Benton v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Sep 22, 1925 No. Docket No. 5356.Published

Before: Tyler

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Industrial Accident Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain a supplementary application for compensation based on the same injury and disability for which relief was previously denied and the decision became final. The Commission may take judicial notice of its own prior records to determine that a subsequent petition involves the same issues previously adjudicated.

Issues

Whether the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a supplementary petition for compensation for the same disability previously denied in a final order.
Whether the Commission is required to have the defense of res judicata formally pleaded by the employer to dismiss a petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the Commission may take judicial notice of its own prior decisions in the same case.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where the time has expired for a rehearing the power to amend or alter awards is limited to cases where the application is based upon new facts arising since the making of the award.”

“The continuing jurisdiction given to the Commisson under the sections cited does not authorize the Commission to entertain supplementary applications for the identical complaint where relief has once been denied.”

“Then, too, the Commission may judicially notice its former decision in the same case.”

TYLER, P. J.

Petition for writ of review for the purpose of determining the lawfulness of an order of the Industrial Accident Commission denying petitioner a rehearing of his application for additional compensation for an alleged new and further disability arising from an injury sustained in the course of his employment. The injury was suffered by the applicant on January 29, 1923, while employed by defendant Southern California Edison Company as a steel sharpener, and it consisted of the crushing of his right hand by a machine. At the time of said employment petitioner was self-insured, and both employer and employee were subject to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Insurance and Safety Act of 1917 (Stats. 1917, p. 831), and acts amendatory thereof.

Upon his original application for compensation petitioner was, on November 1, 1923, awarded $20.83 a week for a period of fifty-eight weeks, amounting to the sum of $1,208.14. On November 7, 1923, he filed a petition for rehearing, claiming that injury to his index and middle fingers had been overlooked and should have been included in the allowance. This petition was granted and a final decision was entered on December 27, 1923, increasing the compensation allowance to payments for eighty-six weeks, amounting in all to the sum of $1,791.38. No petition for a rehearing was filed and this decision became final.

[413]

A year later, on December 2, 1924, a petition for a further increase of his allowance was filed by him upon the ground that the muscles and nerves of his right forearm, shoulder and neck had become involved as a result of his original injury.

The assistant medical director of the Commission filed a report upon the application in which he stated that he could see no anatomical reason why petitioner should suffer the pain he complained of, but suggested to the Commission that he be examined by a nerve specialist. The Commission adopted the suggestion and the specialist appointed filed his report. From these reports the Commission found that the condition from which applicant complained was not proximately caused by the injury sustained by him on January 29, 1923, and additional allowance was denied. This decision was entered February 2, 1925, and was allowed to become final by petitioner failing to apply for a rehearing.

Benton v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

TYLER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief