Bige v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Apr 14, 1930 No. Docket No. 7048.Published

Before: Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a pre-existing hernia constitutes a 'disease' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that the Commission's award of surgical treatment as compensation for the aggravation of said condition was sufficient and supported by evidence.

Issues

Whether the Commission's findings were supported by evidence received under section 19(c) of the Act.
Whether a pre-existing hernia constitutes a 'disease' under the Act such that compensation for its aggravation is limited to the proportion attributable to the injury.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the word “disease,” as used in said sub-section of the statute, was broad enough in its meaning and significance to include a physical condition such as is shown to have existed with reference to the petitioner”

“the award made to petitioner by the Commission should be affirmed.”

HOUSER, J.

On an application presented to the respondent Commission for adjustment of compensation for an industrial injury sustained by petitioner herein, and which admittedly “occurred in the course and arising out of his employment,” the Commission found that the injury consisted of “aggravation into a disabling condition of a pre-existing right indirect inguinal hernia,” for which the applicant had been adequately compensated “by the furnishing of a surgical operation for the radical cure of said hernia”; and thereupon ordered that the appellant “take nothing further.”

Petitioner contends that, with the exception of that part of the finding to the effect that the injury to him occurred “in the course of and arising out of his employment,” the said finding was unsupported by any evidence relating thereto. However, as from the record herein it appears that each of the several parts of said finding was based upon the contents of certain reports, documents, publications, etc., which by the terms of section 19(c) of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act (Stats. 1917, p. 831, as variously amended) the Commission was entitled to receive and consider in evidence, the contention of petitioner in that regard cannot be sustained.

The principal complaint of petitioner is directed to the situation that, although by the finding of the Commission the injury sustained by petitioner “occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment,” for the reason, as stated in the award, that the applicant had been furnished “a surgical operation for the radical cure of said hernia,” the compensation already awarded to him was considered adequate.

By the terms of subsection (3) of section 3 and subsection (a) of section 9 of the Workmen’s Compensation,

[212]

Insurance and Safety Act, compensation to an injured employee includes surgical and hospital treatment. It is therefore manifest that the applicant received

some

compensation. (27 Cal. Jur. 526, citing

Union Iron Works

Bige v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

HOUSER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief