Home/Case Law/JAMES CRAIG SILLERS vs. CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, MUNICIPAL POOLING AUTHORITY
Regular DecisionReconsideration

JAMES CRAIG SILLERS vs. CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, MUNICIPAL POOLING AUTHORITY

Filed: Feb 23, 2018
Oakland
ADJ10553459

CompFox AI Summary

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's award of 47% permanent disability benefits to applicant James Sillers. The central dispute concerned whether Sillers was entitled to the maximum disability indemnity rate under Labor Code section 4458.5. The Board majority held that Sillers, a retired police officer with orthopedic injuries, qualified for the maximum rate, interpreting section 4458.5 to apply to any public safety member injured within the timeframes specified in listed presumption statutes, not solely to injuries covered by those specific presumptions. A dissenting opinion argued that only injuries falling under the explicitly enumerated presumptions in section 4458.5 qualified for the maximum rate, citing precedent that non-listed presumptions, like cancer under section 3212.1, did not grant this benefit.

Full Decision Text1 Pages

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's award of 47% permanent disability benefits to applicant James Sillers. The central dispute concerned whether Sillers was entitled to the maximum disability indemnity rate under Labor Code section 4458.5. The Board majority held that Sillers, a retired police officer with orthopedic injuries, qualified for the maximum rate, interpreting section 4458.5 to apply to any public safety member injured within the timeframes specified in listed presumption statutes, not solely to injuries covered by those specific presumptions. A dissenting opinion argued that only injuries falling under the explicitly enumerated presumptions in section 4458.5 qualified for the maximum rate, citing precedent that non-listed presumptions, like cancer under section 3212.1, did not grant this benefit.

Read the full decision

Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.