Bakaloff v. Industrial Accident Commission

NOURSE, P. J.

Petitioner sued in

certiorari

to review an order of the respondent Commission.

On June 15, 1929, while in the course of his employment as a laborer, petitioner was struck on the left wrist by a falling plank. The injury was found to have caused a temporary total disability from June 15 to August 5, 1929, during which time petitioner received a weekly compensation of $20.38, based upon wages of $5.50 a day. He was also given all necessary medical care. On August 5th the petitioner was tendered by his employer “suitable light work and work which the applicant was capable of doing” (referee’s findings), and for which the petitioner would receive the same wages he was receiving at the time of the injury. The petitioner refused to accept any offer of re-employment, and on October 24, 1929, the Commission directed the insurance carrier to furnish further medical treatment to effect a cure of petitioner’s injuries, and ordered further compensation payments to cease. The

certiorari

is directed to this order.

The power of the Commission to alter an award “upon good cause appearing therefor” is found in subdivision “d” of section 20' of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Stats. 1917, p. 850). This power includes the right to increase, diminish, or terminate an award “upon the grounds that the disability . . . has either recurred, increased, diminished, or terminated.”

[297]

The application of this section of the act was before us in

Miller Creamery

v.

Industrial Acc. Com.,

66 Cal. App. 404 [226 Pac. 402, 403]. In that ease the injured employee, after receiving medical and hospital care, returned to work and in about six weeks he claimed that his condition had grown steadily worse. We held that this was “a change in the facts of the case ... a recurrence of the disability” and that the Commission had jurisdiction under this section to reopen the case and to make a new award.