Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG07356843
Richman, J.
Plaintiff Luzviminda U. Senas appeals from the order of the Alameda Superior Court denying her petition for a writ of administrative mandate directing the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (Board) to provide her with unemployment benefits. Senas has filed an opening brief in which she contends that the denial of her petition was legally erroneous. The Board declined to file a respondent’s brief. We conclude that the denial was sound, and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Two provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Code are central to understanding this appeal.
Section 1281 of that code provides in pertinent part:
“a) An individual cannot establish a valid claim or a benefit year during which any benefits are payable unless during his or her base period, for new claims filed with an effective date beginning on or after January 1, 1992, he or she has met either of the following conditions:
“(1) He or she has been paid wages for employment by employers during the quarter of his or her base period in which his or her wages were the highest of not less than one thousand three hundred dollars ($1,300).
“(2) He or she has been paid wages for employment by employers during the quarter of his or her base period in which his or her wages were the highest of not less than nine hundred dollars ($900) and been paid wages for employment by employers during his or her base period equal to 1.25 times the amount he or she was paid in this same quarter.... ”
Section 1277 provides: “Notwithstanding Section 1281, if the base period of a new claim includes wages which were paid prior to the effective date of, and not used in the computation of the award for, a previous valid claim, the new claim shall only be valid if, during the 52-week period beginning with the effective date of the previous valid claim, either of the following applies:
“(a) The individual earned or was paid sufficient wages to meet the eligibility requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 1281 and performed some work.
“(b) The individual did not receive benefits under this part, and was disabled and was entitled to receive, wage loss benefits....
“For the purpose of this section only, the term ‘wages’ includes any and all compensation for personal services performed as an employee for the purpose of meeting the eligibility requirements under subdivision (a) of Section 1281. This section is not applicable to the computation of an award for disability benefits.”
Because this was an action for administrative mandate, it is the administrative record before the Board that furnishes most of the relevant information.
Although the record is skimpy on details, it appears that Senas was employed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) on a one-year contract ending December 30, 2005. Her employment ended on December 31, 2005. From January 2006 through July 2006, Senas received unemployment insurance benefits of $308 per week. In August 2005, while still employed by EBMUD, Senas suffered a work-related injury. From July 2006 through November 2006, she received weekly permanent disability payments of $220. Senas was advised in November 2006 that these payments “are ending because you have been paid all that is due and payable based on the 5% permanent disability rating.”
On December 31, 2006, Senas filed a second claim for unemployment benefits with the Employment Development Department. Her claim was denied, as follows:
“In order to have a valid claim, Section 1277 requires that you were paid or earned at least $1,300 as an employee in one quarter during the period from 01/01/06 to 12/30/06 and performed some work; or that you were paid or earned at least $900 as an employee in the quarter of your highest earnings and earned at least 1.25 times your high quarter earnings during the above period and performed some work....
“Your claim is invalid under Section 1277 for the reason(s) below:
“You were not paid nor did you earn wages of at least $1,300 as an employee in one quarter during the above period.
“You were not paid nor did you earn wages of at least $900 as an employee in the quarter of your highest earnings during the above period.
“You were not paid nor did you earn as an employee 1.25 times your high quarter earnings during the above period.
“You did not perform work during the above period.”
Senas appealed from this decision because “I have satisfied the earning and some work requirement. I have received worker’s compensation benefit for a total of $3,300.00 for the period 07/27/2006 through 11/15/2006 at $220 per week... which can be used for the purpose of validating earning for lag period or satisfying earning requirement. ‘Some work’ under Section 1277-2 of Title 22 includes services performed for income or earnings in self-employment. I have attended training in forex [foreign exchange] trading and do actual trading in my own pace at home for the period 01/01/06 to 12/30/06 earning some money as I learn the strategy.... And such act is considered self-employment because it is a regular trade and business on a 24 hour basis.”
Her appeal from that decision was heard by an administrative law judge (ALJ), who conducted a brief hearing in Los Angeles, with Senas testifying by telephone. The ALJ upheld the denial in a written decision dated April 6, 2007. The ALJ reasoned as follows:
“The issue in this case is whether the claimant earned sufficient wages under the statute [i.e., section 1277], and performed some work, during the so-called test period extending from January 1, 2006, through December 30, 2006.
