RONALD PIERCE v. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINIONFACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant Ronald E. Pierce quit his job due to alleged mental and physical stress caused by his divorce and other circumstances.   He applied for disability benefits to the Employment Development Department of the State of California (EDD), but his application was denied due to lack of adequate medical certification of his disability.   That decision was appealed by Pierce to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board), which affirmed the decision denying benefits.   Pierce then filed a petition for writ of mandate in Tulare County Superior Court, but the court denied the petition on grounds which included failure to provide adequate medical certification of disability.   Pierce appeals.   We find the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence;  therefore, we affirm the judgment.

Pierce filed for disability benefits in 2009.   His application for benefits was denied by the EDD in a “Notice of Determination” mailed to Pierce on January 19, 2010.   The denial was made on the ground that “[t]he medical certificate was not completed and signed by a licensed physician.”   (Unnecessary capitalization omitted.)   Pierce appealed to the Board, arguing that his disability was confirmed by his “acupuncturist” and that an acupuncturist is qualified to certify a disability.   The Board disagreed and held that under Unemployment Insurance Code section 2708, an acupuncturist cannot certify a disability.¹  Therefore, the Board affirmed the determination of the EDD.

Pierce filed a verified petition for writ of mandate in superior court.   He alleged in his petition that he made efforts to correct the medical certification problem by asking his therapist (rather than his acupuncturist) to complete a medical certification form.   He believed that his therapist had filled out the form and sent it to the EDD or to the Board, and based on that understanding he argued that the Board was mistaken when it concluded that he had not properly certified his disability.   The trial court disagreed because the administrative record “[did] not contain a proper Doctors Certificate submitted to EDD or to the administrative law judge.   Thus, the Board's findings are supported by the evidence.”   The trial court accordingly denied Pierce's petition for a writ of mandate.²

Pierce timely appealed from the denial of his petition for writ of mandate.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

On appeal from a judgment entered after denial of a petition for writ of mandate challenging a determination of the Board, our review is limited to whether or not the judgment is supported by substantial evidence.  (Glick v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 493, 503;  Rabago v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 200, 206;  Young v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 606, 609–610.)

II. Certification of Disability

A person is eligible to receive state disability benefits if a proper and timely application is filed, which must include a certificate signed by a qualified physician or practitioner to substantiate the disability. (§§ 2627, subd. (d), 2708, subds. (a)(1) & (a)(2).)   A “[p]hysician” has the same meaning as defined in section 3209.3 of the Labor Code. (§ 2708, subd. (e)(1).)   Labor Code section 3209.3, subdivision (e), expressly disallows an acupuncturist from determining disability for purposes of section 2708.   A “[p]ractitioner” means a licensed dentist, podiatrist, or (for some purposes) a nurse practitioner. (§ 2708, subd. (e)(2).)   It is clear from these statutory provisions that an acupuncturist is not qualified to certify a disability for purposes of section 2708.

The record on appeal does not reflect that Pierce ever submitted a certification of his disability that was signed by a qualified physician or practitioner as defined in section 2708.   The only purported certification in the record was a form signed by Pierce's acupuncturist.   Therefore, the trial court properly concluded that Pierce had failed to submit “a satisfactory medical certification of disability ․ in compliance with ․ section 2708,” and that the Board's denial of Pierce's disability claim was supported by substantial evidence.

In his opening brief, Pierce admits that he never submitted a proper medical certification of disability.   He thought that his therapist had sent the form to EDD, but Pierce now acknowledges that did not happen.   Therefore, Pierce effectively concedes that the judgment below was correct.³

Although substantial evidence supported the judgment below, Pierce asks that we nevertheless reverse the judgment to “provide him fair opportunity to rectify this matter.”   We decline the invitation, since our appropriate role as the reviewing court is to determine whether the decision below followed the correct legal standard and was supported by substantial evidence.   Since that was the case here, we will affirm.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Unemployment Insurance Code..  FN1. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Unemployment Insurance Code.

FN2. The trial court also denied the writ because it was not properly served on the Board..  FN2. The trial court also denied the writ because it was not properly served on the Board.

FN3. For this reason, and because Pierce did not serve the petition for writ of mandate to the proper address, the Board elected not to file a responsive brief, since the outcome of the appeal was certain..  FN3. For this reason, and because Pierce did not serve the petition for writ of mandate to the proper address, the Board elected not to file a responsive brief, since the outcome of the appeal was certain.

THE COURT