WATCHORN OIL CO. v. PENDERGRASS

WATCHORN OIL CO. v. PENDERGRASS
1936 OK 139
56 P.2d 1170
177 Okla. 21
Case Number: 25914
Decided: 02/04/1936
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

WATCHORN OIL CO. et al.
v.
PENDERGRASS et al.

Syllabus

¶0 STATUTES - Scope of Amendments - Syllabus Adopted.
The syllabus in cause No. 25521, Riverland Oil Company and Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Henry Williams and the State Industrial Commission, decided by this court on February 4, 1936, 176 Okla. 448, 56 P.2d 1167, is hereby adopted as the syllabus herein.

Original action in the Supreme Court by the Watchorn Oil Company et al. to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of H. Pendergrass. Award vacated, with directions.

Pierce, Follens & Rucker, for petitioner.
Leo J. Williams and M.J. Parmenter, for respondents.

BAYLESS, J.

¶1 Watchorn Oil Company, the employer, and its insurance carrier, hereinafter referred to as petitioners, petition this court for a review of an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of H. Pendergrass, an injured employee, hereinafter referred to as respondent.

¶2 No issue concerning the respondent's right to receive compensation is raised, the contentions made going only to the interpretation and application of the law to the admitted facts.

¶3 The respondent was paid compensation for a temporary total disability for a period of time, and the commission then had a hearing to determine the respondent's status and to award compensation accordingly. It was found that the healing period was completed and that the respondent was suffering a 20 per cent. permanent partial disability due to the injuries to his back and hip, which injuries are classified and compensated for under the "other cases" clause of section 13356, O. S. 1931.

¶4 The commission fixed and determined the amount of the award, or the period over which it was run, according to the provisions of section 2, chapter 29, S. L. 1933; that is to say, they awarded him 20 per cent. of total permanent disability or 100 weeks' compensation, instead of determining the loss in his wage-earning capacity and awarding according to section 13356, supra.

¶5 This case is controlled by our opinion in No. 25521, Riverland Oil Co. v. Williams, 176 Okla. 448, 56 P.2d 1167, and it is unnecessary for us to set out herein the reasoning which we gave in that case. The award of the commission in this case is vacated and the matter is remanded to the Industrial Commission to award compensation to the respondent herein in keeping with the rule which we laid down in the above case.