From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Indus. Acc. Com

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Jan 9, 1935
3 Cal.App.2d 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)

Opinion

Docket No. 9947.

January 9, 1935.

PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation for personal injuries. Award annulled.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

F. Britton McConnell for Petitioners.

Everett A. Corten for Respondents.


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 P.2d 414]. [1] Under the rule established in that case he was not an employee within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. [2] The contention, based on recent amendments to the act which are designated as sections 8 (a) and 12 1/2, 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 P.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.


Summaries of

State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Indus. Acc. Com

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Jan 9, 1935
3 Cal.App.2d 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)
Case details for

State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Indus. Acc. Com

Case Details

Full title:STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al., Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two

Date published: Jan 9, 1935

Citations

3 Cal.App.2d 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)
39 P.2d 870

Citing Cases

County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

The Court of Appeal cases which followed the holding of McBurney include: Martin v. Indus. Acc. Com. (1934)…

City of Los Angeles v. Indus. Acc. Com

at appeared in the leading case, the principle announced in the latter has been followed in the following…