Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board v. Small Claims Court

Opinion

TAYLOR, P. J.

Petitioner, Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, seeks prohibition to prevent respondent, Small Claims Court, San Leandro-Hayward Judicial District, from proceeding to trial on

[645]

two small claims actions on the ground that the subject matter of the actions is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board.

1

The board has supplemented the record originally presented to us by providing copies of the claims filed in the small claims court and of its order approving compromise and release in the matter of Clifford Shans v. Early-Winston-Drake and National Surety Corporation of California, case No. 69 OAK 30031, filed January 31, 1973. An examination of the record, as supplemented by the board, discloses that the matter arose when respondent, Dr. Milton Righetti, dissatisfied with a $250 award for his services as a medical witness for respondent, Clifford Shans, in a workmen’s compensation proceeding, filed an action in respondent, small claims court, against respondent, Homer Sidlow, one of several attorneys who had represented the claimant and with whom he had consultations, seeking an additional $350 for “consultation and hearing-appearance service.” Respondent Sidlow countered by claiming respondent Righetti was indebted to him in the sum of $400 for “loss of Workmen’s Compensation award for attorney fees.”

2

Respondent Sidlow also filed a separate action in respondent small claims court against respondent Shans, his former client in the workmen’s compensation proceeding, seeking to recover $350 (in the event respondent Righetti should recover against him) by virtue of the fact that respondent Shans had executed a “save harmless” agreement that he would pay any fees owed to the doctor.

We need not discuss the merits of the claims of respondents Righetti or Sidlow, for it is clear that both parties are pressing their claims in the wrong forum. “A court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine a case where the

type of proceeding

or the amount in controversy is beyond the jurisdiction defined for that particular court by statute or constitutional provision”