County of Los Angeles v. Industrial Accident Commission
Before: Houser
HOUSER, J.
This is an application for a writ of
certiorari
for the purpose of reviewing an order of award and commutation thereof, made by the Industrial Accident Commission in favor of the widow of an employee which employee was killed in the course of his employment with the petitioner, County of Los Angeles.
By the order of commutation, in lieu of a direct payment to the widow, the County of Los Angeles was ordered to pay to each of certain general creditors of the deceased, or of the widow, a fixed sum of money in satisfaction of the debt owing to such creditor—the aggregate amount thereof to be deducted from the total award as commuted, and the balance thereof to be paid to the widow.
The petitioner herein objects to such order of commutation on the ground that the direction therein to pay a portion of the award to general creditors is in excess of the power conferred by the statute upon the Commission.
It is admitted by the Commission that no express provisions can be found in the statute by which it is given the authority to make that part of the order to which specific objection is made; but it is contended that by reason of certain general
[641]
provisions contained within the terms of the act, the order by the Commission was impliedly authorized.
By section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act (Stats. 1917, p. 831, as variously amended), where, among other things, it appears that a commutation of an award is necessary for the protection of the person entitled thereto, the Commission is empowered to ■ commute the compensation payable to such person to a lump sum. Subdivision (c) of the same section places a discretionary power in the Commission to pay the award as commuted directly to the person entitled thereto; or, under certain conditions, to deposit the amount for the use and benefit of such person with either a savings bank, a trust company, or the state compensation insurance fund. By section 14 (e) the Commission is authorized to pay a death benefit either to the dependents of the deceased, or to a trustee or a commissioner, to be applied in accordance with the findings and direction of the Commission. In connection with such provision of the statute, the Commission directs attention to the fact that, while lacking in express direction, further language of the act may indicate an implied power to direct that part of the order of which complaint is made. Section 63 (a) is as follows:
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)