C. E. REYNOLDS DRILLING CO. v. PHILLIPS

C. E. REYNOLDS DRILLING CO. v. PHILLIPS
1933 OK 234
22 P.2d 111
163 Okla. 170
Case Number: 23522
Decided: 04/18/1933
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

C. E. REYNOLDS DRILLING CO.
v.
PHILLIPS

Syllabus

¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Award Upon Showing of Changed Condition--Apportionment of Award Against Two Employers Where Claimant Suffered Second Injury.
A workman is injured while engaged in employment covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law; after recovery or supposed recovery, the workman is employed by another; while so employed he receives another compensable accidental injury; is awarded compensation from each employer for the separate injuries; the award is paid under stipulation and agreement on forms prescribed by the State Industrial Commission; thereafter a change of condition arises under which the cause may be reopened, held, it is proper for the Commission to inquire whether the disability found to exist under such changed condition is attributable to the one or the other, or both or neither, of the two accidental injuries. Where such disability is found to be attributable in part to each of such injuries, it is proper to apportion an award against the two employers in the proportion that the disability attributable to each of the two injuries bears to the whole disability found to exist.
2. Same--Review of Award--Conclusiveness of Finding as to Amount of Disability Attributable to Each Injury.
In such case the amount of disability attributable to each of the two accidental injuries is a question of fact to be determined by the Commission from the evidence, and the findings of the Commission thereon will not be disturbed where there is evidence reasonably tending to support the same.
3. Same--Industrial Commission Held Clothed With Continuing Jurisdiction to Reopen Case Under Approved Stipulation and Agreement.
Where an award is made under and by virtue of a stipulation and agreement prepared under section 7294, C. O. S. 1921, as amended by section 7, ch. 61. S. L. 1923 [O. S. 1931, sec. 13360] where the agreement specifically provides "that in the event a change of condition occurs or arises, the same shall not be final, but may be reopened and reviewed as provided by section 7296, C. O. S. 1921," the Commission in approving same is without power to make a final order such as would deprive it of further jurisdiction over any claim for the same injury or any results arising from same.
4. Same--Award Sustained.
Record examined and held: That is evidence reasonably tending to support the findings and award of the State Industrial Commission.

Original action by the C. E. Reynolds Drilling Company and insurance carrier for review of order and award of State Industrial Commission in favor of C. S. Phillips. Affirmed.

Randolph, Haver, Shirk & Bridges, for petitioners.
Carmon C. Harris, for respondents.

RILEY, C. J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission.

¶2 All the questions of law involved in this case, except one, were involved in the case of Denver Producing & Refining Company et al. v. C. S. Phillips et al., No. 23479, 163 Okla. 106, 21 P.2d 42, this day decided.

¶3 The evidence in this case is substantially the same as the evidence in the companion case, except that the testimony of the expert witnesses offered by the petitioners herein tends strongly to attribute the disability of claimant to the first rather than the second accidental injury. In all other respects the evidence is substantially the same. The holding in the Denver Producing and Refining Company Case, supra, is followed herein.

¶4 The other question involved is the contention that the State Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction in the case for the reason that the parties on October 17, 1930, entered into a final and complete settlement within the meaning of section 7325, C. O. S. 1921.

¶5 The contention is not well taken. The agreement upon which the alleged final settlement was had was not a joint petition as contemplated and provided for in section 7325, supra. It is upon form 14, prescribed by the Commission, and is an agreement contemplated by section 7294, C. O S. 1921, as amended by section 7, ch. 61, S. L. 1923 [O. S. 1931, Sec. 13360]. It specifically provides:

"It is a condition, however, of this agreement that in the event a change in condition occurs or arises, that the same shall not be final, but may be reopened and reviewed as provided by Section 7296, C. O. S. 1921."

¶6 It is apparent that this is not a petition for a final settlement and final award, which if made and approved by the Commission would deprive the Commission of further jurisdiction over any claim for the same injury or any results arising from the same. The agreement itself refutes the claim of petitioners in that it specifically provides for reopening the case in the event a change of condition occurs or arises, and that in such event the same shall not be final.

¶7 The State Industrial Commission was without power or jurisdiction to make a final order contemplated by section 7325, supra, upon the agreement thus made.

¶8 The petition is denied and the award is affirmed.