Gildersleeve v. Industrial Accident Commission

THE COURT.

In this case a rehearing was granted to give further consideration to the question whether there had been a valid tender of medical aid to the employee. We are, however, satisfied with' our former conclusion, and we adopt and quote from the opinion originally rendered as follows:

“This is a petition by an employer and his insurance carrier to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission.

“The respondent O’Neill was employed by petitioner Gildersleeve as a laborer, and while so employed suffered a fractured spine. He received some medical treatment at the camp where he worked, and later was removed by his relatives to Napa. He placed his case in the hands of chiropractors, and received chiropractic treatment at the home of a private nurse. His recovery was only partial.

“Petitioners, the employer and his insurance carrier, instituted proceedings to be relieved of liability for medical expense under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, section 9(a), claiming that the employee had refused to accept a tender of medical and surgical treatment. The Commission found this to be the fact, and made an order absolving petitioners from such liability. A writ of review having been obtained, the District Court of Appeal reversed the order, holding that from the record it appeared that ‘no tender of medical or surgical treatment was ever made by either the employer or insurance carrier’.

(O’Neill

v.

Industrial Acc. Com.,

91 Cal. App. 121 [266 Pac. 866].) New proceedings were then instituted by petitioners before the Commission, and new testimony was taken on this issue. The Commission concluded that the new evidence did not meet the conditions of a sufficient tender laid down in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, and therefore made an order granting reimbursement to the employee for hospital and nursing expense. The cost of the chiropractic treatments was not included in the award on the ground that they were not proper treatment for the injury. Peti

[765]

tioners then sought a new writ from the District Court of Appeal, which was denied without opinion. Whereupon a hearing in this court was had.