SOUTHWESTERN BREWING CORP. v. COTHRUMAnnotate this Case
SOUTHWESTERN BREWING CORP. v. COTHRUM
1938 OK 607
84 P.2d 609
184 Okla. 63
Case Number: 28418
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
SOUTHWESTERN BREWING CORPORATION et al.
COTHRUM et al.
¶0 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION--Vacation of Award by Supreme Court for Lack of Jurisdiction Upon Confession of Error by Claimant.
In a proceeding before this court attackIng an order of the State Industrial Commission made in favor of an Injured employee, where an assignment sets out the lack of jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission to enter the award, and a confession of error is thereafter filed by the injured employee admitting the lack of jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission, where it appears that the assignment is reasonably supported by the facts, this court may, In its discretion, vacate the award.
Original proceeding, in the Supreme Court by the Southwestern Brewing Corporation et al. to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Ed Cothrum. Award vacated, with directions.
Ames, Cochran, Monnet, Hayes & Ames, for petitioners.
Claud Briggs and Mae Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
¶1 On January 14, 1938, petitioners commenced a proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission entered on December 29. 1937, which, among other things, found that the respondent was entitled to $17.52 per week under the "other cases" provision of section 13356, O. S. 1931, 85 Okla. St. Ann. see. 22; and in the same order found that the. respondent had no wage-earning capacity.
¶2 On October 4, 1938, petitioners filed their brief alleging error in the order, and on October 24, 1938, the answer brief of the respondent was filed in which he confesses error In that the award of the commission is contrary to the pronouncement of this court in Southwestern States Telephone Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 181, Okla. 533, 75 P.2d 468, together with other authorities.
¶3 In Blackburn Construction Co. v. Kennedy, 165 Okla. 66, 24 P.2d 1011, we held, where In a proceeding before this court the order of the State Industrial Commission is attacked, and thereupon the respondent confesses error, this court will examine the record, and where it appears that the assignment of error is reasonably supported by the facts, this court may, in its discretion, vacate the award made by the commission. The allegation of error as confessed is reasonably sustained by an examination of the record.
¶4 The cause is remanded to the State Industrial Commission, with directions to vacate the award and to take further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in the above-mentioned authorities.
¶5 Award vacated, with directions.