POLLOCK v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA (1935)

An award of compensation on account of disability resulting from an industrial injury was made by the Industrial Accident Commission in favor of petitioner, against the insurance carrier of petitioner's employer. The indemnity company (insurance carrier), on request by petitioner, paid certain installments of the award by depositing those sums to the credit of petitioner in a savings account which petitioner had opened with a building and loan association. At all times of the foregoing transactions, petitioner was a minor under the age of 18 years. His age is now only twenty years.

Seeking to disaffirm or repudiate the payments thus made (the building and loan institution having become insolvent), petitioner made application to the commission for an order directing the insurance carrier to account for and pay over to petitioner or to his guardian ad litem, the amount thus claimed as owing under said award and remaining unpaid. The commission having made its order denying said petition, the claimant applies to this court for a writ of review of said order.

The application as made to the commission did not call for any modification of the award. If, as claimed by petitioner, the amount due under the award remains unpaid, the procedure for collection would be as provided by section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1917 (St. 1917, p. 851). Under that procedure, judgment upon the award is entered in the superior court, and execution thereon may issue. Vickich v. Superior Court, 105 Cal. App. 587, 288 P. 127. If the award to which the present proceeding applies had the form of an order other than one requiring the payment of an ascertained sum of money, it might be necessary for the commission to make some further order, such as was made in the Blankenhorn Case (S. F. No. 12404 of the Supreme Court), referred to in United States Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 207 Cal. 144, 152, 277 P. 492. The claim being thus reduced to a form which could be followed by judgment and execution, the remedy would be clear and complete. In the present case, however, no such intermediate procedure by the commission is necessary.

As first herein stated, applicant's petition asked for an order that the insurance carrier pay any unpaid part of the award. But such order, even if granted, would add nothing to the terms of the award, containing the same order. Llewellyn Iron Works v. Ind. Acc. Commission, 129 Cal. App. 449, 453, 18 P.(2d) 975.

The petition for writ of review is denied.

CONREY, Presiding Justice.

We concur: HOUSER, J.; YORK, J.