Mantyla

Mantyla v. Industrial Accident Commission

Good Law
130 Cal. App. 139·19 P.2d 799
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 1933Docket No. 8828.California544 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Spence, J.

Petitioners seek annulment of the order of the respondent Commission denying their petition to reopen under section 20(d) of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act and also of the order of respondent Commission denying rehearing of said petition to reopen.

The original award in favor of the defendants in the proceeding before the respondent Commission was filed March 8, 1932, and the order denying rehearing thereon was entered April 29, 1932. No proceedings were instituted for the purpose of seeking a review thereof. Subsequently, on August 3, 1932, petitioners filed with the respondent Commission their petition to reopen the cause under said section 20(d), which petition was denied on August 12, 1932, and thereafter a petition for rehearing of said petition to reopen was also denied.

The petition to reopen was made upon the grounds that “the evidence does not justify the findings of facts” and that “the applicants have discovered new and further evidence which they could not with reasonable diligence have produced at the hearing herein”. The deceased died of exsanguination. The first ground of the petition related to the finding of the Commission that “the…

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.