TEXAS PAC. COAL & OIL CO. v. MORRISON

TEXAS PAC. COAL & OIL CO. v. MORRISON
1931 OK 166
298 P. 270
148 Okla. 205
Case Number: 21917
Decided: 04/21/1931
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

TEXAS PACIFIC COAL & OIL CO. et al.
v.
MORRISON et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation Law--Settlement Between Parties to Be Approved by Industrial Commission.
Settlement between the parties contemplated by Workmen's Compensation Act, sections 7294 and 7325, C. O. S. 1921, as amended by chapter 61, S. L. 1923, to be binding, must be approved by the Commission.
2. Same--Review of Awards--Conclusiveness of Findings.
The decision of the industrial Commission is final as to all questions of fact, if there is any competent evidence to reasonably support it.

Original action by the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company et al. for review of an order of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Joe Morrison. Affirmed.

John Hancock, C. B. King, and W. A. Delaney, Jr., for petitioners.
J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Robert D. Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

RILEY, J.

¶1 Joe Morrison sustained an accidental injury on December 4, 1929, arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Texas & Pacific Coal & Oil Company. On October 23, 1930, the Commission awarded Morrison compensation for 20 per cent. permanent partial loss of use of his right foot and found that he had been paid for temporary total disability resulting from the accident.

¶2 The employer and insurance carrier contend on review that the Commission erred in refusing to admit in evidence a purported settlement in writing entered into between the employer and employee.

¶3 This settlement did not concern the facts of the injury (section 7294, C. O. S. 1921), but merely the amount of compensation in compromise of the claim. By it the employer agreed to pay the claimant six weeks' compensation (which together with that already paid amounted to 20 weeks) in full settlement for both temporary and permanent disability. It appears that prior to the instant hearing the proposed settlement had been submitted to the Commission and by it disapproved.

¶4 The agreement did not conform to the provisions of the law applicable and there was no error in rejecting its admission in evidence. Dettloff v. Hammond Standish & Co. (Mich.) 161 N.W. 949; Craft v. Gulf Lbr. Co. (La.) 91 So. 736; Central Iron & Coal Co. v. Pennington, 209 Ala. 22, 95 So. 472; Skelly Oil Co. v. Standley, 148 Okla. 77, 297 P. 235.

¶5 It is next contended that there was no evidence to sustain the award of 20 per cent. permanent partial loss of use of Morrison's right foot, but clearly it is shown by the record that there is conflict in the testimony of Dr. Long and Drs. Cummings and Cunningham. In Long's opinion there was 20 per cent. loss of use.