Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 30-2008-00110783 Jamoa A. Moberly, Judge.
Laura Koscki, in pro. per., for Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Douglas M. Press, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer M. Kim and Chara L. Crane, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.
OPINION
SILLS, P. J.
Laura Koscki appeals from the denial of her petition for writ of administrative mandate seeking disability benefits for periods of time in 2007 and early 2008. We find the trial court’s denial of the petition is supported by substantial evidence; accordingly, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In August 2002, Laura Koscki was employed by Consolidated Freightways as a truck driver. She and her team driver were driving to Dallas, Texas, when the team driver fell asleep at the wheel. The truck “went over a cliff and rolled several times down a mountain embankment, ” injuring Koscki. She filed a claim for disability benefits in April 2005, which was denied because she was receiving workers’ compensation benefits at a rate higher than the disability benefits to which she would have been entitled. She received the workers’ compensation benefits until February 1, 2007.
Koscki submitted a new claim seeking disability benefits from February 2, 2007. The Employment Development Department (EDD) denied the claim for the period from February 2, 2007 through September 4, 2007 because she did not have a certificate showing she had been treated by a physician during that time period. EDD also denied disability benefits for the period from October 26, 2007 “through when eligible” because she had “received or are entitled to receive cash payments, as temporary disability indemnity under a workers’ compensation law or employer’s liability law, equal to or in excess of your disability benefits.”
Koscki appealed both denials to an administrative law judge (ALJ). After a hearing in February 2008, the ALJ issued a decision finding her ineligible for benefits for the claimed periods. Koscki then appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Appeals Board), requesting disability benefits effective March 1, 2008. The Appeals Board reviewed the decision of the ALJ and affirmed that portion of the decision denying benefits for lack of medical evidence. It reversed the denial of benefits from October 26, 2007 because the record was incomplete and remanded that issue for another hearing before an ALJ.
On remand, the ALJ found Koscki was ineligible for benefits from October 26, 2007 through February 29, 2008 because she was receiving Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Amount (VRMA) benefits during that time. But it found she was “not ineligible” for benefits effective March 1, 2008. Koscki appealed this decision of the ALJ to the Appeals Board, which affirmed, reiterating that she was “not ineligible” for benefits beginning March 1, 2008..
In August 2008, Koscki filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court seeking disability payments “for the month of March 1, 2008 until all medical treatment is done.” The trial court denied the petition on two grounds: “First, the Petition is denied on the ground that Petitioner is seeking a writ compelling benefits that were not denied by the administrative decisions at issue.... [¶] Second, the petition is denied on the ground that Petitioner failed to establish any error in Respondent’s decision denying benefits for the periods specified in the administrative decisions.... The Court has applied the independent judgment test and has found that Respondent’s decision regarding these periods is supported by the weight of the evidence. Petitioner has not pointed to any evidence to contradict Respondent’s findings. The burden was on Petitioner to show that the [findings] were not supported by the weight of the evidence.”
DISCUSSION
A trial court’s review of an administrative decision is reviewed on appeal for substantial evidence, whether it reviewed the decision under the substantial evidence standard or the independent judgment standard. But if the trial court applied the independent judgment standard, the appellate court focuses on the “trial court’s factual bases for its decision, not the findings of the agency....” (MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 218.) Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s factual basis for its decision.
Koscki clearly sought to obtain disability benefits for a time period that was not denied by the Appeals Board. Her petition in the trial court so stated, as did her appeal to the Appeals Board from the second ALJ decision. During oral argument before the trial court, Koscki did not make a coherent claim for benefits other than those beginning on March 1, 2008.
There is also substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Koscki was properly denied benefits for the two time periods in question. For the first period, she did not present a medical certificate “of a treating physician or practitioner that establishes the sickness, injury, or pregnancy of the employee.” (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 2708, subd. (a).) The evidence Koscki submitted showed she was first seen and treated on September 12, 2007, after the period of time for which she claimed benefits.
For the second period, Koscki was not eligible to receive disability benefits because, as she testified, she received VRMA benefits during that time. Unemployment Insurance Code section 2629, subdivision (a) provides that “an individual is not eligible for disability benefits under this part for any day of unemployment and disability for which he or she has received, or is entitled to receive, ‘other benefits’ in the form of cash payments.” “Other benefits” include VRMA payments. (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 2629, subd. (b).)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. In the interest of justice, each party shall bear its or her own costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, J., MOORE, J.