ANDERSON-PRICHARD OIL CORP. et al. v. TERRY et al.

ANDERSON-PRICHARD OIL CORP. et al. v. TERRY et al.
1932 OK 384
11 P.2d 510
157 Okla. 161
Case Number: 22988
Decided: 05/17/1932
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

ANDERSON-PRICHARD OIL CORP. et al.
v.
TERRY et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Review of Awards--Sufficiency of Evidence.
"In an action to review an award and judgment of the State Industrial Commission, this court will not review conflicting evidence and determine the weight and value thereof, and where the judgment and award of the Industrial Commission is supported by competent evidence, the same will not be disturbed by this court on review." Nash Finch Co. v. Harned, 141 Okla. 187, 284 P. 633.

Original action in the Supreme Court by the Anderson-Prichard Oil Corporation et al. to review order and award made by State Industrial Commission in favor of Wesley Terry. Award affirmed.

Clayton B. Pierce and Fred M. Mock, for petitioners.
B. B. Hickman, for respondent.

McNEILL, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of the respondent Wesley Terry, and against the Anderson-Prichard Oil Corporation and its insurance carrier.

¶2 The facts are: The respondent, on December 2, 1930, received an accidental personal injury while employed by petitioner. The nature of the injury was a wrenched hip, caused while pulling on a large wrench on some plugs of a "still" which he was tightening. The injury was compensable.

¶3 The Commission awarded respondent for temporary total disability from December 3, 1930 until July 7, 1931, with the exception of 20 days that respondent worked in June, 1931, and 25 per cent. permanent partial disability as result of injury to left leg. Petitioner urged that there is no evidence to support the award for temporary total disability and the award for permanent partial disability. The finding in reference to temporary total disability and permanent partial disability is a question of fact. We have announced the rule so many times that this court does not weigh conflicting evidence. An examination of this record shows that there is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding of the Commission.

¶4 The award is affirmed.

¶5 HEFNER, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur.