Danziger v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Oct 17, 1930 No. Docket No. 7462.Published

Before: Craig

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Industrial Accident Commission's finding that an employee's refusal to submit to surgical treatment was unreasonable is a question of fact, and such a finding is conclusive when supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Whether the Industrial Accident Commission acted in excess of its authority in terminating liability for an employee's refusal to undergo surgery.
Whether the Commission's finding that the employee's refusal to submit to medical treatment was unreasonable is supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The reasonableness of the refusal of an injured employee to submit to an operation has been considered in most, if not all, the cases where he has been denied compensation on account of such refusal.”

“The reasonableness has been disposed of in those cases as a question of fact.”

“It is a question of fact that must be determined by the trier of facts and when he has determined it, and his conclusion is supported by evidence, that conclusion is binding on this court”

CRAIG, J.

The petitioner was injured in the course of employment. Upon application to the Industrial Accident Commission for adjustment of his claim, stating that he had asked for an operation and for a truss to relieve a hernia, it was found and awarded that he be compensated by a surgical operation with necessary incidental medical and hospital treatment and a weekly allowance for temporary disability. The applicant having refused surgical treatment when tendered, a petition to terminate liability was filed, which, following a hearing and repeated refusals to submit thereto, was granted. Upon a petition for a writ of

certiorari

it is asserted that the Commission acted in excess of its authority in terminating liability, that such order

[73]

was unreasonable, and that the evidence does not justify findings of fact requiring or warranting the same.

Section 11 (e) of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act provides as follows:

“No compensation shall be payable in case of the death or disability of an employee if his death is caused, or if and so far as his disability is caused, continued, or aggravated, by an

unreasonable refusal

to submit to medical treatment, or to any surgical treatment, the risk of which is, in the opinion of the Commission, based upon expert medical or surgical advice, inconsiderable in view of the seriousness of the injury. ’ ’

The Commission is vested with full power and authority to regulate and prescribe the nature and extent of proofs and evidence. (Sec. 57 [6].) It may find therefrom upon ultimate facts, and its findings and conclusions in that respect shall be conclusive and final, subject to review in proper proceedings. (Secs. 19, 67 [c].) And its findings shall not be disturbed when there exists any substantial evidence to support them.

(State Comp. Ins. Fund

Industrial Acc. Com.,

Danziger v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

CRAIG, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief