STUMPF v. ALBRIGHT

STUMPF v. ALBRIGHT
1934 OK 20
28 P.2d 991
167 Okla. 156
Case Number: 24298
Decided: 01/16/1934
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

STUMPF
v.
ALBRIGHT et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Review of Awards--Lack of Evidence to Support Finding of Percentage of Disability to Finger.
The finding of the State Industrial Commission that an injured employee sustained 50 per cent. permanent partial disability to a finger, in the absence of any testimony to support this percentage of disability, is set aside and cause remanded to the Commission for further proceedings.

Original action brought in Supreme Court by Julius Stumpf, doing business as the Oklahoma Distributing Company, to review order and award made by the State Industrial Commission in favor of Howard Albright. Award vacated and cause remanded.

C. W. Clift and Ralph H. Schaller, for petitioner.
J. Berry King, Atty., Gen., and Robert D. Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

MCNEILL, J.

¶1 This original proceeding involves the review of an award of the State Industrial Commission. The Commission on November 4, 1932, awarded respondent, an employee of petitioner, compensation for 50 per cent. permanent partial disability of left hand. The evidence does not sustain this percentage for permanent partial disability. Under the admitted expert medical testimony, the partial permanent loss of the use of the finger as result of the accident was approximately 30 per cent.

¶2 Petitioner also urges that the respondent was the only employee of petitioner, and by reason thereof the Commission had no jurisdiction to enter an award under the Workmen's Compensation Law. Suffice it to say that there is evidence to show that there were two workmen at times working in the distributing department of petitioner's business at the time of said injury. This brings the department in which respondent was engaged at the time of his injury within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law. On this question the evidence was conflicting. The Commission found that the injury was compensable and that the occupation was covered by and subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law. There is evidence to support these findings, and the same are binding and conclusive upon this court.

¶3 The award is vacated and the cause is remanded to the Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.