Jones v. Industrial Accident Commission
Before: James
Synopsis
PROCEEDING on Certiorari to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
[368]
JAMES, J.
Certiorari
to review proceedings had and award made in the matter of the claim of one Rush heard 'by the Industrial Accident Commission. Award for compensation in the sum of several hundred dollars was made in favor of Rush against the petitioner here and the latter contends that the findings and award are not supported by the evidence. It is particularly insisted that under the evidence the commission erroneously found that the employment of Rush was not casual. The second contention, which refers again to the evidence, is that the principal injuries for which compensation was awarded were not shown to have been sustained by the claimant while in the employ of petitioner, and that .the claim as to such injuries was fraudulent.
[1]
The authority of this court in making a review of the evidence heard before the Accident Commission upon which an adjustment of a claim is made is limited to determining whether there is any evidence to be found in the record which will support the findings as made. In other words, that an award will be annulled only where there is no evidence to support it.
[2]
The transcript of the evidence shows, in that part setting forth the testimony given by the claimant Rush, that he was employed by Jones to do certain repair work, the witness’ narrative of the conversation occurring at the time of his employment being as follows: “We went upstairs, and there were two rooms there he showed me. He said, ‘I want the paper taken off, and both these rooms sealed on the side and the ends.’ Well, then I came downstairs, and he said, ‘I want you to inclose the sink and put a sink-board over it, and take these windows and fix them so they will move, and put in these two big lights, and fix these doors that scrape on the floor, fix these door-locks and the jambs to the doors; and then I want you to fix outside the railing on that porch, and put the base-board around these rooms, and I want you to fix that toilet—while there is nothing wrong with it, I want you to put a new board in, or do something with it.’ And I looked over the whole thing, and I said, ‘Mr. Jones, you have a lot of work here,’ and he said, ‘I know it.’ He said, ‘I want you to take hold of it, at eight hours a day, and follow it through until it is done; I don’t know how long it will take you.’ That was the explanation to me. Q. What
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)