Coombs v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Jan 28, 1927 No. Docket No. 5411.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner was precluded from challenging the supplemental award because the underlying findings of liability and the stipulations regarding the determination of medical costs had become final and could not be relitigated.

Issues

Whether the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a supplemental award for medical expenses without new evidence of reasonableness or notice.
Whether a party may repudiate a stipulation and challenge findings after the original decision has become final.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The supplemental award cannot be attacked on the ground that there was no evidence of the reasonableness of the charge without disturbing the stipulation and the original decision of the case, which cannot be done because that decision has become final.”

“Our conclusion is that the decision of the Commission having become final, the petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of any part of that decision nor to repudiate the stipulation therein contained.”

Opinion — Thompson

[139]

THOMPSON, J.

This proceeding for the writ of review seeks the annulment of a supplemental award for a surgical operation and hospital bills amounting to the sum of $94. The original and one supplemental award were heretofore considered by the other division of this court and not disturbed.

(Coombs

Industrial Acc. Com.,

76 Cal. App. 565, [245 Pac. 445].) Finding No. 2 of the original findings and award is as follows: “The employer is liable for the reasonable cost of the medical, surgical and hospital treatment as was reasonably required to cure and relieve the employee from the effects of said injury, such cost to be fixed by the commission subsequently and supplemental award entered therefor upon filing of itemized bills therefor, and at the request of any person in interest.”

The answer to the application for adjustment of claim sets up only two reasons for disallowance of the claim; first, that the injury was sustained not in the course of employment, but while the applicant was playing baseball, and, second, that the injury was contributed to by a chronic condition inflamed by reason of an injury occurring while playing baseball. There is recited in the return under the heading “Report of Hearing” as of February 26, 1925, several stipulations, three of which are as follows: 4. That no medical treatment was furnished by the employer; 5. That in the event the employer is found chargeable with the medical expense incurred by or on behalf of the employee the reasonable cost of such treatment may be determined by the filing of itemized bills for such treatment, and the submission of same to the medical department of the Commission; 6. That the employer had notice and knowledge of the assertion of a claim of injury as defined by section 15 of said act. The return also discloses that on July 2, 1925, and subsequent to the first supplemental award considered in the opinion mentioned, the petitioner filed an affidavit repudiating the stipulation and averring that he never so stipulated.

Coombs v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

Opinion — Thompson

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

Opinion — Thompson

THOMPSON, J.

AI Brief