Silva v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Sep 3, 1924 No. Civ. No. 4929.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Industrial Accident Commission has the discretion to deny an application to reopen a compromise agreement when the applicant fails to demonstrate that the agreement was the result of fraud, mistake, duress, or undue influence, or that they acted promptly to rescind the contract.

Issues

Whether the Industrial Accident Commission had jurisdiction to deny an application for relief from a compromise and release agreement.
Whether the Commission abused its discretion in denying an application to reopen a claim where the petitioner failed to show grounds for rescission or act promptly.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold that section 20d of the Workmen’s Compensation and Safety Act confers upon the respondent Commission discretion to determine whether an application for the amendment or annulment of an award is equitable”

“The Commission is, therefore, necessarily vested with certain discretion and it is not to be assumed that an order or decision fixing the rights and obligations of the respective parties would be lightly cast aside”

[513]

NOURSE, J.

On November 6, 1920, petitioner fell from a ladder to the floor sustaining fractures of two bones of his right foot. He was placed under the care of the physicians of the employers’ insurance company and weekly payments under the Workmen’s Compensation Act were begun. Controversy having arisen over the determination of his weekly wages the petitioner, on March 16, 1921, filed an application with the respondent Commission for an adjustment. A hearing was had and on May 21, 1921, the Commission entered its finding and award allowing the petitioner $20.83 a week until the termination of his disability. This decision contained a reservation to the effect that “permanent disability may result from the injury, in which event this commission will, upon request after the condition becomes stationary, take proceedings to determine same and amend the award accordingly.” The petitioner did not avail himself of this privilege, but on November 22, 1921, he compromised the entire claim with the insurance carrier for the lump sum of $1,000 in addition to the sum of $1,106.82 which had theretofore been paid to him by the insurance carrier. In the agreement for a compromise the petitioner gave as a reason therefor that he desired to use the money in a grocery business. This compromise was approved by the Commission on December 2, 1921, and on December 10th following, there was filed with the Commission a receipt for the money and a final release of all claims executed by this petitioner.

Thereafter the petitioner was treated intermittently by his own physician and by two others upon whom he called. To one he complained of pains in the back and was treated for lumbago. To the others he complained of the pain in his foot only. An examination of the spine was made by one of these physicians and on April 20, 1923, this physician diagnosed his trouble as a fracture of the spine and placed his back in a plaster cast for treatment. The petitioner had not at any time while under treatment of the physician of the insurance carrier complained of an'y trouble with his back. On November 30, 1923, more than eight months after the diagnosis of the physician who reported a fractured spine, the petitioner filed an application with the Commis

[514]

Silva v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief