United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Jun 19, 1933 No. Docket No. 8846.Published

Before: Stephens

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Industrial Accident Commission's order of September 2, 1932, was unsupported by the evidence because the medical report relied upon did not constitute a true conflict of evidence regarding the applicant's condition. Consequently, the court annulled the order and remanded the matter for further findings.

Issues

Whether the Industrial Accident Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's petition for rehearing based on the parties' stipulation.
Whether the medical report relied upon by the Commission constituted sufficient evidence to support the order of September 2, 1932.

Disposition. annulled and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The order of the commission under date of September 2. 1932, is annulled.”

“Since the Harbaugh letter, as we have seen, was no evidence at all upon the fundamental change in the commission’s order, and since substantially all of the evidence in the ease is the other way, it follows that the order of September 2, 1932, is wholly unsupported by the evidence.”

STEPHENS, J.

Petitioner herein is the industrial accident insurance carrier.

A petition was before the Industrial Accident Commission for an industrial award and the hearing developed that the percentage of disability of the applicant might be affected after certain treatment had been administered. A great part of the period of 245 weeks of continuing jurisdiction of the commission (sec. 20d, Workmen’s Compensation Insurance and Safety Act) had elapsed and it was thought by all concerned that the remaining part of this jurisdictional period would be insufficient to demonstrate the effect of the proposed treatment. Accordingly the following stipulation was agreed upon:

“It is stipulated by and between the parties hereto that the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California shall assume continuing jurisdiction over the herein matter as a Board of Arbitration for a period of two years from and after the date hereof with full power and authority to alter, rescind and/or amend the Finding and Award

[657]

herein upon the request of any party in interest, and to provide for a permanent disability rating resulting from the herein injury as in similar cases provided under Section 20d of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act of 1917. The parties hereto expressly waive all limitations of time and jurisdiction herein as above set forth and will retain such rights and liabilities in respect to the herein claim as would exist if the 245 week period had not elapsed. The parties hereto request said Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California to act as a Board of Arbitration in the herein matter for the purpose hereinabove set forth.”

This stipulation was subsequently amended by extending it 60 days and thereafter by substituting “a reasonable time” for and instead of the two-year limitation contained therein. On May 14, 1930, the commission made its award and formally found that medical treatment was needed and reasonable, as not being dangerous to life or limb. On June 6, 1930, applicant moved for a rehearing and on July 1, 1930, this petition was denied. Petitioner repeatedly offered the additional medical and surgical treatment contemplated by the order of May 14, 1930, but applicant at all times refused the same.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

STEPHENS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief