Royal Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPierce, P. J.
The only substantial question raised in these proceedings to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission in favor of applicant is whether the provisions of subdivisions (b) and (c) of Labor Code section 5405 1 apply to bar the application. We hold that in unambiguous language they do. This is a case of first impression under the workmen’s compensation provisions of the Labor Code but indistinguishable language of the original law (except for the time limits involved) has been interpreted by the California Supreme Court (Henry Cowell Lime & Cement Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 211…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Henry Cowell Lime & Cement Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Colonial Insurance v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Broadway-Locust Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Armstrong v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- J. T. Thorp, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- City & County of San Francisco v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Kaiser Foundation Hosp. v. WORKERS'COMP. APPEALS BD.California Supreme Court · 1977
- Hospitals v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977