Knight

Knight v. McMahon

Bad Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 695·26 Cal. App. 4th 747·31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 832·94 Daily Journal DAR 9540·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5227
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 5, 1994No. B076098California4,244 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Stone, J.

— Here we hold that an administrative law judge awarding payment for retroactive in-home supportive services (IHSS) benefits, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 10950 et seq., has the authority to award interest on retroactive payments. We also hold that appellant was an “aggrieved party” with standing to challenge the trial court’s judgment which awarded her interest but did not determine whether the administrative law judge had authority to award interest.

Joanna Knight appeals from a judgment of the Ventura County Superior Court granting a peremptory writ of mandate ordering respondents to award her interest on her retroactive award of IHSS benefits at the legal rate of interest (10 percent). She asserts that the trial court erred as a matter of law in ruling that it did not have the jurisdiction to decide the other issue raised in her petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), i.e., whether administrative law judges have the power to award interest, and appeals from that part of the trial court’s judgment.

We hold that an administrative law judge has the statutory authority to award interest under Civil Code section…

Dissenting Opinion

Yegan, J.

— I respectfully dissent. The result reached by the majority has all of the hallmarks of fairness. It is also consistent with administrative and judicial economy. Were I in the California State Legislature, I would vote for a bill that authorizes administrative law judges to award interest on retroactive payments for in-home supportive services.

*758 However, “[w]e do not sit as a ‘super-legislature.’ [Citation.]” (Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1698 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 ].) The judiciary should not use its power to “add” provisions to the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Id. at p. 1699.) The Attorney General and the trial court have recognized this principle. The majority, however, under the guise of statutory construction hold that the administrative law judge may award interest. In my view, there is nothing to construe. The Legislature has not given administrative law judges the power to award interest.

In Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health, (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 100 ], the Court of Appeal warned against the very action taken by the majority: “It would violate the doctrine of separation of powers if the courts in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.