> >
| Case Name | California v. Industrial Accident Commission and Gust Erickson | |
|---|---|---|
| Date | 04/19/1957 | |
| Note | The question here is not what the Legislature might have done with respect to providing for retrospective application of the portions of section 5500.5, which are here involved, but what it did do. It used no language showing that it intended retrospective effect and, therefore, under the rules carefully stated and followed in the Aetna case, no such effect will be given under the guise of construction. | |
| Citation | 48 Cal. 2d 355 | |
| WCC Citation | WCC 33591957 CA |
2d 355 April 19, 1957 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION AND GUST ERICKSON ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING by the Subsequent Injuries Fund to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission apportioning liability against several named employers and the Subsequent Injuries Fund. We have concluded that respondent Industrial Accident Commission erroneously applied the section retrospectively, and that the award should be annulled. In the subsequent proceedings the commission found, in accordance with statutory law, that "said date accordingly constitutes the date of injury herein. "The employe initiated proceedings before the Industrial Accident Commission to obtain an award solely against Central Eureka Mining Company, one of his employers during the period when he was contracting silicosis. *fn5 The issue of constitutionality is discussed in the companion case of Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Acc.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.
