State of Calif. v. Industrial Acc. Com.

California Court of Appeal May 8, 1957 No. Civ. 22168Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Subsequent Injuries Fund is only liable for an employee's preexisting disability if that condition was known, or should have been known, to the employer at the time of hiring. Because the commission failed to determine whether the employer had such knowledge of the employee's preexisting mental condition, the award was annulled and the case remanded.

Issues

Whether the Subsequent Injuries Fund is liable for a preexisting disability that was asymptomatic and unknown to the employer.
Whether the commission must determine if an employer had knowledge of an employee's preexisting disability to justify an award against the Subsequent Injuries Fund.

Disposition. annulled and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the Subsequent Injuries Fund would only be liable in those cases where the preexisting injury was known or would have been known to the employer.”

“section 4751, Labor Code, was not intended to apply to asymptomatic disease processes which were unknown to both employee and employer and which in nowise interfered with the employee’s ability to work.”

DORAN, J.

The record discloses that on November 6, 1953, Raymond Baldes while employed as a maintenance mechanic for Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation, suffered an industrial injury to his right eye resulting in industrial blindness in such eye. There had been a previous industrial injury on October 1, 1953.

The employee’s application for hearing against the Subsequent Injuries Fund on December 28, 1954, states, “That prior to the industrial injuries involved herein, applicant was permanently and partially disabled with a mental disease, described as follows: Psychotic depressive reaction manifested by depression, psychomotor retardation, anxiety, worry, transient hallucinations, and delusions, feelings of helplessness, and inability to cope with difficulties, in partial remission.”

[718]

In the course of the proceedings, the Subsequent Injuries Fund being a party thereto, the commission finally found in its decision after reconsideration, that the employee’s combined disability resulting from the industrial injury of November 6, 1953, and the prior permanent disability, amounted to 79 per cent of total disability. The Subsequent Injuries Fund was held liable for the difference between the 46 per cent rating for the industrial disability and the 79 per cent total combined disability rating, or a liability for 132 weeks at the rate of $30 per week, and thereafter a life pension of $8.77 per week.

■ The Subsequent Injuries Fund, seeking a writ of review, alleges (1) “That the respondent commission acted without and/or in excess of its jurisdiction. 2. That the Decision was unreasonable. 3. That the Findings of Fact do not support the Decision or Award. 4. That the Decision and Award against the . . . Subsequent Injuries Fund was not supported by substantial evidence.” The petitioner seeks to have the Decision and Award annulled. This position is predicated upon the theory that “Raymond Baldes’ mental condition was asymptomatic prior to the industrial injury of November 6, 1953 (and unknown to the employer) and therefore improperly used as a basis for an award against the Subsequent Injuries Fund.”

State of California, Subsequent Injuries Fund

State of Calif. v. Industrial Acc. Com.

AI Brief

DORAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief