Department of Public Works v. Industrial Accident Commission

PULLEN, P. J. Petitioner, Department of Public Works, seeks by this writ of review, to set aside and annul an order entitled “Order altering and amending findings and award and supplemental order for good cause under Section 20 (d) ” (referring to Workmen’s Compensation Act, Stats. 1917, p. 831, and amendments thereto), whereby it was found that James Alexander, the claimant, sustained an injury which resulted in permanent disability of 100 per cent and that the entire disability was caused by an injury sustained [585]by said employee while engaged in and arising out oí the course of his employment.

It is conceded by respondent that the sole question for consideration is whether the record discloses “good cause” for the order of the commission in rescinding its earlier award and establishing a finding that all the disability sustained by applicant was due to the injury complained of.

The facts briefly are that Alexander, in November, 1930, was working for petitioner as a carpenter. On that date while engaged in his work he was knocked from the truck upon which he was working, falling about 25 feet into a canyon, causing injury. He was assisted to the camp, where he was given medical treatment. After remaining in bed for a period of time he returned to his work on December 11, 1930, and worked until January 3, 1931, when by reason of pain in his back he was forced to quit.

The findings and award were filed on July 29, 1932, wherein applicant was awarded total temporary disability indemnity compensation from the date of the accident to and including May 15,1932, and 50 per cent partial disability compensation from May 15, 1932, indefinitely. Thereafter on November 7, 1933, an order was made allowing the applicant a permanent disability rating of 82 per cent. However, this was apportioned on the basis of 40 per cent to pre-existing diseases and 60 per cent to disability. The applicant on this apportionment basis was allowed a permanent disability rating equal to 491/4 per cent. Applicant thereafter applied for additional compensation and medical treatment. The commission after further hearing and after receiving further medical reports issued its.order here complained of.

Section 20 (d) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides :

“The Commission shall have continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions and awards made and entered under the provisions of sections six to thirty-one, inclusive, of this act and may at any time, upon notice, and after opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, rescind, alter or amend any such order, decision or award made by it upon good cause appearing therefor, such power including the right to review, grant or regrant, diminish, increase or terminate, within the limit prescribed by this