Ragos v. Industrial Accident Commission

This is a proceeding on the petition of Edward Ragos for a review of an award against

The matter was first heard before Letus N. Crowell, referee, on April 20, 1926, and his decision in favor of Mrs. Schroeder, and against both Ragos and Mrs. Allen, was approved and award made by the Commission on April 29th. Thereafter, on the petition of Ragos and Mrs. Allen, a rehearing was granted to consider further whether both were the employers or only one; and on July 26, 1926, the parties and their witnesses were examined at length before A. B. Harris, referee, after which the Commission, on September 15, 1926, re-adopted the original findings and reaffirmed the award previously made against both Ragos and Mrs. Allen.

Ragos was the owner of an apartment house in Long Beach, containing twenty-five apartments and known as the Ward Apartments. The house and the furniture had been leased to a tenant named Morris, whose management, after a trial of a few weeks, proved unsuccessful; and before the injury to Mrs. Schroeder, Ragos had resumed possession and had made some business arrangement regarding the premises with his mother-in-law, Mrs. Allen. Mrs. Allen testified that she had bought the furniture from Ragos, while Ragos said he had leased the building with the furniture to Mrs. Allen; and there was introduced in evidence a lease bearing date December 12, 1925, which is in terms a lease for one year of the apartment house with its furnishings and furniture at a rental of $350 a month. Under previous tenants the

Mrs. Sehroeder had been an occupant of one of the apartments for about two years, and earned her living by doing housework by the day at the rate of fifty cents per hour. She was directly hired by Mrs. Allen, and, according to Mrs. Sehroeder’s testimony, she had been continuously at work cleaning the various apartments for at least a week before the injury occurred. Her testimony is that while she was engaged in apartment number 21, on December 22, 1925, cleaning a heavy window which had had new panes inserted, but the cords of which were either lacking or defective, the sash fell upon her right hand with such force that she fainted, and, as the award states, thereby suffered a contusion of the third and fourth metacarpal bones, followed by, or resulting in, traumatic neuritis and dermatitis. There is a further finding that the injury caused temporary total disability of continuance still indefinite, and compensation was awarded in the amounts stated.

There is considerable conflict in the testimony, and so great is the variance on material points that there is reason to believe that the Commission discredited the testimony of both Ragos and Mrs. Allen. Not only did both deny that Mrs. Sehroeder had done work in apartment 21, but Mrs. Allen further denied that Mrs. Sehroeder had been employed at all on December 22d, and insisted that she had been hurt while doing her own work in her own apartment.

[1] Doubt of the genuineness of the lease between Ragos and Mrs. Allen is expressed by the attorney for the Conunis

The evidence shows that on the day following the injury Ragos suggested that Mrs. Schroeder consult Dr. Tollesen, and gave her his own card, on which he wrote the doctor’s name and address. Upon this suggestion Mrs. Schroeder then placed herself under Dr. Tollesen’s treatment, which continued for twenty-one days; and Dr. Tollesen in his testimony said that the Ward Apartments promised to pay his bill. Moreover, while Mrs. Allen ordinarily directed Mrs. Schroeder as to the work for each day, there is some evidence also that on one occasion, shortly before the injury, Ragos directed her to clean the kitchen floor in an apartment where he was about to lay linoleum.

[2] It is not the function of the court in a proceeding of this character to determine the credibility of the witnesses or the weight to be attached to their testimony. [3] Its jurisdiction is limited strictly to determining whether, with the inferences fairly deducible from the evidence, there is sufficient to support the findings and the award of the Commission ; and where either of two reasonable opposing inferences may be drawn, the Commission is the final arbiter. (Walker v. Industrial Acc. Com., 177 Cal. 737 [L. R. A. 1918F, 212, 171 Pac. 954 ]; Eastman v. Industrial Acc. Com., 186 Cal. 587 [ 200 Pac. 17 ]; Tartar v. Industrial Acc. Com., 191 Cal. 703 [ 218 Pac. 39 ].) After a careful reading of the record we conclude that the rule applied in Gray v. Industrial Acc. Com., 34 Cal. App. 713 , 714, 715 [ 168 Pac. 702 ],

The award is affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

An application by petitioner to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 21, 1927.

Curtis, J., dissented.