ROFTIS v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N

ROFTIS v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N
1926 OK 738
257 P. 765
125 Okla. 293
Case Number: 17011
Decided: 09/21/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

ROFTIS
v.
STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation Law--Time for Appeal from Awards.
Section 7297, C. O. S. 1921, as amended by S. L. 1923, ch. 61, sec. 8, provides for a review in the Supreme Court of a decision of the State Industrial Commission, and under such provision said action must be filed in this court within 30 days after notice of the award or decision of the Industrial Commission has been sent to the parties affected.
2. Same--Dismissal of Petition Filed After Time for Proceedings.
The petition to review the award of the Industrial Commission not having been filed in this court within 30 days after notice of the award or decision of the Commission had been sent to the parties affected, this court cannot acquire jurisdiction, and the action will be dismissed. Knowles v. Whitehead Oil Co. et al., 121 Okla. 55, 247 P. 653.

Action to review a decision of the State Industrial Commission.

Action by Steve Roftis against the Pan American Refining Company et al. to recover additional payments for injuries received. Petition for rehearing denied by the Industrial Commission. Action for review dismissed.

E. R. Powers, for petitioners.
M. E. Jordan and Lydick & McPherren, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is an action to review a decision of the State Industrial Commission made January 9, 1925, wherein the Commission approved a joint petition filed by the parties herein, asking that the claimant be allowed $ 2,000 in final and full payment for injuries received while employed by the respondent.

¶2 A petition for rehearing was filed with the Commission by the claimant on August 8, 1925, and hearing held thereon at Sapulpa, Okla., on September 17, 1925. On November 2, 1925, the Commission sustained an objection, made by the respondent, to the introduction of any testimony in support of the petition for rehearing for the reason that the Commission had approved a final settlement on joint petition. Thereafter, on December 1, 1925, the Commission overruled a motion to vacate the order denying the petition for rehearing. This action was commenced in this court on May 25, 1926, to review the decision of the Commission, almost six months after the Commission's final order, and approximately 16 months after the decision of the Commission.

"Section 7297, C. O. S. 1921, as amended by S. L. 1923, ch. 61, sec. 8, provides for a review in the Supreme Court of an award or decision of the State Industrial Commission, and under such provision said action for review must be filed in this court within 30 days after notice of the award or decision of the Industrial Commission has been sent to the parties affected."