Report of Decisions of the Industrial Accident Board and Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California

DIGEST OF SUPREME AND APPELATE COURT DECISIONS.

ADDITIONAL INJURY.

SUBSEQUENT INJURY AGGRAVATING ORIGINAL INJURY-ALLOWANCE OF COMPENSATION.-The Industrial Accident Commission is not authorized by the Workmen's Compensation Act to award compensation to an employee who has sustained an injury by accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment, for an additional injury sustained by him afterwards, and not in the course of his employment, by an accident or act which aggravates the first injury and prolongs the disability.

Pacific Coast Casualty Co. et al. vs. Pillsbury et al.-

AWARD.

PAYMENT OF MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICES-JUDGMENT-REVIEWCERTAINTY AS TO AMOUNTS AND PERSONS ESSENTIAL. A judgment of the commission ordering the employer to pay "to the persons entitled to receive the same, the reasonable value of medical and surgical services rendered to the applicant," cannot be enforced until the amounts are designated and the persons named, and until such time, no application can be made for the review of such award.

Garratt-Callahan Co. vs. Ind. Acc. Com. et al.. CONSTITUTIONALITY.

CONSTITUTIONALITY-FEDERAL CONSTITUTION NOT VIOLATED-EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER.-The "Workmen's Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act" of 1913 (commonly known as the Boynton Act) providing for a compulsory scheme of compensation for injuries to employees irrespective of negligence, is not unconstitutional, as being violative of the "due process of law," and the "equal protection of the laws" clauses of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, but is a lawful exercise of the police power.

Western Indemnity Co. vs. Pillsbury et al.---.

LIABILITY OF MASTERS FOR ACCIDENTAL INJURIES-CHANGE OF EXISTING LAWS NATURE OF ENACTMENT.-A law which disturbs no vested right of property, which is not retroactive in its operation upon the conduct of persons, but which, looking to the future, merely changes the existing rules governing the liability of masters for injuries caused by accidents occurring to their servants while in the service, does not come within the scope of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, but is simply an exercise by the state of its governmental power to pass laws regulating the ordinary private rights of person and property.-Id.

FAILURE TO LIMIT COMPENSATION TO EXTRA HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIESCONSTITUTIONALITY NOT AFFECTED.-The failure of the Boynton Act to limit the newly created scheme of compensation to specially enumerated industries, selected as and declared to be extrahazardous in character, has no bearing on the constitutional_questions concerned.—Id.

COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES RECEIVED IN PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENT— LIABILITY OF MASTER-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACT NOT AFFECTED.--The fact that the Act imposes upon the employer a liability to compensate his employees for injuries actually received in the particular employment, while under other statutes (such as Washington), all employers are required to contribute sums, proportionate to their pay roll and graduated according to the nature of the industry, into a fund out of which all claims for compensation are to be paid, has likewise no bearing on the constitutional questions concerned. Id.

EXCLUSION OF CASUAL EMPLOYEES-STATE CONSTITUTION NOT VIOLATED. Such act is not unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of California because it excludes from the operation of the Act casual employees and employees engaged in farm, dairy, agricultural, viticultural or horticultural labor, in stock or poultry raising, or in household domestic service, on the theory that no exceptions are permissible under the constitutional enabling clause (art. XX. sec. 21), or that such exceptions make the law vulnerable as special legislation.-Id.

CONSTRUCTION OF ACT.

CONSTRUCTION OF ACT.-The provisions of paragraph e of section 16 of the Act that compensation shall not be paid for disability so far as it is caused. continued or aggravated by an unreasonable refusal to submit to medical or surgical treatment, the risk of which is inconsiderable in view of the seriousness of the injury, does not exclude all other exceptions and authorize the Commission to award compensation for subsequent injuries not occurring during the employment.

Pacific Coast Casualty Co. et al. vs. Pillsbury et al.__.

1103

PAGE.

667

1026

COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.

CONSTRUCTION OF ACT.-The provisions of paragraph e of section 16 of the Act that compensation shall not be paid for disability so far as it is caused, continued or aggravated by an unreasonable refusal to submit to medical or surgical treatment, the risk of which is inconsiderable in view of the seriousness of the injury, does not exclude all other exceptions and authorize the Commission to award compensation for subsequent injuries not occurring during the employment.

Pacific Coast Casualty Co. et al. vs. Pillsbury et al...

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-REDRESS OF INJURIES-POWER OF LEGISLATURE. Under the provisions of section 21 of article XX of the constitution it is only injuries incurred by an employee "in the course of" the employment, that the legislature may commit to a state industrial accident board the power to redress.-Id.

INJURY TO SECTION FOREMAN-ALTERCATION WITH LABORER-INJURY IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.-An injury received by a railroad section foreman in an altercation with one of a gang of men over which he had supervision, which grew out of his justifiable efforts to maintain his authority as foreman and to protect the property of his employer entrusted to his care, is an injury in the course of employment within the meaning of the Boynton Act.

