Betancourt

Betancourt v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 3d 408·1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1595·94 Cal. Rptr. 9·36 Cal. Comp. Cases 186
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 30, 1971Civ. 12737California1,563 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pierce, J.

In this mandamus proceeding petitioner Betancourt seeks an order compelling the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board and/or its referee to comply with the provisions of rule 10832 of the board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

On May 8, 1969, petitioner injured his hip while lifting lumber in the course of his employment. His employer’s compensation carrier was Holland-America Insurance Company (“carrier”). On July 3, 1969, petitioner filed an application before the board. A hearing was held before respondent referee. At this hearing two medical doctors representing the carrier, Gilbert Kucera, M.D., an orthopedist, and Lyman Maass, M.D., a neurosurgeon, filed reports. Robert F. Fischel, D.C., a licensed chiropractic practitioner, testified on behalf of petitioner. Dr. Maass’ report stated “from a neurosurgical viewpoint, there are no therapeutic or diagnostic suggestions to offer.” Dr. Kucera’s report stated, “I do not feel that any further treatment will be necessary.” Part of Dr. Fischel’s testimony is set forth in the referee’s summary as follows: “[H]e believes the applicant will need further care to do what he is doing now, which is fork-lift driving and lumber…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.