PIERCE COAL CO. v. LANKFORD et al.

PIERCE COAL CO. v. LANKFORD et al.
1932 OK 576
16 P.2d 90
160 Okla. 281
Case Number: 23234
Decided: 07/27/1932
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PIERCE COAL CO.
v.
LANKFORD et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Review of Awards--Sufficiency of Evidence.
An award of the State Industrial Commission sustained by any competent evidence will not be disturbed on petition to review.

Original proceeding by the Pierce Coal Company to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Martin Lankford. Award for compensation affirmed, and order to pay medical attendance vacated.

W. H. Moore and Frank D. McSherry, for petitioner.
Babb & Bennett, Bob Perdue, and Irl Babb, for respondents.

SWINDALL, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission. It is admitted that on the 4th day of May, 1929, the respondent received an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that he was awarded compensation in the sum of $ 15 for temporary disability. He returned to work on May 14, 1929. On February 5, 1931, he was awarded compensation for $ 200 for serious and permanent disfigurement. On December 2, 1931, respondent was awarded compensation in the sum of $ 900 for 50 per cent. loss of vision of his right eye, and it was further ordered by the Commission that the petitioner pay all reasonable medical expenses incurred by respondent by reason of said injury.

¶2 The petitioner presents his cause to this court upon two propositions: (1) There is no competent evidence to sustain the finding of permanent loss of 50 per cent. of vision in the right eye as a result of said accidental personal injury; and (2) that there is no proof of any medical expense incurred by Martin Lankford as a result of said accidental injury. We have carefully examined the record in this case, and find that there is some competent evidence to sustain the award, and it is well settled in this jurisdiction that an award of the State Industrial Commission sustained by any competent evidence will not be disturbed on petition to review. The award for compensation is therefore affirmed. It is conceded by the respondent that there is no competent evidence relative to medical attendance, and the award for medical attendance is vacated.