Galvao v. WCAB (Kinkos)
Petitioner Lavender Galvao (Galvao) petitions for review of an order by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Board). The Board modified a decision by a Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) awarding Galvao vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits under Labor Code[1] section 139.5 in connection with a work-related injury she sustained while employed by respondent Kinkos in 2002. The Board modified the WCJs award to provide that respondent Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), the insurer for Kinkos, is entitled to a credit against the VRMA benefits for wages Galvao earned working for a different employer after her injury. Galvao contends that the Boards order is erroneous in light of the decisions in Gamble v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 71 (Gamble), and Medrano v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 56 (Medrano), in which the courts held that no wage credit may be applied against VRMA benefits. Zurich responds that the Board correctly found that Gamble is distinguishable based on its facts. Zurich asserts that Medrano, which was issued after the Board made its decision in this case, was incorrectly decided.
Court adopt the conclusion of the Gamble and Medrano courts that VRMA is not a wage replacement benefit and that therefore employers are not entitled to credit against VRMA benefits for wages earned by the employee. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board should not have allowed a wage credit against Galvaos VRMA benefits.
Comments on Galvao v. WCAB (Kinkos)