CABOT CARBON CO. v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COM. et al.

CABOT CARBON CO. v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COM. et al.
1932 OK 695
15 P.2d 813
159 Okla. 303
Case Number: 23356
Decided: 10/25/1932
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CABOT CARBON CO.
v.
STATE INDUSTRIAL COM. et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. 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. Olen M. Harned, 141 Okla. 187, 284 P. 633.
2. Same--Award for Permanent Partial Disability of Hand Upon Showing of Changed Condition Sustained.
Record examined, and held sufficient to sustain the award of the Commission.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by the Cabot Carbon Company (own risk) to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of J. J. Johnson, claimant. Award affirmed.

R. J. Roberts, for petitioner.
Leo J. Williams, O. E. Siler, and M. J. Parmenter, for the respondent J. J. Johnson.

CULLISON, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding before the Supreme Court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission rendered on January 16, 1932, in favor of J. J. Johnson, claimant.

¶2 The record discloses that the claimant had received an accidental injury while in the employ of petitioner and that he had received payment for loss of finger in said accident. That thereafter claimant filed motion to reopen said cause because of change in condition in his hand resulting from said accidental injury. A hearing was had thereon and the commission found that there had been a change of condition in claimant's hand and that he now had permanent partial disability of said hand and computed the loss at 50 per cent. Compensation was awarded accordingly.

¶3 Petitioner contends in its appeal that there is no competent evidence to support said award.

¶4 We have examined the evidence in said cause and have applied the rules of this court relative to the evidence in such cases as the case at bar, and find that under the rules promulgated by this court there was sufficient evidence introduced at said hearing to support the award of the State Industrial Commission.