In these causes a single writ of review was issued by the District Court of Appeal, First District, Division One. The regular justices of this division, Mr. Justice Knight and Mr. Justice Cashin, sitting with Mr. Justice pro tem. Johnson, gave the causes most careful consideration which included extended original research. The justices reached a tentative conclusion as to the proper rule of law to be declared in such cases and to that end Mr. Justice pro tem. Johnson prepared an exhaustive opinion wherein he promulgated this rule. The justices then found that their conclusions were at variance with other opinions of the District Court of Appeal in similar cases, to wit: Kauffman V. Industrial Acc. Com., 37 Cal. App. 500 [ 174 Pac. 690 ], Blanchard v. Industrial Acc. Com., 68 Cal. App. 65 [ 228 Pac. 359 ], and Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 124 Cal. App. 378 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 1075 ]. It is also to be noted that the cited cases are not altogether in harmony with each other. Therefore, for reasons of public policy and at the request of said justices, the above causes were transferred to this court for determination. After due consideration thereof, we have adopted the rule of law declared in the above-mentioned tentative opinion and by so doing we have modified the doctrine of the cited cases so far as it is out of harmony with this pronouncement. We are pleased to adopt practically the entire opinion prepared by Mr. Justice pro tern. Johnson as the foundation for our conclusion herein. It is as follows:

Respecting the claim for death benefit in the case of Woods, the application was made on October 20, 1930. It was therefore filed more than one year from the date of the death of Woods, August 10, 1929. There is therefore no escape from the mandatory provisions of section 11 (b), subdivision (2), of said act and the action of the Commission in denying relief was clearly correct. The order in this case is affirmed.

In the case of Marsh, who died February 14, 1930, the application was filed on October 20, 1930, which was within one year from the date of death. But the Commission found that death did not ensue within one year after the date of injury as provided by section 11 (b), subdivision (2) of said act. In reaching this conclusion, however, the Commission fixed the beginning of the running of the prescriptive period as of the date the deceased was first disabled from work. This holding is not in consonance with the rule of law laid down above; neither does the evidence disclose when the presence of pneumonoconiosis or silicosis was or should have been diagnosed as the primary and efficient cause of the disability and later the death of Marsh. The award in this case is therefore annulled to the end that further proceedings may be had to ascertain when the statute of limitations began to run.

In the Lange case the Commission made no finding as to the date when the presence of pneumonoconiosis should or could have been discovered as the efficient and primary cause of disability. The conclusion that the claim was barred under section 11 (b), subdivision (1), of the act was reckoned solely from the date when disability first prevented the applicant from working. Under the rule of law declared by this opinion the evidence fails to disclose sufficient data for a conclusion as to when a causal connection between the occupation and the disability was or should have been discerned. The award in this case is, therefore, annulled to the end that further proceedings may be had not inconsistent with these views.

Langdon, J., Curtis, J., Shenk, J., Seawell, J., and Waste, C. J., concurred.