
    [S. F. No. 7262.
    In Bank.
    January 5, 1915.]
    JOSEPH CARDOZA, Petitioner, v. A. J. PILLSBURY et al., Constituting the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California, Respondents.
    Industrial Accident Commission—Review or Proceedings by Supreme Court—Grounds op Review.—The supreme court is not authorized to review the proceedings of the Industrial Accident Commission of the state of California on the grounds either that the findings of the commission are not sustained by the evidence, or that the applicant for the writ of review has discovered new evidence material to him. The commission itself may grant a rehearing on these grounds, (Workmen’s Compensation Act, sec. 82), but the courts are restricted to the grounds stated in section 84 of said act.
    APPLICATION for a Writ to Review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission of the state of California refusing to award the petitioner, an employee of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, any compensation for an accident which he alleged had happened to him, in the course of his employment, on February 5, 1914, on the ground that the evidence presented on behalf of the applicant was insufficient to establish as a fact that any liability lasting beyond the period of two weeks from the fifth day of February, 1914, was proximately caused by the accident, and also to review an order of said commission denying the petitioner a rehearing in the matter of said award. The further facts are stated in the opinion
    Joseph Rafael, for Petitioner.
   THE COURT.

The application for a review by this court of the proceedings of the Industrial Accident Commission of the state of California states no ground upon which this court is authorized to entertain the same. The grounds stated,—namely, that the findings of the commission are not sustained by the evidence, and that the applicant has discovered new evidence material to him, are grounds upon which the commission itself may grant a rehearing (Workmen’s Compensation Act, sec. 82), but the courts are restricted to the grounds stated in section 84 of said act.

The application for a writ is denied for these reasons.  