MEAD et al. v. THURMAN et al.

MEAD et al. v. THURMAN et al.
1932 OK 739
16 P.2d 78
160 Okla. 115
Case Number: 23917
Decided: 11/15/1932
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

MEAD et al.
v.
THURMAN et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Review of Awards--Sufficiency of Evidence.
"In an original action in this court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission, this court will not weigh the evidence to determine the weight and value thereof, and where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the judgment and award, the same should and will be affirmed." Fox Rig & Lbr. Co. v. Friar, 146 Okla. 37, 293 P. 230.

Original action in the Supreme Court by Victor Mead and insurance carrier to review order and award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of W. J. Thurman. Award affirmed.

Roy V. Lewis, for petitioners.
J. Berry King, Atty Gen., Robert D. Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen., and W. E. Crowe, for respondents.

McNEILL, J.

¶1 This is a proceeding to review an order and award of the Industrial Commission entered on June 30, 1932. The respondent was employed by petitioner, Victor Mead, contractor, as an assistant carpenter in wrecking and rebuilding certain buildings in Oklahoma City, and, while carrying timber, fell across the sleepers of a building, injuring the right side of his chest and shoulder. The injury was compensable. The Commission found that by reason of this accidental injury respondent was temporarily totally disabled from the performance of ordinary manual labor; that he was suffering from a permanent partial disability, and that his wage-earning capacity by reason of said permanent partial disability had decreased in the same employment or otherwise from $ 4 to $ 2 per day. The Commission made its award for compensation in accordance with said findings.

¶2 The only question presented for the consideration of this court is whether or not the findings and award of the State Industrial Commission are supported by competent evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to set out in detail any of this evidence. An examination of the record shows that there is competent evidence, including expert testimony, to support the findings and award of the Industrial Commission. The Industrial Commission is the finder of the facts. This court does not weigh conflicting evidence in industrial cases.

¶3 Award affirmed.