Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. Industrial Accident Commission

PETERS, J.

Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation petitions for a writ of review of an order of respondent commission holding Fibreboard partially responsible for a temporary disability award. The award was proper.

Dorman S. Beezley, the applicant, began working for Fibreboard in June of 1961 in Stockton. On March 23, 1962, while “pulling hay,” he fell off a hay wagon and landed on a “mule” (a tongue used to connect the wagon to a truck), injuring his leg and his back. On January 18, 1963, while loading bales, Beezley again injured his back. Beezley terminated his employment at Fibreboard in April of 1963. On November 13, 1963, while working for Richard Murphy, cutting and loading Christmas trees, his back again began to bother him seriously, and surgery was required soon thereafter. Beezley then filed applications against both Fibreboard and Murphy for temporary disability and medical payments.

Dr. Eugene Padel, who had performed the surgery on Beezley, testified that the Christmas tree episode alone would not have required surgery, but that it was necessitated by the cumulative effect of the three incidents. He attributed 45 per cent of the disability to the fall on March 23, 1962, 10 per cent to the lifting incident on January 18, 1963, and 45 per cent to the Christmas tree episode on November 13, 1963.

The commission’s referee found that Beezley had sustained the disability as a result of his employment with both Fibreboard and Murphy and apportioned the liability for temporary disability payments and medical costs on the basis recommended by Dr. Padel: 45 per cent to the March 1962 accident, 10 per cent to January 1963, and 45 per cent to November

[67]

1963. Thus, Fibreboard was ordered to bear 55 per cent of the liability.

1

The commission denied Fibreboard’s petition for reconsideration and adopted the referee’s recommendation.

Fibreboard first contends that the commission has no power to apportion temporary disability and medical payments between successive employers. That this contention is unsound is held in our opinion in