?compensation?may?prove?prohibitively?expensive.?Some?workers?will?have?no?alternative?but?to?forgo?surgery-at?least,?for?as?long?as?is?possible.
When?the?worker’s?interest?is?thus?served?by?assuring?that?he?or?she?can?receive?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?for?disability?sustained?as?the?result?of,?and?incident?to,?an?award?of?future?medical?treatment,?the?award?should?be?interpreted?to?include?indemnity.?In?other?instances,?both?the?courts?and?the?Legislature?have?seen?fit?to?award?temporary?total?disability?incident?to?medical?treatment,?in?spite?of?the?general?premise?that?they?are?different?classes?of?benefits.?(See???4600?[allowing?for?compensation?of?medical?expenses?and?one?day?of?temporary?total?disability?incident?to?a?medical?examination];?Caldwell?v.?Workmen’s?Comp.?App.?Bd.?(1969)?268?Cal.App.2d?912,?917?[74?Cal.Rptr.?517]?[allowing?for?an?award?of?one?day?of?temporary?total?disability?for?time?lost?incident?to?a?medical?diagnosis?of?alleged?industrial?injury].)?Thus,?the?courts?and?the?Legislature?have?acknowledged?that?medical?treatment?is?a?practical?impossibility?if?an?employee?cannot?afford?to?forgo?the?time?off?from?work.?That?same?rationale?persuades?me?that?our?workers’?compensation?statutes?should?provide?Nickelsberg?compensation?for?the?time?he?needs?to?recuperate?from?surgery,?as?well?as?for?the?costs?of?the?treatment?itself.
In?another?context,?a?rigid?distinction?between?”classes?of?benefits”?might?be?supported?in?policy;?here,?however,?we?are?obligated?to?interpret?the?relevant?statutes?in?the?injured?worker’s?favor.?Section?3202?commands?that?the?provisions?of?this?code?”shall?be?liberally?construed?by?the?courts?with?the?purpose?of?extending?their?benefits?for?the?protection?of?persons?injured?in?the?course?of?their?employment.”?This?provision?is?not?a?rule?which?courts?in?their?discretion?may?limit?or?disregard,?but?is?a?statutory?mandate.?(See,?e.g.,?Industrial?Indem.?Exch.?v.?Ind.?Acc.?Com.?(1948)?87?Cal.App.2d?465,?467?[197?P.2d?75].)?When?”a?provision?of?the?Act?is?susceptible?of?an?interpretation?either?beneficial?or?detrimental?to?an?injured?employee?we?are?called?upon?…?to?adopt?the?construction?beneficial?to?such?employee.”?(Liptak?v.?Industrial?Acc.?Com.?(1926)?200?Cal.?39,?42?[251?P.?635].)?Hundreds?of?reported?cases?support?and?apply?this?principle.fn.?6?My?analysis?[54?Cal.3d?307]?of?the?issues?yields?the?inevitable?conclusion?that?we?must?adopt?the?interpretation?of?the?statutes?at?issue?that?would?afford?Nickelsberg?an?opportunity?to?collect?temporary?total?disability?indemnity.
III.
For?the?reasons?discussed?above,?I?would?reverse?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal.
Mosk,?J.,?and?Kennard,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Labor?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?We?asked?the?parties?to?brief?the?issue?whether?any?disability?arising?from?Nickelsberg’s?further?medical?treatment?might?constitute?a?new,?compensable?injury.?We?have?determined?that?resolution?of?this?case?does?not?require?that?we?address?that?issue?and,?like?the?Court?of?Appeal,?we?only?decide?the?question?of?the?workers’?compensation?judge’s?jurisdiction.
FN?3.?Section?5803?states:?”The?appeals?board?has?continuing?jurisdiction?over?all?its?orders,?decisions?and?awards?made?and?entered?under?the?provisions?of?this?division,?and?the?decisions?and?orders?of?the?rehabilitation?unit?established?under?Section?139.5.?At?any?time,?upon?notice?and?after?an?opportunity?to?be?heard?is?given?to?the?parties?in?interest,?the?appeals?board?may?rescind,?alter,?or?amend?any?order,?decision,?or?award,?good?cause?appearing?therefor.
“This?power?includes?the?right?to?review,?grant?or?regrant,?diminish,?increase,?or?terminate,?within?the?limits?prescribed?by?this?division,?any?compensation?awarded,?upon?the?grounds?that?the?disability?of?the?person?in?whose?favor?the?award?was?made?has?either?recurred,?increased,?diminished,?or?terminated.”
FN?4.?Former?section?5804?states?in?part:?”No?award?of?compensation?shall?be?rescinded,?altered,?or?amended?after?five?years?from?the?date?of?the?injury?except?upon?a?petition?by?a?party?in?interest?filed?within?such?five?years?and?any?counterpetition?seeking?other?relief?filed?by?the?adverse?party?within?30?days?of?the?original?petition?raising?issues?in?addition?to?those?raised?by?such?original?petition.”
FN?5.?Section?5410?states:?”Nothing?in?this?chapter?shall?bar?the?right?of?any?injured?employee?to?institute?proceedings?for?the?collection?of?compensation?within?five?years?after?the?date?of?the?injury?upon?the?ground?that?the?original?injury?has?caused?new?and?further?disability?or?the?need?for?vocational?rehabilitation?benefits.?The?jurisdiction?of?the?appeals?board?in?these?cases?shall?be?a?continuing?jurisdiction?at?all?times?within?this?period.?The?section?does?not?extend?the?limitation?provided?in?Section?5407.”
FN?6.?Section?3202?states:?”This?division?and?Division?5?(commencing?with?Section?6300)?shall?be?liberally?construed?by?the?courts?with?the?purpose?of?extending?their?benefits?for?the?protection?of?persons?injured?in?the?course?of?their?employment.”
FN?7.?The?conclusion?that?the?amendment?of?section?4656?does?not?alter?other?jurisdictional?or?time?limitations?is?supported?by?analysis?of?the?legislative?placement?and?classification?given?sections?4656,?5410,?5803,?and?5804.?Section?4656?is?found?in?chapter?2,?division?4,?part?2?of?the?Labor?Code.?Part?2?is?entitled?”Computation?of?Compensation,”?and?chapter?2?is?designated?”Compensation?Schedules.”?Sections?5410,?5803,?and?5804,?in?contrast,?are?placed?in?part?4,?”Compensation?Proceedings.”?Section?5410?is?part?of?chapter?2,?entitled?”Limitations?of?Proceedings,”?and?sections?5803?and?5804?are?in?chapter?6,?entitled?”Findings?and?Awards.”
With?these?statutory?classifications?so?evident,?it?is?unlikely?that?the?Legislature?intended?that?the?amendment?to?section?4656?would?implicitly?alter?either?the?time?limitations?for?initiating?proceedings?under?section?5410,?or?the?jurisdictional?restrictions?of?sections?5803?and?5804.
FN?8.?Based?on?section?4656,?as?amended,?and?our?decision?in?General?Foundry?Service?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?331?[228?Cal.Rptr.?243,?721?P.2d?124],?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?this?case?indicated?that?it?might?be?proper?for?the?WCAB?to?reserve?jurisdiction?to?award?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?related?to?hospitalization?or?surgery?occurring?more?than?five?years?after?the?date?of?injury.
We?note?General?Foundry?Service?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?was?not?decided?until?approximately?four?years?after?Nickelsberg?received?his?initial?award.?Also,?as?observed?by?the?Court?of?Appeal,?the?WCAB?did?not?reserve?jurisdiction?to?award?Nickelsberg?further?temporary?total?disability.?Consequently,?we?have?no?occasion?in?the?present?case?to?determine?whether?the?WCAB?does?have?authority?to?reserve?jurisdiction?to?award?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?more?than?five?years?after?the?date?of?the?original?injury.
FN?9.?See?also,?Ruffin?v.?Olson?Glass?Co.?(1987)?52?Cal.Comp.Cases?335,?343?where?the?WCAB?rejected?the?argument?that?the?amendment?to?section?4656?permits?an?award?of?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?”upon?the?happening?of?some?contingency,?such?as?surgery.”?According?to?the?WCAB?in?Ruffin,?”[s]uch?an?award?…?would?be?nothing?more?than?a?subterfuge?to?avoid?the?limitation?of?jurisdiction?contained?in?Labor?Code?Sections?5410?and?5804.”?(Ibid.)
FN?1.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Labor?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?The?legislative?history?in?support?of?Nickelsberg’s?position?also?expressly?noted?that?the?additional?cost?to?the?state,?if?Senate?Bill?No.?1851?were?passed,?would?be?negligible.?This?material?refutes?the?majority’s?speculation?that?the?cost?of?Senate?Bill?No.?1851,?1977-1978?Regular?Session,?if?implemented?as?discussed?in?the?legislative?history,?necessarily?would?be?significant.?(See?maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?296.)
FN?3.?It?is?important?to?note?that?the?majority?never?affirmatively?rejects?the?interpretation?of?the?amendment?to?section?4656?proffered?by?Nickelsberg,?but?merely?assert?that?”the?legislative?history?of?Senate?Bill?No.?1851?does?not?conclusively?support?[Nickelsberg’s?interpretation]”?(maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?297,?italics?added)?in?light?of?the?”contradictory”?history?discussed?in?the?majority?opinion.?Accordingly,?a?court?interpreting?section?4656?in?the?future?(e.g.,?to?determine?whether?a?workers’?compensation?judge?may?reserve?jurisdiction?to?award?temporary?total?disability)?must?consider?how?the?legislative?history?presented?by?Nickelsberg,?as?well?as?that?presented?by?the?majority,?affects?the?question?presented?to?that?court.
FN?4.?The?majority,?in?making?a?policy?argument?in?favor?of?its?position,?grossly?misstates?the?position?that?Nickelsberg?advocates:?”the?implications?of?[Nickelsberg’s]?proposed?interpretation?are?broad.?Settlements?of?workers’?compensation?claims?often?include?an?award?of?future?medical?care.?Under?Nickelsberg’s?interpretation,?each?of?these?cases?would?implicitly?also?include?an?award?of?future?temporary?total?disability.?As?a?result,?employers?would?be?liable?for?this?further?temporary?total?disability?indemnity,?although?it?was?not?contemplated?in?the?original?award.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?pp.?296-297.)
In?fact,?Nickelsberg?only?argues?that?every?award?of?future?medical?treatment?implicitly?carries?with?it?temporary?total?disability?indemnity?resulting?from?that?future?medical?treatment.?Such?an?interpretation?comports?with?the?legislative?intent?in?amending?section?4656,?and?would?have?far?less?impact?than?the?straw?man?attacked?by?the?majority,?i.e.,?an?award?of?future?medical?treatment?that?includes?an?award?for?any?occurrence?of?temporary?total?disability,?including?disability?totally?unrelated?to?medical?treatment?provided?pursuant?to?an?injured?worker’s?award.
FN?5.?The?majority?opinion?does?not?rule?out?the?possibility?that?a?worker’s?disability?arising?from?medical?treatment?may?in?itself?constitute?a?new,?compensable?injury?for?the?purposes?of?the?workers’?compensation?laws.?(Cf.?Rodgers?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1985)?168?Cal.App.3d?567,?571-574?[214?Cal.Rptr.?303]?[injury?incurred?in?the?course?of?employer-provided?rehabilitation?constitutes?a?new,?compensable?injury].)
FN?6.?There?are,?of?course,?circumstances?in?which?a?court?is?not?justified?in?construing?a?statute?in?favor?of?the?injured?worker.?A?limiting?construction?may?be?required?by?the?”unmistakable?language?of?a?statute”?(Earl?Ranch,?Ltd.?v.?Industrial?Acc.?Com.?(1935)?4?Cal.2d?767,?769?[53?P.2d?154]),?and?the?”Legislature’s?intent?as?expressed?in?the?statute”?cannot?be?ignored?(Ruiz?v.?Industrial?Acc.?Com.?(1955)?45?Cal.2d?409,?413?[289?P.2d?229];?see?Fuentes?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?1,?8?[128?Cal.Rptr.?673,?547?P.2d?449]).?Yet?this?is?not?such?a?case.?There?is?no?unmistakable?language?and?no?statutory?expression?of?legislative?intent?to?justify?denying?an?injured?employee?in?Nickelsberg’s?position?temporary?total?disability?indemnity.?At?best,?the?most?the?majority’s?argument?does?is?put?forward?an?alternative?construction?of?section?4656,?and,?given?two?reasonable?constructions?of?that?statute,?this?court?is?required?by?law?to?adopt?the?construction?which?will?permit?recovery?of?benefits?by?the?injured?worker.