McBride v. Industrial Acc. Com.
Glenn McBride v. Industrial Accident Commission
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- The Court (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
The petition for a writ of review was denied in this matter upon the theory that the commission had the power to reserve, as it expressly did, the award for medical, surgical, and hospital treatment, to which it found the claimant entitled, pending the procuring of the necessary information and vouchers for a supplemental award. [1] The practice, perhaps, is not one to be commended, as a single final judgment covering all matters involved is the orderly method. It certainly could not be extended to allow supplemental awards for the purpose of correcting errors in the original award, as was attempted inGeorgia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 177 Cal. 289, [170 P. 625], the case principally relied on by petitioner. The case just cited is not in point upon the question here presented.
The petition for a rehearing is denied. *Page 408
Cites, in this corpus
- Georgia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission L. A. No. 4847. L. A. No. 4929. · 1918-01-24
Cited by
- Bartlett Hayward Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission Docket No. S.F. 12626. · 1928-03-02
- Coombs v. Industrial Accident Commission Docket No. 5411. · 1927-01-28
- Southern California Edison Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission Docket No. 5324. · 1926-07-06
- Hindes v. Industrial Accident Commission Docket No. 5227. · 1925-07-25
- Grand Union Hotel v. Industrial Accident Commission Civ. No. 4851. · 1924-05-02