McBride v. Industrial Acc. Com.

California Supreme Court

McBride v. Industrial Acc. Com.

187 P. 1050, 182 Cal. 407, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 527

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 12, 1920

DocketS. F. No. 9364.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 187 P. 1050 (McBride v. Industrial Acc. Com.) 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

McBride v. Industrial Acc. Com., 187 P. 1050, 182 Cal. 407, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 527 (Cal. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

The petition for a writ of review was denied in this matter upon the theory that the commission had the power to reserve, as it expressly did, the award for medical, surgical, and hospital treatment, to which it found the claimant entitled, pending the procuring of the necessary information and vouchers for a supplemental award. [1] The practice, perhaps, is not one to be commended, as a single final judgment covering all matters involved is the orderly method. It certainly could not be extended to allow supplemental awards for the purpose of correcting errors in the original award, as was attempted inGeorgia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 177 Cal. 289, [170 P. 625], the case principally relied on by petitioner. The case just cited is not in point upon the question here presented.

The petition for a rehearing is denied. *Page 408

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

The petition for a writ of review was denied in this matter upon the theory that the commission had the power to reserve, as it expressly did, the award for medical, surgical, and hospital treatment, to which it found the claimant entitled, pending the procuring of the necessary information and vouchers for a supplemental award. [1] The practice, perhaps, is not one to be commended, as a single final judgment covering all matters involved is the orderly method. It certainly could not be extended to allow supplemental awards for the purpose of correcting errors in the original award, as was attempted inGeorgia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 177 Cal. 289, [170 P. 625], the case principally relied on by petitioner. The case just cited is not in point upon the question here presented.

The petition for a rehearing is denied. *Page 408

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 P. 1050, 182 Cal. 407, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcbride-v-industrial-acc-com-cal-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack