Case ID: cal-app_38/html/0760-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "STURTEVANT, J., pro tem.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civ. No. 2570.
    First Appellate District, Division One.
    November 25, 1918.]
    RAFAELO CELLA, etc., Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al., Respondents.
    Workmen’s Compensation Act—Hospital Charges.—An injured employee who fails to go to the hospital to which he is sent by the employer’s physician, but goes to another hospital, is not entitled to an award covering hospital services.
    APPLICATION for Writ of Review directed against the Industrial Accident Commission.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    I. F. Chapman, for Petitioner.
    Christopher M. Bradley and E. L. Stockwell, for Respondents.
   STURTEVANT, J., pro tem.

This is an application for a writ of review for the purpose of having annulled an order made by respondents refusing to make an award in behalf of the petitioner covering hospital charges.

About November 9,1917, Rafaelo Cella was injured while in the employment of Producers Hay Company (which is hereinafter referred to as the Company); on the 16th he was told by the Company’s physician to go to the St. Francis Hospital; the petitioner did not do so, but went to St. Joseph’s Hospital, and now claims that he did so through ignorance. In this behalf he alleges that he is an Italian and can neither read, write, nor speak English. However, the fact was clearly established that the petitioner was directed to go to the St. Francis Hospital and the address was given in writing. These facts do not show any neglect or refusal on the part of the Company to furnish the petitioner hospital service. Yet it is clear that the commission could not make an award to petitioner for such services except it be first shown that the Company had neglected or refused to furnish such service. (Stats. 1913, p. 279, sec. 15, subd. a.) The respondent Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction in refusing the petitioner an award. Its order is, therefore, affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Beasly, J., pro tem., concurred. .