BRADSHAW v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N

Annotate this Case

BRADSHAW v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N
1942 OK 271
127 P.2d 802
191 Okla. 223
Case Number: 30467
Decided: 07/07/1942
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

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 § I 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 obtain review of award of trial commissioner of the State Industrial Commission holding petitioner jointly liable with another in an award made in favor of W. L. Lovall Award sustained.

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

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is an original proceeding brought by L. R. Bradshaw, petitioner, to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of W. L. Lovall, and having been combined in the Industrial Commission for trial and considered in this court on appeal with the proceeding by Bradshaw to review an award in favor of Jesse Eslick, 191 Okla. 222, 127 P.2d 801, this day decided, the issues presented in this case are controlled by the decision in that case, and the award is hereby sustained.

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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.