State of California v. Industrial Acc. Com.

California Court of Appeal Sep 21, 1961 No. Civ. 10177Published

Before: Warne

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the claimant's application for workers' compensation was barred by the statute of limitations because the evidence established the claim was filed more than one year after the injury, and the filing of a separate retirement system proceeding did not toll the statute.

Issues

Whether the statute of limitations for a workers' compensation claim is satisfied when the claimant's own evidence shows the claim was filed after the statutory period.
Whether a proceeding to determine industrial disability for retirement purposes tolls the statute of limitations for a separate workers' compensation claim.

Disposition. annulled

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“While it is true that the burden of proof is upon the party pleading the statute of limitations to establish that the alleged claim is barred, still, when the evidence of the claimant shows the action to be barred, there is no necessity”

“Where the two proceedings are different and separate, as they are in this case, the pendency of one does not generally toll the statute of limitations of the other, and we see no reason to make an exception here.”

WARNS, J. pro tem.

By means of certiorari the petitioner seeks to review the order of the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California awarding Harry C. Cruse compensation for industrial injury.

The instant claim was designated as “SACO 8514” by the Industrial Accident Commission and was consolidated for hearing with “SACO 7373,” which was a proceeding pur

[767]

suant to section 21026 of the Government Code, whereby the Board of Administrators of the State Employees’ Retirement System petitioned the Industrial Accident Commission for a determination of the question whether or not Harry C. Cruse’s disability was industrial in nature. As a result of that proceeding the Industrial Accident Commission found that Harry C. Cruse was employed as a traffic officer on August 13, 1958, by the Department of California Highway Patrol, Division of Enforcements, and that on said date he sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment, consisting of an aggravation of a preexisting heart condition. After a denial of their petition for reconsideration, the State Employees’ Retirement System petitioned this court for a writ of review, which was granted. The findings of the Industrial Accident Commission were affirmed by this court. (See

Board of Administration, State Employees’ Retirement System

Industrial Acc. Com., ante,

p. [16 Cal.Rptr. 134].)

In the instant ease the petitioner contends that Cruse’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore the respondent Industrial Accident Commission erroneously awarded him compensation.

The record shows that the statute of limitations was in issue in the instant case (SACO 8514). The report of the Industrial Accident Commission in regard to that issue states: “It is true that the issue was raised. However, no attempt was made to prove the issue, which being an affirmative defense not only must be pleaded before submission but must be proved by competent evidence.”

Section 5405 of the Labor Code reads: “Periods within which proceedings may be commenced: Collection of medical, disability or other benefits. The period within which may be commenced proceedings for the collection of the benefits provided by Articles 2 or 3, or both, of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of this division is one year from:

State of California v. Industrial Acc. Com.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief