Tomlinson v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Oct 31, 1944 No. Civ. 7108Published

Before: Peek

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The superior court has jurisdiction over a claim for medical services rendered to an employee when there is an express agreement between the employer and the medical provider fixing the amount to be paid, as this falls under the exception in Labor Code section 5304.

Issues

Whether the superior court has jurisdiction over a claim for medical services rendered to an employee when an express agreement exists between the employer and the provider.
Whether the existence of an express agreement for medical services removes the controversy from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Accident Commission.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the exception contained in section 5304 of the Labor Code must control, and under such circumstances the doctor’s claim became one upon which he was entitled to maintain “an action at law.””

PEEK, J

.By this action petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the Superior Court of Stanislaus County from further proceeding in a case previously submitted to it for decision after trial, entitled

J. H. Fairchilds

John Picha, et al.

The facts as disclosed by the various documents on file herein appear as follows:

On March 31, 1942, Arthur Tomlinson and Everett Tomlinson, who were engaged in the business of ranchers under the name of Tomlinson Brothers, had in their employ one John Picha. In the course of his employment on that day Picha fell and was injured. Everett Tomlinson first took Picha to the doctor to whom injured employees were regularly taken, but because of the nature of the injury they were referred to one Dr. J. H. Czatt. On April 4, 1944, Picha, in the company of Tomlinson, called at Dr. Czatt’s office where an examination of the injury was made. The doctor informed Picha and Tomlinson that an operation was necessary and quoted a fee for his services, and upon the authorization of Tomlinson the operation was performed. Dr. Czatt, having received no payment either from the Tomlinsons, their insurance carrier or Picha, assigned his claim to one J. H. Fairchilds, who filed a complaint in the Justice Court of Modesto Township, naming Picha and the Tomlinsons as defendants. Tomlinson Brothers then brought in their insurance carrier,

[642]

the Limited Mutual Compensation Insurance Company, as a cross-defendant. At the conclusion of the trial in the justice court judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff against defendant Picha, and in favor of defendants Tomlinson. In respondent’s memorandum of points and authorities, reference is made to the docket of the justice court wherein it is disclosed that counsel for the insurance company moved for a dismissal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, but that the motion was denied. What judgment, if any, was entered in regard to the insurance company is not shown by the documents before us. Plaintiff then appealed to the Superior Court in and for the County of Stanislaus.

After a trial de novo in the superior court, the court made and entered its findings of fact as follows:

Tomlinson v. Superior Court

AI Brief

PEEK, J

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief