Legal Opinion
Betancourt v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 30, 1971No. Civ. 12737PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PIERCE, P. J.
In this mandamus proceeding petitioner Betancourt seeks an order compelling the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board and/or its referee to comply with the provisions of rule 10832 of the board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. 1
On May 8, 1969, petitioner injured his hip while lifting lumber in the course of his employment. His employer’s compensation carrier was Holland-America Insurance Company (“carrier”). On July 3, 1969, petitioner filed an application before the board. A hearing was held before respondent referee. At this hearing two medical doctors representing the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Faulkner v. California Toll Bridge AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Hollman v. WarrenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Erlich v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Lockhart v. WoldenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Zeeb v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Greener v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Sklar v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Aids Healthcare Foundation v. Los Angeles County Department of Public HealthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Newland v. KizerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.