Introduction
When a California law enforcement officer sustains two separate workplace injuries—especially if those injuries overlap in time—how should Labor Code § 4850 “leave of absence” benefits be applied? That is the question at the heart of Agaiby v. City of Culver City (2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 382), a recent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) panel decision that dives deep into the interplay between multiple injuries, temporary disability, and the unique, salary-continuation benefit afforded to certain peace officers under Labor Code § 4850.
Although the WCAB has granted reconsideration (meaning that this is not yet a final, binding decision), this case underscores a key tension: is an injured police officer with two distinct injury claims (and overlapping periods of disability) entitled to two separate one-year periods of section 4850 benefits, or do overlapping periods merge into a single year of section 4850 entitlement? For now, the Board has pressed pause to study the matter further, noting that the issue has generated conflicting decisions—and that the California Supreme Court has accepted review on related questions.
Below is a quick overview of the facts, the analysis by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ), the WCAB’s reasoning so far, and some best practices for claims adjusters who may encounter similar issues.
Facts and Procedural Background
- Applicant’s First Injury (ADJ13744962): Police Captain Osama Agaiby allegedly sustained a specific injury on August 5, 2020, during a work-related exercise when he fell forward with 75-pound weights attached to his wrists. He subsequently suffered injuries to his neck, back, shoulders, and knees.
- Applicant’s Second Injury (ADJ15643990): Agaiby also asserted a cumulative trauma injury spanning May 1, 1994, to February 8, 2021, culminating in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Notably, medical reports indicated that this wrist/hand condition did not arise from the August 5, 2020, event but was rather an ongoing cumulative trauma.
- Overlapping Periods of Temporary Disability: In both claims, the applicant became temporarily totally disabled—first because of the orthopedic injuries and then because of the bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome—resulting in overlapping periods of disability during which he sought section 4850 benefits (salary continuation).
- WCJ’s Decision: The judge found that the applicant was entitled to a full year of section 4850 benefits for the specific injury and a separate, second year of section 4850 benefits for the cumulative trauma claim, even though the periods partially overlapped.
- Defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration: The employer/administrator argued that overlapping periods of disability under separate injury dates should not entitle the applicant to “double dip” on section 4850 benefits. Instead, any overlapping periods should be credited to both claims, capping the applicant at a single one-year period.
- WCAB’s Take—For Now: The Board granted reconsideration (meaning the final decision is on hold), explaining that there is a split of authority over how to interpret section 4850 in these scenarios. The Board wants to evaluate whether the WCJ’s factual findings are fully supported by substantial evidence, particularly in light of pending litigation before the California Supreme Court on related questions.
The Crux of the Dispute: Interpreting Section 4850
Labor Code § 4850(a) provides a “leave of absence without loss of salary” for specified law enforcement officers and firefighters in lieu of temporary disability. Typically, an eligible officer can receive up to one year of fully paid leave rather than standard temporary disability payments, which are partial wage replacements.
Key question: If an officer suffers two separate work-related injuries—each with its own timeline—are there grounds for two separate one-year periods of section 4850 benefits? The WCJ relied on City of Montclair v. WCAB (Leone) (2001) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 899, a panel decision awarding a second period of section 4850 benefits for a second distinct injury. However, other panel decisions, such as Cardoza v. County of Alameda (2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 279), have taken a stricter view where overlapping injuries revolve around the same body parts or continuous disability.
Because these are panel-level decisions, none is “controlling precedent.” Yet, the Board itself acknowledged in Agaiby that the Supreme Court has granted review in a similar case to resolve conflicts in how section 4850 interacts with temporary disability.
Best Practices for Claims Adjusters
- Thoroughly Investigate Separate Injuries: Determine whether each claim truly involves distinct body parts and distinct periods of disability. Overlapping injuries to the same body part (or resulting from the same mechanism) will likely be analyzed differently than clearly separate injuries.
- Coordinate TD and 4850 Timelines: Maintain detailed charts of temporary disability start dates, end dates, and any overlap. In close cases, consider medical testimony or an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) to confirm whether overlapping periods of disability truly stem from separate injuries.
- Check for Gaps in Employment/Active Duty: If an employee never returned to work between injuries, clarifying exactly when (and why) each disabling condition arose is essential to see if the second injury is truly “new” or merely an extension of the first.
- Follow Pending Legal Developments: Because the Supreme Court has granted review on 4850 related issues, keep current on any new published decisions. The legal landscape may soon shift, directly impacting how 4850 benefits are allocated in cases with multiple injuries.
- Preserve Evidence Early: Should a dispute escalate to trial and possible appeals, make sure all medical reports, internal payroll records, and documented personnel practices regarding section 4850 payments are maintained and clearly organized.
A Note on Precedential Value
As the Board emphasized, Agaiby is a WCAB panel decision, which practitioners should treat with caution. Panel decisions are citable “to the extent they are persuasive” but are not binding precedent on other judges or WCAB panels. (See Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1418, 1425 fn. 6.) With the Board granting reconsideration, the ultimate outcome remains in flux—and the Supreme Court’s forthcoming guidance in another case will likely be pivotal.
Why Choose Yrulegui & Roberts
At Yrulegui & Roberts, we represent employers, carriers, and third-party administrators throughout California in navigating workers’ compensation claims—particularly those involving complex issues like overlapping injuries and public safety officer benefits under Labor Code § 4850. Our experienced attorneys understand the legal nuances and the evolving case law, helping you develop strategies that ensure compliance while safeguarding your bottom line. If you have any questions about this or other workers’ compensation matters, contact us at www.rjylaw.com to learn more.
Legal Disclaimer
This blog post is provided for informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The information herein may not reflect the most current legal developments, especially given the pending Supreme Court review of related issues. For advice tailored to your individual situation, please consult qualified legal counsel.
Stay tuned for updates as the final outcome in Agaiby unfolds. Meanwhile, check back here at Yrulegui & Roberts for the latest insights and case analyses affecting public safety officers and California’s workers’ compensation industry. If you have any further questions about how this case might impact your claims, do not hesitate to reach out via www.rjylaw.com. We are here to help.
