WILLIAMS BROS. v. STATE INDUS. COMM'NAnnotate this Case
WILLIAMS BROS. v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N
1933 OK 267
21 P.2d 487
163 Okla. 155
Case Number: 23377
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Williams Bros., Inc.
State Industrial Com.
¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Review of Awards--Sufficiency of Conflicting 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.
2. Same--Sufficiency of Claim Filed--Exactness in Description of Injury not Required.
"Exact precision is not required in describing the nature and extent of accidental injury in a claim of an injured employee filed with the State Industrial Commission. It is sufficient if it states in ordinary language the nature and cause of the injury. * * *" Gypsy Oil Co. v. Jackson, 158 Okla. 139, 12 P.2d 694.
3. Same--Award for Permanent Partial Disability Sustained.
Record examined, and held to sustain the award of the State Industrial Commission.
Original proceeding in the Supreme Court to review an order and award of the State Industrial Commission made in favor of R. Barnett, claimant. Award affirmed.
Gibson, Maxey & Holleman, for petitioner.
Cooke & Jackson and A. L. Jeffrey, for respondent R. Barnett.
J. Berry King, Atty. Gen. and Robert D. Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent State Industrial Commission.
¶1 This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission of February 3, 1932, in favor of R. Barnett, claimant, as against Williams Bros., Inc., petitioner herein.
¶2 The record discloses that on August 25, 1930, claimant sustained an accidental injury to his back, arising out of and in the course of his employment with petitioner herein to remove rocks from a pipe line ditch. Claim for compensation was filed with the Industrial Commission October 15, 1930. Fifteen days later the Commission made an order approving the payment of $ 48.73 to claimant for temporary total disability. Motion to reopen was filed February 2, 1931, a hearing had thereon, pursuant to which the Commission made its further order of April 6, 1931, awarding claimant $ 212.89, as compensation for temporary total disability since the injury.
¶3 This order was amended on May 5, 1931, to include the words "less any compensation heretofore paid." Thereafter, a second motion to reopen was filed August 17, 1931, upon which two hearings were had, but no order entered. On January 7, 1932, a supplemental motion to reopen was filed by claimant, upon which two hearings were had, at the conclusion of which the Commission entered its order and award of February 3, 1932, which is made the subject of this proceeding to review. Said award sustains claimant's motion to reopen of August 17, 1931, and finds that claimant has sustained a permanent partial disability by reason of the injury in the amount of 5 per cent. of 300 weeks, or 15 weeks, on account of a change of condition of claimant after said temporary total disability ceased, and ordered petitioner herein to pay claimant said compensation, amounting to $ 230.85. No question is raised as to the basis of the award, and this court is not determining it. Petitioner, in its petition for review, sets forth ten assignments of error, which are presented under four general propositions. Petitioner's first contention is that the Commission erred in making any award for the reason that claimant failed to submit to medical examination, under section 7293, C. O. S. 1921 (section 13359, O. S. 1931). Said section provides, in substance, that any injured employee claiming compensation shall, if requested by the Industrial Commission, submit himself for medical examination. It further provides that if such claimant refuses, his right to prosecute his claim shall be suspended, and no compensation shall be payable for the period of such refusal.
¶4 Petitioner's fourth and final proposition is that the Industrial Commission was without jurisdiction to make an award based upon an injury caused by being struck in the back by a rock, for the reason that no claim was ever filed for such injury within one year thereafter.
¶5 The record shows that claimant filed his first "Employee's First Notice of Injury and Claim for Compensation" with the Commission October 17, 1930, within two months following the injury, in which he describes the cause of the accident as "lifting heavy rock out of ditch," and that he filed another such notice with the Commission January 30, 1931, within five months after the injury, stating that a rock rolled down on claimant, injuring his spine. Claimant reiterates the latter cause of the injury in his motion to reopen, filed February 2, 1931. It appears from the record that claimant filed a claim for an injury caused by a falling rock within one year following the injury. Howbeit, whether claimant's back was injured by strain, or falling rock, there is no doubt as to what part of claimant's body was injured, and petitioner's objection is answered fully by this court in Skelly Oil Co. v. Standley, 148 Okla. 77, 297 P. 235; Earl W. Baker & Co. v. Maples, 155 Okla. 105, 8 P.2d 46; Gypsy Oil Co. v. Jackson, 158 Okla. 139, 12 P.2d 694.
¶6 The award is affirmed.