State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

14 P.2d 140, 125 Cal. App. 776, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 646

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 14, 1932

DocketDocket No. 8633.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 P.2d 140 (State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission, 14 P.2d 140, 125 Cal. App. 776, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

*777 STURTEVANT, J.

On March 28, 1931, Griffith Boberts and Mary Boberts were man and wife residing in Oakland. They had two minor sons, Frank and Walter, both of whom were living with their parents. The parents were living together and both were employed by Mountain View Cemetery Association. The wife received $75 per month and the husband received $125 per month. When the pay was received the husband delivered his pay check to the wife and out of the common earnings she paid the expenses of the household. On the date last mentioned Mary Boberts sustained an industrial injury from which she died on May 30, 1931. An application was made by the surviving husband to have the -claim of each of said minors fixed. The respondent Commission thereafter filed its findings and award and, among other things, found: “3. The employee left surviving her, wholly dependent, Frank Boberts, a minor child, who is entitled to a death benefit of $2479.48 . . . 4. The employee left surviving her Walter Boberts, a minor, who was partially dependent upon her for support.’ ’ The petitioner contends that under the facts the third finding was not sustained by the evidence. The respondent Commission contends that it was and that said finding was made in direct compliance with section 14 (a) (2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act [as amended by Stats. 1919, p. 917, see. 5], The petitioner replies that the statute is ambiguous and it cites and relies on Fox v. Industrial Acc. Com., 194 Cal. 173 [228 Pac. 38]. Merely because the minors involved in that litigation were domiciled in Japan the respondent Commission seeks to distinguish that case from the instant case. We fbi-nk the distinction is immaterial and that the case cited by the petitioner is controlling and should be followed by this court. On the authority of that case the award should be and it is hereby annulled, and the proceeding is remanded for further action by the Commission in accordance with this decision.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

*777 STURTEVANT, J.

On March 28, 1931, Griffith Boberts and Mary Boberts were man and wife residing in Oakland. They had two minor sons, Frank and Walter, both of whom were living with their parents. The parents were living together and both were employed by Mountain View Cemetery Association. The wife received $75 per month and the husband received $125 per month. When the pay was received the husband delivered his pay check to the wife and out of the common earnings she paid the expenses of the household. On the date last mentioned Mary Boberts sustained an industrial injury from which she died on May 30, 1931. An application was made by the surviving husband to have the -claim of each of said minors fixed. The respondent Commission thereafter filed its findings and award and, among other things, found: “3. The employee left surviving her, wholly dependent, Frank Boberts, a minor child, who is entitled to a death benefit of $2479.48 . . . 4. The employee left surviving her Walter Boberts, a minor, who was partially dependent upon her for support.’ ’ The petitioner contends that under the facts the third finding was not sustained by the evidence. The respondent Commission contends that it was and that said finding was made in direct compliance with section 14 (a) (2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act [as amended by Stats. 1919, p. 917, see. 5], The petitioner replies that the statute is ambiguous and it cites and relies on Fox v. Industrial Acc. Com., 194 Cal. 173 [228 Pac. 38]. Merely because the minors involved in that litigation were domiciled in Japan the respondent Commission seeks to distinguish that case from the instant case. We fbi-nk the distinction is immaterial and that the case cited by the petitioner is controlling and should be followed by this court. On the authority of that case the award should be and it is hereby annulled, and the proceeding is remanded for further action by the Commission in accordance with this decision.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 P.2d 140, 125 Cal. App. 776, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-compensation-insurance-fund-v-industrial-accident-commission-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack