SIBTF is a governmental agency and not an employer for purposes of Labor Code sections 4650, 5814, and 5814.5.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This status exempts SIBTF from penalties under these sections, supporting the denial of applicant's penalty claims.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on
April 5, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as
relevant that (1) the findings and award finding applicant one hundred percent permanently
disabled and entitled to benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) was
served on August 13, 2018; (2) SIBTF issued payment on the award on September 27, 2018; (3)
SIBTF is a governmental agency and not an employer for purposes of Labor Code sections 4650,
5814 and 5814.5;1 (4) the payments made by SIBTF were correct; and (5) all other issues are moot.
Applicant and defendant stipulated to permanent disability indemnity payable at specified weekly rates beginning December 6, 2014.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The stipulation binds the applicant and supports the Board's rejection of the claim that SIBTF took credit at an incorrect rate.
Exhibits A and B admitted into evidence were more persuasive than applicant's CPA report.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The Board relied on these exhibits to find that SIBTF correctly paid the applicant her benefits due.
From the decision · page 5Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration from that decision and the Order was
rescinded. The Petition alleged that the penalty was insufficient and the Award was
incorrectly paid, among other issues. The parties were directed to obtain expert
testimony with regard to the accuracy of the amounts paid (Minutes of Hearing
11/14/2019, Doc ID# 71597524). Applicant obtained a letter from a Certified
Public Accountant Eric Hunt dated 2/6/2020 (Exhibit 20) and defendant sought to
rely on correspondence from the claims examiner (Exhibit B)....
As to Petitioners claim that the Award of SIBTF benefits was underpaid, petitioner
again failed to carry its burden of proof on the issue. Based upon the defendant's
exhibits admitted into evidence, Exhibits A and B, which were the more persuasive,
it was found that SIBTF has correctly paid the applicant her benefits due. In support
thereof, applicant submitted a letter from Eric Hunt, CPA. In reviewing his analysis,
there is nothing to show that he has taken into account the employer's obligation
for indemnity payments pursuant to the 99% Award. Its probative value is therefore
dubious at best, and is insufficient to carry her burden of proof....
(Report, pp. 1-5.)