Gildersleeve

In this case a rehearing was granted to give further consideration to the question whether there had been a valid tender of medical aid to the employee. We are, however, satisfied with' our former conclusion, and we adopt and quote from the opinion originally rendered as follows:

“This is a petition by an employer and his insurance carrier to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission.

“The respondent O’Neill was employed by petitioner Gildersleeve as a laborer, and while so employed suffered a fractured spine. He received some medical treatment at the camp where he worked, and later was removed by his relatives to Napa. He placed his case in the hands of chiropractors, and received chiropractic treatment at the home of a private nurse. His recovery was only partial.

“Petitioners, the employer and his insurance carrier, instituted proceedings to be relieved of liability for medical expense under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, section 9(a), claiming that the employee had refused to accept a tender of medical and surgical treatment. The Commission found this to be the fact, and made an order absolving petitioners from such liability. A writ of review having been…