BRADSHAW v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N

BRADSHAW v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N
1942 OK 270
127 P.2d 801
191 Okla. 222
Case Number: 30468
Decided: 07/07/1942
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BRADSHAW
v.
STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION--Existence of essential relation of employer and employee as question of law for court.
The first prerequisite to recovery of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (85 O. S. 1941 § 1 et seq.) is that the relation of master and servant or employer and employee within the meaning of the Compensation Act be shown to exist at the time of the injury, and as to whether or not the facts as disclosed by the record established the existence of such relation within the meaning of the Compensation Law is a question of law for the court.
2. SAME--Nature and extent of disability as question of fact--Conclusiveness of finding.
The nature and extent of a disability which results from an accidental injury is a question of fact for the determination of the State Industrial Commission, and if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the finding, an award based thereon will not be disturbed on review.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by L. R. Bradshaw to review an award of the State Industrial Commission to Jesse Thomas Eslick. Award sustained.

Arnold T. Fleig, of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.
Reily & Reily, of Shawnee, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is a proceeding brought to review an award made to Jesse Thomas Eslick, hereinafter called respondent, for a temporary total disability and a permanent partial disability to a specific member, said award being made under date of June 27, 1941.

¶2 The respondent was injured on the 3rd day of January, 1941, and filed his first notice of injury and claim for compensation on the 1st day of February, 1941. At the date of the accidental injury he was demolishing a building in Earlsboro, Okla. He was injured by a falling rock wall and suffered a broken heel, a dislocated ankle, and a sprained wrist. The award was made jointly against L. R. Bradshaw and Elza Evans. Petitioner herein is L. R. Bradshaw, who prosecutes this proceeding alone. Petitioner presents three propositions.

¶3 It is first urged that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the finding that the relation of employer and employee existed between the respondent and petitioner. The accidental injury is admitted. Aside from the admission of L. R. Bradshaw to the respondent, in which admission it is stated that Bradshaw had an interest in the tearing down of the building, petitioner took respondent to the hospital; he also sent money to the respondent. Bradshaw's father-in-law was foreman superintending the destruction of the building, and there are other facts and circumstances tending to support the finding of the State Industrial Commission. We find sufficient evidence of the relationship of employer and employee between L. R. Bradshaw and the respondent. Mastin v. Black, 176 Okla. 46, 54 P.2d 399.

¶4 The second proposition is that the State Industrial Commission erred in finding that the employment of respondent was hazardous. It comes within the building construction covered by 85 O. S. 1941 § 3.

¶5 The third proposition is that there is no competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding as to the degree and extent of disability. As above stated, the accidental injury is admitted. Respondent was treated for his injuries and given medical attention, and competent medical expert witnesses testified that the respondent had a 50 per cent disability to the injured member. There is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding as to the nature and extent of the disability. Southern Ice & Utilities Co. v. Barra, 178 Okla. 291, 62 P.2d 988.

¶6 These are the three propositions presented by the petitioner. Finding no error in the award, the same is sustained.

¶7 WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., " and RILEY, OSBORN, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. BAYLESS and GIBSON, JJ., dissent. HURST and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.