“[¶]... [¶] The claimant filed a claim with an effective date of January 1, 2006. The Claim Record, admitted into evidence as Exhibit 4a, establishes that the claimant received unemployment benefits pursuant to this claim for three weeks ending July 8, 2006.
“During the period extending from January 1, 2006 through December 30, 2006, the claimant was not employed, but performed some work in self-employment trading on the foreign exchange currency market. As a result of this trading activity, the claimant received remuneration of $93. The claimant did receive unemployment benefits during this period.
“From July 27, 2006 through December 15, 2006, the claimant received workers’ compensation benefits of $220 each week as a result of a work-related injury suffered on August 15, 2005. The total benefits paid to the claimant for that period was $3,300.”
“[¶]... [¶] As set forth above, the claimant performed some work for which she was compensated during the so-called test period [i.e., January 1, 2006 through December 30, 2006]. Additionally, the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits partially satisfied the earnings requirement under code section 1277. In that she was paid and earned ‘wages’ of at least $1,300 during one quarter of the so-called test period. However, since she received unemployment benefits as a result of the claim with an effective date of January 1, 2006, she is ineligible under code section 1277(b).”
Senas appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Board. In June 2007, the Board denied the appeal:
“We have carefully and independently reviewed the record in this case, and have considered the contentions raised on appeal. We find that the issue statement [in the ALJ’s written decision] correctly sets forth the issues in the case and... we find no material errors in the statement of facts. The reasons for decision properly apply the law to the facts. Therefore, we adopt the issue statement, the... statement of facts and the reasons for decision as our own.”
“Since the claimant did not earn the wages needed to satisfy code section 1277(a) and pursuant to code section 1277(b) the claimant’s receipt of unemployment insurance benefits during the test period prevented the claimant from using worker compensation benefits to satisfy that earnings requirement, there is no basis for overturning the administrative law judge’s decision and that decision must be affirmed”
In November 2007, Senas filed her petition for a writ of administrative mandate commanding the Board “to reverse their decision and compel them to pay the unemployment insurance benefit.” The Board submitted written opposition and appeared at an unreported hearing held on June 25, 2008.
The trial court denied Senas’s petition upon this reasoning: “There is sufficient, competent evidence in the administrative record to support Respondent’s decision that Petitioner was not entitled to unemployment benefits. Petitioner did not me[e]t the requirements of either Section 1277(a) or (b).... Specifically, Petitioner did not receive sufficient wages for employment to qualify her for unemployment insurance benefits under Section 1277(a) notwithstanding the fact that Respondent found Petitioner had performed some work. Further, Petitioner is not qualified to receive for unemployment insurance benefits under Section 1277(b) because Petitioner received unemployment benefits during the ‘test period’ as a result of her prior claim.”
DISCUSSION
In reviewing the trial court’s decision, we would ordinarily look only to determine whether it has the support of substantial evidence. (Morgan v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 762, 769.) Here, however, the evidence in the administrative record is undisputed and only an issue of the application of section 1277 is involved. The matter is thus a question of law, as to which we exercise our independent judgment. (Molnar v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1450; Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1515, 1525.)
The issue here is the same as it was at the various stages of the administrative process and before the trial court, namely, did Senas’s receipt of benefits from her first claim disqualify her under section 1277 from receiving further benefits? We agree with the Employment Development Department, the ALJ, the Board, and the trial court that it did.
It is undisputed that when Senas filed her second claim for benefits on December 31, 2006, she had not been paid “wages for employment by employers” within the meaning of section 1281, since her employment with the EBMUD terminated on December 30, 2005. The $93 Senas claimed she earned during this period did not otherwise satisfy the numerical earnings requirement of section 1281. Even accepting that it qualified as “some work,” it is tethered to the requirement that Senas must have “earned or was paid sufficient wages to meet the eligibility requirements of... Section 1281.” Thus, Senas could not satisfy subdivision (a) of section 1277. Moreover, Senas did receive benefits during the relevant period, so she was disqualified under subdivision (b). Therefore, she did not meet the requirements for a second period of benefits. (See Richmond v. Cal. Emp. Stab. Com. (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 310, 313.)
“[T]he Legislature intended second payments of unemployment benefits to be limited to very specific circumstances ‘to prevent people from drawing continually on [them].’ [Citation.]” (Molnar v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., supra, 57 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1453.) If this result seems harsh, Senas’s “complaint is with the Legislature.” (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: Kline, P.J., Lambden, J.