Pac. Employers Ins. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com.

139 Cal.App.2d 22 (1956) 292 P.2d 903 PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Petitioners,

v.

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and FELICE MAZZANTI, Respondents. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, Petitioner,

v.

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, FELICE MAZZANTI et al., Respondents.

Docket Nos. 8820, 8821. Court of Appeals of California, Third District.

February 2, 1956. [23] Mullen & Filippi for Petitioners in Civ. No. 8820.

Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General and F.G. Girard, Deputy Attorney General, for Petitioner in Civ. No. 8821.

Everett A. Corton, Daniel C. Murphy, John L. Larue, Joseph F. Brodie, Marvin W. Houghton, Thomas E. Davis and Leonard, Hanna & Brophy for Respondents.

VAN DYKE, P.J.

We heretofore issued writs of review on petitions therefor by Pacific Employers Insurance with Empire Star Mines Company, Limited, a corporation, and State of California, Subsequent Injuries Fund. These are proceedings to review an award and related orders of respondent Industrial Accident Commission in the matter of the claim of Felice Mazzanti.

We shall refer to Pacific Employers Insurance Company as "Pacific," Empire Star Mines Company as "Empire" and Subsequent Injuries Fund as "the Fund."

On February 11, 1955, the respondent commission entered a decision wherein it awarded the applicant employee Mazzanti a permanent disability rating for injuries arising out of silicosis contracted while employed as a miner. The decision also apportioned liability between Pacific, Empire and the Fund and granted to the Veterans Administration a right of recovery of expenses incurred by them in treating the applicant. On March 2, 1955, Pacific and Empire petitioned respondent commission for reconsideration. On March 11, 1955, Pacific, Empire and the Fund petitioned this court for writs of review. On March 23, 1955, and before this court acted on the petitions for review, the respondent commission granted reconsideration. It appears that there was considerable uncertainty on the part of the three petitioners here and the commission as to whether or not the commission could grant reconsideration and as to what effect the order of March 23d purporting to do so had upon the rights of the parties. The uncertainty arose because of the previous history of the proceedings before the commission. Upon application of Mazzanti there had been an award based on a finding of total temporary