LIPSCOMB v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N

Annotate this Case

LIPSCOMB v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N
1948 OK 19
188 P.2d 841
199 Okla. 597
Case Number: 33406
Decided: 01/20/1948
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus

¶0 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - Under 85 O. S. 1941 § 29, proceeding to review award must be commenced within 20 days after copy of award or decision is sent to parties affected.
Under 85 O. S. 1941 § 29, an original proceeding to vacate an award of the State Industrial Commission must be commenced within 20 days after a copy of such award or decision has been sent by the said Commission to the parties affected; held, that a proceeding commenced after said 20 days has expired will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by Alsey Bradford Lipscomb to review an order denying an award in which the Goodyear Service Store, employer, and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, insurer, are respondents. Proceeding dismissed.

Washington & Thompson, of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Edgar Fenton, of Oklahoma City and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is a proceeding brought by petitioner, Alsey Bradford Lipscomb, to review an order denying an award made by the State Industrial Commission in a proceeding in which Goodyear Service Store, the employer, and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company its insurer, were respondents. The order from which the proceeding was prosecuted was entered on the 10th day of November, 1947. The Secretary of the State Industrial Commission certified that a copy of said order was sent to the parties affected on the 12th day of November, 1947.

¶2 A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the proceeding was not filed in this court until December 5, 1947. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. In Hurley v. State Highway Commission, 186 Okla. 79, 96 P.2d 301, we held that under the provisions of 85 O.S. 1941 § 29, a proceeding to vacate an order or award of the State Industrial Commission must be commenced within 20 days after a copy of such award or decision has been sent by the commission to the parties affected.

¶3 Since the proceeding was not commenced in time, it must be and is hereby dismissed.

¶4 HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, CORN, GIBSON, and LUTTRELL, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.