Subsequent Injuries Fund, State of Cal. v. Industrial Acc. Commission

• Decision Date: 08 May 1957
• Citation: 311 P.2d 26,150 Cal.App.2d 716
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation, a corporation, and Raymond Baldes, Respondents. Civ. 22168.

Page 26

311 P.2d 26

150 Cal.App.2d 716

SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation, a corporation, and Raymond Baldes, Respondents.

Civ. 22168.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

May 8, 1957.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Irving H. Perluss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arthur L. Martin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for petitioner, Subsequent Injuries Fund.

Everett A. Corten, San Francisco, Edward A. Sarkisian, Los Angeles, for respondent, Industrial Accident Commission.

DORAN, Justice.

The record discloses that on November 6, 1953, Raymond Baldes while employed as a maintenance mechanic for Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation, suffered an industrial injury to his right eye resulting in industrial blindness in such eye. There had been a previous industrial injury on October 1, 1953.

The employee's application for hearing against the Subsequent Injuries Fund on December 28, 1954, states, 'That prior to the industrial injuries involved herein, applicant was permanently and partially disabled with a mental disease, described as follows: Psychotic depressive reaction manifested by depression, psychomotor retardation, anxiety, worry, transient hallucinations, and delusions, feelings of helplessness, and inability to cope with difficulties, in partial remission'.

In the course of the proceedings, the Subsequent Injuries Fund being a party thereto, the Commission finally found in its Decision After Reconsideration, that the employee's combined disability resulting from the industrial injury of November 6, 1953, and the prior permanent disability, amounted to 79 per cent of total disability. The Subsequent Injuries Fund was held liable for the difference between the 46% rating for the industrial disability and the 79% total combined disability rating, or a liability for 132 weeks at the rate of $30 per week, and thereafter a life pension of $8.77 per week.

The Subsequent Injuries Fund, seeking a writ of review, alleges (1) 'That the respondent commission acted without and/or in excess of its jurisdiction. 2. That the Decision was unreasonable. 3. That the Findings of Fact do not support the Decision or Award. 4. That the Decision and Award against the * * * Subsequent Injuries Fund was not supported by substantial evidence'. The petitioner seeks to have the Decision and Award annulled. This position is predicated upon the theory that Raymond Baldes' mental condition was asymptomatic prior to the industrial injury of November 6, 1953 (and unknown to the employer) and therefore improperly used as a basis for an award against the Subsequent Injuries Fund'.

In State of California, Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission and Joseph Strauss, 135 Cal.App.2d 544, 288 P.2d 31, 34, the reviewing court said: 'In construing section 4663, Labor Code (the basic law of apportionment) it has been held, in effect, that if the commission finds that the pre-existing disease or condition was 'disabling' (that is, symptomatic and interferes with the employee's ability to work) then an apportionment between the prior disability and the resultant disability due to the subsequent injury would be made. See Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Acc. Comm.,...