WILSON & CO. v. NEALY

Annotate this Case

WILSON & CO. v. NEALY
1933 OK 269
21 P.2d 495
163 Okla. 158
Case Number: 23867
Decided: 04/25/1933
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

WILSON & CO.
v.
NEALY

Syllabus

¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Review of Awards--Sufficiency of Evidence.
"An award of the State Industrial Commission will not be disturbed by this court if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the same." Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Jones, 155 Okla. 197, 8 P.2d 751.
2. Same--Award Sustained.
Record examined, and held to show competent evidence reasonably tending to support the award of the State Industrial Commission. Award affirmed.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by Wilson & Company, Inc., to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of T. A. Nealy, claimant. Award affirmed.

Bennett & Bennett, for petitioner.
R. H. Morgan, Leo J. Williams, and M. J. Parmenter, for respondent T. A. Nealy.

CULLISON, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding in this court by Wilson & Co., Inc., of Oklahoma, to review an award of the State Industrial Commission of June 17, 1932, in favor of T. A. Nealy, claimant, and against the petitioner herein.

¶2 The record discloses that claimant was in the employ of petitioner on February 26, 1927, engaged in firing a "dryer," when he received the injuries complained of. The dryer is a steel drum used for burning offal from the packing house, and claimant's duties included firing this drum with coal. While so employed, the flame blew out of the door and burned his face, eyes, arms, and hands. Claimant was given first aid medical treatment by his employer. On March 11, 1927, claimant filed with the Industrial Commission his first notice of injury and claim for compensation. Three days thereafter a stipulation and receipt between the parties was filed with the Commission, whereby claimant was paid $ 20.43, as compensation for temporary total disability. Said payment was approved by an order and award of the Industrial Commission, March 16, 1927.

¶3 Thereafter, on April 1, 1932, claimant filed a motion to reopen his case on the grounds of a change in condition, and on May 12, 1932, amended said motion. Two hearings were had thereon, and on June 17, 1932, the Commission entered its award to claimant, which petitioner prays this court to review.

¶4 Said award reads, in substance, that claimant's injury sustained while working for the petitioner herein comes within the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp. St. 1921, sec. 7282 et seq., as amended) that claimant's average weekly wage when injured was $ 20.40; that claimant was temporarily totally disabled by the accident for one week and three days beyond the five-day waiting period, and had received compensation therefor in the sum of $ 20.42, at the rate of $ 13.62 per week; that claimant had filed his motion to reopen and amended petition to reopen on their respective dates, alleging his permanent partial disability or permanent loss of vision in his eyes by reason of said accidental injury; that claimant had sustained said change in condition as alleged, and now has a 50 per cent. permanent partial disability, or permanent loss of vision, which is due to the accidental injury of February 26, 1927.

¶5 Said award ordered the petitioner herein to pay claimant compensation at the rate of $ 13.62 per week for a period of 250 weeks, or a total sum of $ 3,405, on account of his loss aforesaid, said compensation to be computed and payable from the date of filing claimant's motion to reopen, viz., April 1, 1932, and that under said award this petitioner pay claimant $ 152.09, as accumulated compensation at the above rate, from April 1, 1932, to the date of the award, i. e., June 17, 1932, and continue paying claimant the balance of said award as ordered. The award recites that the foregoing order is based upon section 7290, par. 1, together with subsec. 3 thereof, C. O. S. 1921, as amended by Session Laws 1923 [O. S. 1931. sec. 13356]. Said award fixes the fee of claimant's attorney, and orders claimant to pay the same from compensation received under the award.

¶6 Petitioner contends that:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.