SKELLY OIL CO. v. WITTY

SKELLY OIL CO. v. WITTY
1947 OK 107
179 P.2d 119
198 Okla. 384
Case Number: 32556
Decided: 04/01/1947
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus

¶0 1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - Duty of Industrial Commission to make specific findings of fact as well as conclusions of law.
It is the duty of the State Industrial. Commission to make specific findings of the ultimate facts responsive to the issues as well as the conclusions of law upon which an order is made granting or denying an award of compensation to a claimant.
2. SAME - Order vacated where findings and conclusions too indefinite for judicial interpretation.
Where the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the State Industrial Commission are too indefinite and uncertain for judicial interpretation, this court, on appeal, will vacate the order for further proceedings.

Original action in the Supreme Court by the Skelly Oil Company to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Orville Witty. Award vacated.

C.L. Swim and Hawley C. Kerr (W.P.Z. German, of counsel), all of Tulsa, for petitioner.

Sam Y. Colby, of Madill, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is an original petition filed by Skelly Oil Company to review an award made to claimant, Orville Witty, for compensation for an injury received by claimant while employed by petitioner.

¶2 In this case the Industrial Commission found that claimant was engaged in a hazardous employment covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law, but did not set forth in its order the particular hazardous employment in which claimant was engaged, that is, whether the claimant herein was employed in a wholesale mercantile establishment, transfer or storage, or whether the place of work constituted a workshop. It is said that claimant was working in the "retail marketing department" of petitioner, but the record indicates rather vaguely that sales of its products were in sizable bulk to various filling stations, and whether said stations were operated directly by the company, or by lessees or operators or agents, is not clearly discernible from the record.

¶3 After a careful consideration of the record herein we are of the opinion that the order of the commission should be vacated and the cause remanded to the commission for further proceedings, to the end that the record may be clarified by further evidence, if necessary, and by specific finding of the character of employment found by the commission to be hazardous. See Corzine v. Compress, 196 Okla. 259, 164 P.2d 625.

¶4 Award vacated.

¶5 HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, WELCH, GIBSON. and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.