Quigley

Quigley v. Industrial Accident Commission

Good Law
1935 Cal. LEXIS 396·3 Cal. 2d 46·43 P.2d 289
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 1, 1935L. A. No. 15036California1,787 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This is a proceeding to review a decision of respondent Commission denying petitioner’s application for compensation for an injury which he claims to have sustained in the scope and course of his employment.

We have read the entire record. We are convinced that the case presents no question of law, but is one where the evidence was squarely conflicting as to the cause of injury. Under such circumstances, we cannot interfere with the decision of the Commission. In fairness to petitioner, it should be stated that the evidence produced by him would support an award in his favor, had such an award been made, but, unfortunately for him, the Commission chose to believe the medical testimony produced by the insur *47 ance carrier of his employer. We have no power to interfere with an award made under such circumstances.

The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner was employed as a janitor by respondent Ward Chandler Building Company. On the afternoon of July 21, 1933, in the course of his employment, he was engaged in the act of lifting a heavy desk for the purpose of changing the telephone wires. There was only a small space in which to work. While on his knees and while in a “twisted”…

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.