gno.law

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 9947 · 1935-01-09 · Published · 3 Cal. App. 2d 532 · 39 P.2d 870 · 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 312

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and A. H. CHRISTENSEN

Area
civil
Panel
Crail (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 — Crail

CRAIL, J.

A. H. Christensen was injured while receiving work relief “as an open welfare case”. Except as to dates and names the facts are identical with those in the case of McBurney v. Industrial Acc. Com., 220 Cal. 124 [30 Pac. (2d) 414], Under the rule established in that case he was not an employee within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The contention, based on recent amendments to the act which are designated as sections 8(a) and 12*4, that because Christensen was required to work and received cash as part of said aid relief, he was an employee, is fully answered by the case of County of Los Angeles v. Industrial Acc. Com., 2 Cal. App. (2d) 614 [38 Pac. (2d) 828]. As Christensen was not an employee, he was not entitled under the law to compensation.

Award annulled.

Stephens, P. J., and Willis, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by