Coombs

Coombs v. Industrial Accident Commission

Good Law
1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 788·81 Cal. App. 137·252 P. 1069
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1927Docket No. 5411.California1,380 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

This proceeding for the writ of review seeks the annulment of a supplemental award for a surgical operation and hospital bills amounting to the sum of $94. The original and one supplemental award were heretofore considered by the other division of this court and not disturbed. (Coombs v. Industrial Acc. Com., 76 Cal. App. 565 , [ 245 Pac. 445 ].) Finding No. 2 of the original findings and award is as follows: “The employer is liable for the reasonable cost of the medical, surgical and hospital treatment as was reasonably required to cure and relieve the employee from the effects of said injury, such cost to be fixed by the commission subsequently and supplemental award entered therefor upon filing of itemized bills therefor, and at the request of any person in interest.”

The answer to the application for adjustment of claim sets up only two reasons for disallowance of the claim; first, that the injury was sustained not in the course of employment, but while the applicant was playing baseball, and, second, that the injury was contributed to by a chronic condition inflamed by reason of an injury occurring while playing baseball. There is recited in the return under the heading…

Addendum

Thompson, J.

In denying the petition for rehearing we deem it expedient to say that the language used by the other division of this court in Coombs v. Industrial Acc. Com., 76 Cal. App. 565 [ 245 Pac. 445 ], “Whether a finding may be annulled where the award is not involved is doubtful, as section 67, referring to review by the courts, provides only for review of orders, rules, regulations, decisions and awards, and not findings of fact which are expressly not made subject to review,” does not receive our approval. It has long been the rule in our practice that the decision of a court consists of written findings of fact and conclusions of law, which decision constitutes the foundation for the judgment. By section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act of 1917, Deering’s General Laws (1923 ed.), page 1710, we find the same practice outlined in the provisions as follows: “After final hearing by the commission, it shall, within thirty days, make and file (1) its findings upon all questions involved in the controversy, and (2) its award which shall state its determination as to the rights of the parties.” The similarity of the provision to sections 632 and 633 of the Code of…

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.