Hays v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Supreme Court

Hays v. Industrial Accident Commission

327 P.2d 904, 50 Cal. 2d 865, 1958 Cal. LEXIS 201

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 11, 1958

DocketL. A. No. 24950

StatusPublished

This text of 327 P.2d 904 (Hays v. Industrial Accident Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hays v. Industrial Accident Commission, 327 P.2d 904, 50 Cal. 2d 865, 1958 Cal. LEXIS 201 (Cal. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHAUER, J.

In this case respondent Industrial Accident Commission denied petitioner’s application for compensation payments from respondent Subsequent Injuries Fund. The commission states that its decision was “predicated solely on the fact that the evidence did not show employer-knowledge of any disability pre-existing the [subsequent] industrial injury.”

In Ferguson v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1958), ante, pp. 469, 479 [326 P.2d 145], this court held that to qualify for resort to the Subsequent Injuries Fund an employe must show that prior to the occurrence of the subsequent industrial injury he had attained the factual status of the “permanently partially disabled” and that such previously incepted disability was labor disabling, but that previous knowledge thereof by the employer is not required as a condition to an award to the employee of payments from the Subsequent Injuries Fund.

It follows that the award in the present ease should be and it is annulled and the matter is remanded for determination by the commission, on the merits, in a manner and on grounds not inconsistent with the views expressed in the Ferguson ease.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Spence, J., and McComb, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHAUER, J.

In this case respondent Industrial Accident Commission denied petitioner’s application for compensation payments from respondent Subsequent Injuries Fund. The commission states that its decision was “predicated solely on the fact that the evidence did not show employer-knowledge of any disability pre-existing the [subsequent] industrial injury.”

In Ferguson v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1958), ante, pp. 469, 479 [326 P.2d 145], this court held that to qualify for resort to the Subsequent Injuries Fund an employe must show that prior to the occurrence of the subsequent industrial injury he had attained the factual status of the “permanently partially disabled” and that such previously incepted disability was labor disabling, but that previous knowledge thereof by the employer is not required as a condition to an award to the employee of payments from the Subsequent Injuries Fund.

It follows that the award in the present ease should be and it is annulled and the matter is remanded for determination by the commission, on the merits, in a manner and on grounds not inconsistent with the views expressed in the Ferguson ease.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Spence, J., and McComb, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 P.2d 904, 50 Cal. 2d 865, 1958 Cal. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hays-v-industrial-accident-commission-cal-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack