State v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Dec 2, 1954 No. Civ. 16251Published

Before: Dooling

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Industrial Accident Commission erred by applying the same permanent disability rating standards to a congenital condition as it would to a recent industrial trauma, as the prima facie evidence provided by the rating schedule was rebutted by evidence of the employee's prior adjustment to his congenital disability.

Issues

Whether the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule's prima facie evidence of disability percentage can be rebutted by evidence of an employee's adjustment to a congenital condition.
Whether a congenital disability should be rated identically to a disability caused by recent industrial trauma under Labor Code section 4660.

Disposition. Annulled and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“On the facts of this case we must hold that this prima facie evidence has been rebutted by the other uncontradicted evidence before the commission.”

DOOLING, J.

Petitioner State of California, hereinafter for convenience called Subsequent Injuries Fund, seeks review of an award made against it by respondent Industrial Accident Commission in favor of respondent Springer, an industrially injured employee with a preexisting permanent disability.

Springer is a deaf mute; on May 13, 1952, he sustained an industrial injury to the fingers of his left hand. For that injury on March 3, 1953, respondent commission awarded him permanent disability benefits for a 6% per cent permanent disability. Thereafter Springér applied for additional compensation under Labor Code, section 4751, from Subsequent Injuries Fund, basing his claim upon his preexisting disability.

[303]

At the hearing on his application he testified substantially as follows: He was 37 years old and has been a deaf mute since birth. He attended a school for the deaf through the second year of high school. Since the completion of his education he has been fairly steadily employed, although his congenital defects did handicap him in securing employment, having worked as an auto painter and at several related occupations. At the time of his injury he had been employed by the Ford Motor Company as a metal finisher for eight years. After his injury he was able to return to his job with Ford and is presently employed in the same job and at the same wage as before his injury.

Mr. Welch, the supervisor of the Permanent Disability Rating Bureau, recommended a permanent disability rating of 79 per cent for Springer’s deaf-mutism and a rating of 82 per cent for his deaf-mutism combined with his hand injury. Mr. Welch testified at a further hearing that he used the 1950 rating schedule formula in arriving at his percentage of disability recommendations and that he gave Springer’s deafness and loss of speech the same rating as they would have been given had they been caused by recent industrial trauma.

Respondent commission found that Springer’s industrially caused permanent injury in combination with his preexisting permanent disability amounted to 82 per cent. Springer was awarded permanent disability benefits against Subsequent Injuries Fund on this basis.

Labor Code, section 4660, provides:

State v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

DOOLING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief