Carstens

Carstens v. Pillsbury

Caution
172 Cal. 572·1916 Cal. LEXIS 576·158 P. 218
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 22, 1916Sac. No. 2387. In Bank.California2,764 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

This is an original proceeding in review against the Industrial Accident Commission, under section 84 of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act. As these proceedings are becoming of frequent occurrence, it is proper to say to those initiating them that the members of the commission, individually, are not proper parties defendant in such proceedings. The commission, by its name, “Industrial Accident Commission,” as given in section 3 of the act, is the proper defendant. The members cannot be made personally responsible for the acts of the commission in the proceedings, at least, not in a proceeding for a review. The person or persons interested in maintaining the award should also be joined. "

The commission, on December 31, 1914, made an award in favor of Tony Silva against James Common, James W. Sturdivant, and H. P. Carstens, or either of them, requiring the paymént to Silva of $74.71, as a temporary total disability indemnity, $131.18 as a temporary partial disability indemnity, and $9.37 per week from January 2, 1915, until the termination of the existing partial disability, all on account of accidental bodily injuries received by Silva while he was in the…

Concurring Opinion

Angellotti, J.

Without expressing any view on the other questions involved, I concur in the judgment on the last ground stated in the opinion.

Lawlor, J., dissented.

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.