MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. v. CLOW

Annotate this Case

MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. v. CLOW
1933 OK 335
22 P.2d 378
163 Okla. 302
Case Number: 23679
Decided: 05/23/1933
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO.
v.
CLOW

Syllabus

¶0 Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Disability Requiring Medical Testimony to Determine Cause and Extent.
Where, in a proceeding before the Industrial Commission, the disability alleged to exist is of such character as to require skilled and professional men to determine the cause and extent thereof, the question is one of science and must necessarily be proved by the testimony of skilled professional persons.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by the Magnolia Petroleum Company to review and vacate an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Theo W. Clow, claimant. Award vacated.

B. B. Blakeney, Hubert Ambrister, and W. R. Wallace, for petitioner.
J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., Robert D. Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Carl D. McGee, for respondents.

BUSBY, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding in this court instituted by the Magnolia Petroleum Company which seeks to review and vacate an award of the State Industrial Commission rendered in favor of Theo. W. Clow, the respondent herein, who was the claimant in the industrial court. The parties will be referred to as claimant and respondent, respectively, as they appeared before the State Industrial Commission.

¶2 The award sought to be vacated was ordered by the Commission on the 25th day of April, 1932. The Commission found that the claimant was, on the 25th day of April, 1928, employed by the respondent, the Magnolia Petroleum Company, in a hazardous occupation covered by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Laws, and that on that date he sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment by having a piece of steel strike him in the throat. The Commission found that as a result of that accidental injury the claimant suffered a temporary total disability for a period of 50 weeks beginning October 17, 1929, and awarded him compensation in accordance with such finding for the sum of $ 900. The respondent urges that "the award is contrary to law and that there is no competent evidence in the testimony or the record to support the finding of the Commission." In this connection the respondent invokes the rule announced by this court to the effect where the injury complained of is of such a character as to require skilled and professional men to determine the cause and extent thereof, the question is one of science and must necessarily be proved by the testimony of skilled professional men. St. Louis Mining & Smelting Co. et al. v. State Industrial Commission et al., 113 Okla. 179, 241 P. 170. Also Shepard et al. v. Crumby et al., 146 Okla. 118, 293 P. 1049. It appears from an examination of the record that claimant filed his claim seeking to obtain compensation before the State Industrial Commission on January 9, 1929, stating that he had been injured by being struck in the throat by a piece of steel on April 25, 1928, and that he suffered considerable pain from the presence of the steel in his throat and also a limitation of the movement of his head and neck and that such condition was growing worse. The record discloses that a short time after the accident he visited a physician of his own choice, who on January 22, 1929, filed a report with the Commission which stated: "I did not treat this man. I probed the wound and failed to find any steel; don't think there was any there. It occurred to me to be a frame-up. Any assistance I can render to correct this for you please call on me."

¶3 It is therefore the opinion of this court that the award of the Industrial Commission should be vacated and the Commission may take such other and further proceedings as are not inconsistent with the views herein announced.