Western Indemnity Co. vs. Pillsbury et al.-

LACK OF PROOF OF ACCIDENTAL INJURY IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENTANNULMENT OF AWARD UPON CERTIORARI.-The Workmen's Compensation Act creates a liability against the employer for an injury suffered by the employee only where such injury is sustained "by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment," and an award made without proof of this essential fact is void and if it is attacked by certiorari it must be annulled as an act in excess of the jurisdiction of the Commission. Englebretson et al. vs. Ind. Acc. Com. et al..

DEPENDENCY.

COMPENSATION FOR DEATH OF SON-NON-DEPENDENCY OF FATHER AND MOTHER QUESTION OF FACT-CONCLUSION SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.— It is held on this application for a writ of review prayed for against the Industrial Accident Commission that the evidence sustains the conclusion of the Commission that it does not appear that either the father or mother of the person who was killed by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, was dependent for support either wholly or partly upon the deceased son, which dependency was a question of fact. Garcia et al. vs. Ind. Acc. Com. etc.__.

ELECTION OF REMEDY.

MASTER AND SERVANT-INJURIES TO SERVANT-ESTOPPEL BY ACTION TO CLAIM COMPENSATION UNDER INDUSTRIAL COMPENSATION ACT.-Where an employee injured in the course of his duties brought an action in the Superior Court, such commencement of action was not a final election of the employee's remedy depriving the Industrial Accident Commission of jurisdiction to award him compensation, since the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining a demurrer to the complaint merely determined that the allegations failed to state a case of the character for which the Industrial Compensation Act provides an exception to its general provision that the right to recover compensation under it shall be an injured employee's exclusive remedy, and that therefore the proper tribunal for the adjudication of the claim was the Industrial Accident Commission.

San Francisco Stevedoring Co. et al. vs. Pillsbury et al.----. EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY OF.

EVIDENCE-OPINION AS TO INJURY.-An opinion based upon a perusal of the testimony, that the disability was the natural result of the original injury, not made under oath, and not given in evidence before the Commission, cannot be considered.

Pacific Coast Casualty Co. et al. vs. Pillsbury et al.-----COMPENSATION FOR DEATH OF SON-NON-DEPENDENCY OF FATHER AND MOTHER QUESTION OF FACT-CONCLUSION SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. It is held on this application for a writ of review prayed for against the Industrial Accident Commission that the evidence sustains the conclusion of the Commission that it does not appear that either the father or mother of the person who was killed by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, was dependent for support either wholly or partly upon the deceased son, which dependency was a question of fact. Garcia et al. vs. Ind. Acc. Com., etc...

PAGE.

1026

1021

603

290

603

EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY OF-Continued.

SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.-The court is of the opinion that the statements as to the evidence introduced before the Accident Commission, contained in the memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of the petition for a writ of certiorari, taken in connection with the allegations of the petition, show that the evidence before the Commission was of such a nature as to sufficiently sustain the finding of the Commission that the injury received by the deceased employee on November 12, 1914, "proximately caused the death of said employee."

Sierra Nevada Wood, etc., Co. et al. vs. Ind. Acc. Com. et al.__ FINDINGS OF COMMISSION-ALLOWANCE FOR LONGER PERIOD THAN DISABILITY-REVIEW OF FINDINGS.-The findings of the Industrial Accident Commission that an employee has been allowed compensation for a longer period than that of actual disability, and that in making the award the Commission failed to credit the employer with a certain sum paid by him to the employee, will not be reviewed (assuming that such findings are reviewable), where the application for rehearing with the Commission does not sufficiently set forth the only claim as to which there might be some ground for contending that there was an entire absence of evidence to support the finding of the Commission of compensation for a longer period than that of actual disability, and where the failure to credit the employer with the sum named is not presented in the application for rehearing.

Pacific Coast Casualty Co. et al. vs. Pillsbury et al.-

REVIEW OF AWARD OF ACCIDENT COMMISSION-INJURY IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT-EVIDENCE-INSUFFICIENT PETITION.-Upon this application for a writ of review directed to the Industrial Accident Commission to review an award made on account of injuries it is held that the petition fails to sufficiently show that there was not in the evidence sufficient support for the finding of the Commission that the accident arose out of and happened in the course of the employment of the injured person by the petitioner, and that, therefore, the writ will not issue on the ground that the evidence shows that the injuries were received while such person was employed as an independent contractor.

Garratt-Callahan Co. rs. Ind. Acc. Com. et al...

FINDINGS OF COMMISSION-SCOPE OF REVIEW BY COURTS.-The findings of the State Industrial Accident Commission are not reviewable by the Supreme Court or District Courts of Appeal where there has been presented to the Commission any evidence to support them.

Smith rs. Ind. Acc. Com., etc.--

AWARD UPON HEARSAY TESTIMONY-LACK OF JURISDICTION-CONSTRUCTION OF ACT.-The Industrial Accident Commission has no power to make an award where the only evidence of accidental injury consists of hearsay testimony, notwithstanding the provisions of section 77 of the Workmen's Compensation Law that hearings before the Commission "shall be governed by this Act and by the rules of practice and procedure adopted by the Commission, and in the conduct thereof neither the Commission nor any member thereof nor any referee appointed thereby shall be bound by the technical rules of evidence." and notwithstanding the provision of subdivision 6 of section 75 which purports to give to the Commission the power "to regulate and prescribe the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence." Englebretson et al. rs. Ind. Acc. Com. et al.

EVIDENCE-RULE AGAINST HEARSAY TESTIMONY.- -The rule against the admission of hearsay evidence as proof of a fact is more than a mere technical rule of evidence, and is not to be considered as one of the technical rules of evidence referred to in section 77 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.-Id.

CASE AT BAR—ÂNNULMENT OF AWARD-HEARSAY TESTIMONY.-In this proceeding to review an award of compensation for an injury claimed to have been suffered by accident in the course of employment. it is held that the award must be annulled, for the lack of legal proof that the injury was accidental, as the only testimony in proof of such jurisdictional fact was hearsay. Id.

AWARD OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION-REVIEW AND ANNULMENT BY SUPREME COURT--UNSUPPORTED FINDING ON JURISDICTIONAL FACT.An award made by the Industrial Accident Commission is subject to review and annulment in the Supreme Court where the finding on any jurisdictional fact is without the support of substantial evidence, and this notwithstanding the provision of the Act that the findings of the Commission on questions of fact shall be conclusive and final.

Employers Assurance Corporation, Ltd., rs. Ind. Acc. Com.‒‒‒‒

PAGE.

444

667

1011

1021

1024

603

71-22160

EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENC OF-Continued.

JURISDICTIONAL FACT SUPPORTED BY HEARSAY TESTIMONY-ANNULMENT OF AWARD.-An award can not stand if a finding of a jurisdictional fact is without any support except that of hearsay testimony.-Id.

AWARD FOR DEATH OF HUSBAND-ACCIDENTAL INJURY IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT-UNSUPPORTED FINDING-HEARSAY TESTIMONY.-It is held in this proceeding instituted to review an award allowing compensation to a wife for the death of her husband, that there was no legal proof that the injury resulting in death was accidental, as the only proof was that found in the hearsay statements and explanations of the deceased to various persons.-Id.

HEARSAY TESTIMONY. (See under "EVIDENCE.")

Englebretson et al. vs. Ind. Acc. Com. et al...

Employers Assurance Corporation, Ltd., vs. Ind. Acc. Com. et al... INTERSTATE COMMERCE. (See under "JURISDICTION.") JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION.

San Francisco Stevedoring Co. et al. vs. Pillsbury et al.... CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-REDRESS OF INJURIES-POWER OF LEGISLATURE. Under the provisions of section 21 of article XX of the constitution it is only injuries incurred by an employee "in the course of" the employment. that the legislature may commit to a state industrial accident board the power to redress.

Pacific Coast Casualty Co. et al. vs. Pillsbury et al.---

INJURY WHILE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE-STATE BOARD WITHOUT JURISDICTION-EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OF CONGRESS CONTROLLING. The State Industrial Accident Commission is without jurisdiction to award compensation, where the applicant was at the time of the injury engaged in work directly relating to interstate commerce, as the same is controlled by the Employers' Liability Act passed by Congress in April, 1908. Smith vs. Ind. Acc. Com., etc.-.

INJURY TO RAILROAD WATCHMAN-ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF REVOLVER IN PURSUIT OF TRESPASSERS DRIVEN FROM INTERSTATE TRAIN-ACT AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-A railroad watchman who is accidentally injured by the discharge of his revolver while in the act of pursuing certain trespassers and driving them from the company's property after he had boarded and driven them off an interstate train, is engaged in an act affecting interstate commerce, and not in an act local in its relation to the business of his employer.-Id.

INJURY TO RAILROAD CORPORATION EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN INTERSTATE BUSINESS JURISDICTION.-The Industrial Accident Commission of California has no jurisdiction to retain and consider an application for relief for injuries sustained by an employee of a railroad corporation which is engaged in both interstate and intrastate commerce, where at the time of the accident such employee was engaged in interstate business, as the jurisdiction of such an application is vested in the federal authorities by virtue of the Common Carriers Liability Act of the United States. Southern Pacific Co. rs. Pillsbury et al.----

DEATH OF TRUCK REPAIRER OF RAILROAD CORPORATION-REPAIR OF ENGINE USED IN BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE BUSINESS-TEMPORARY WITHDRAWAL FROM USE--ENGAGEMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCESTATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION WITHOUT JURISDICTION.-A truck builder and repairer of trucks for locomotives employed in the roundhouse of a railroad corporation and killed while engaged in repairing a switch engine which was used indifferently for both interstate and intrastate business, but which had been temporarily withdrawn from service at the time of the injury and returned to use three days after the accident, was engaged in interstate business, and the Industrial Accident Commission of this State has no jurisdiction to award compensation for such death.-Id.

LACK OF PROOF OF ACCIDENTAL INJURY IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT-ANNULMENT OF AWARD UPON CERTIORARI.-The Workmen's Compensation Act creates a liability against the employer for an injury suffered by the

PAGE.

1021 1024

290

1011

1015

« Προηγούμενη Συνέχεια »

Βιβλία

Report of Decisions of the Industrial Accident Board and Industrial ..., Τόμος 2