Why does case law matter?

I like to tell people “there is no such thing as a stupid question.” The above question was asked of me recently and it caused me to rethink something I have taken for granted many years now.

The short answer is “workers’ compensation case law interprets laws the legislature pass.” The person who asked requested I explain.

The best explanation I can give begins with some background. One should think back to childhood games first.

Remember the telephone game? The telephone game usually is played by a group of children often sitting side by side in a row. The child beginning the game makes up a sentence, or a short story perhaps even writing it down first. He or she whispers it to the second child sitting to his right or left. The second child whispers it to the third, then the third to the fourth and so on until it reaches the last child who will usually write down or speak the message out loud.

Rarely does the initial sentence or story remotely resemble the first one created. Certainly the initiator may often think to him or herself “that’s not what I meant to say” of the final message.

In some ways the telephone game and its progression is analogous to statutory and case law. First one must consider workers’ compensation somewhat analogous to a game of sorts, except it has very real and serious consequences for injured workers and employers.

No game can be played without rules. The workers’ compensation system likewise cannot function without rules. In workers’ compensation the legislature makes the rules.

The legislature begins by formulating the “intent” to make a rule regarding workers’ compensation benefits. Once it forms the intent it drafts legislation, finalizes it after debate then passes it often in the form of a Labor Code provision.

Once that is done the rule should be very clear and easy to follow. The problem is it usually is not, which is understandable. Remember that it is hard enough to determine what one writer intends to do or what that writer wrote actually means. A simple example might be a sentence such as “the sky is blue.”

Seems simple, right? Everyone reading this has a picture of a blue sky in their heads right now. But what color blue did you see? Was it the same as the writer? Which shade of blue did the writer mean? Look at all the details that could be considered in one’s interpretation of blue:

1 Tints of blue
1.1 Periwinkle
1.2 Powder blue
1.3 Diamond
1.4 Light blue
1.5 Baby blue
2 Computer web color blue
2.1 Blue (RGB) (X11 blue)
3 Additional definitions of blue
3.1 Blue (CMYK) (pigment blue)
3.2 Blue (NCS) (psychological primary blue)
3.3 Blue (Munsell)
3.4 Blue (Pantone)
3.5 Blue (Crayola)
4 Shades of blue
4.1 Ceil
4.2 Medium blue
4.3 Spanish blue
4.4 Dark pastel blue
4.5 Liberty
4.6 Egyptian blue
4.7 Ultramarine
4.8 Dark blue
4.9 Resolution blue
4.10 Navy blue
4.11 Catalina blue
4.12 Midnight blue
4.13 Independence
4.14 Space cadet

Now turn to a Labor Code. First there are actually hundreds of writers whose intent formulate the reason a statute is written and passed. Then there are hundreds more who contribute to the writing of a statute. What happens once a statute is passed but those who read it all interpret what that statute means?

That is where case law comes in to play in workers’ compensation. The courts determine what the law mean by creating case law. A very good and simple example from workers’ compensation will be recalled by many who have been around California workers’ compensation for a while.

Labor Code section 4601 many years ago reflected an injured worker was entitled to “one” change of primary treating physician. This seemed very clear. However some argued the intention of the legislature and the statute meant “one” change of physician in the first thirty days. Or one at a time. Or one per injury.

A few cases where tried, but the most cited in my experience was Ralph’s Grocery Company v. WCAB which essentially held the statute and legislature meant one change in the first 30 days from the date of injury.

Case law in that instance essentially interpreted what the word “one” meant in relation to changes of treating physician. In other words case law tells us “what do the words of the legislature mean?” This is particularly necessary when parties cannot agree to the meaning(s) of often complicated laws.

I hope this helps answer a very good question.