Am. Tank Co. v. State Indus. Com
Decision Date | 17 November 1931 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 22661 |
Citation | 1931 OK 705,5 P.2d 137,153 Okla. 117 |
Parties | AMERICAN TANK CO. et al. v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COM. et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1.Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Award for Permanent Partial Disability to Both Hands.
Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is a specific provision for the loss of one hand (subdivision 3, section 7290,C. O. S. 1921, as amended, chapter 61, Session Laws of 1923), and another for the loss of both hands (subdivision 1, section 7290,C. O. S. 1921, as amended), and where it appears the claimant has sustained a permanent partial disability to both hands the award should be based upon subdivision 1, section 7290.Maryland Casualty Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 139 Okla. 302, 282 P. 293.
2. Same.
Where it appears the claimant has sustained a permanent partial disability to both hands, the percentage of loss to each hand, as determined by the Commission, should be added together and divided by two; the quotient will be the percentage of permanent partial disability sustained by claimant for the loss to both hands on the basis of 500 weeks.Oklahoma City v. State Industrial Commission, 147 Okla. 261, 298 P. 577.
3.Same -- Award for Permanent Partial Disability to One Foot.
Where it appears claimant has sustained a permanent partial disability to one member only, the compensation shall be 66 2/3 per centum of the average weekly wages and shall be paid to the employee for the period named in the schedule: for loss of a foot, 150 weeks.Subdivision 3, paragraph 12, sec. 6, ch. 61, Session Laws of 1923.
4.Same--Review of Awards--Sufficiency of Evidence.
"In an action to review an award and judgment of the State Industrial Commission, this court will not review conflicting evidence and determine the weight and value thereof, and where the judgment and award of the Industrial Commission is supported by competent evidence, the same will not be disturbed by this court on review."Nash-Finch Co. v. Harned, 141 Okla. 187, 284 P. 633.
Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by the American Tank Company et al. to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of C. A. Shott.Award affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, with directions.
Keaton, Wells, Johnston & Barnes and B. C. Davidson, for petitioners.
J. L. Gowdy, for respondentC. A. Shott.
¶1 This is an original proceeding before this court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission made and entered July 10, 1931, in favor of the claimant, C. A. Shott.
¶2The claimant was injured August 2, 1930, when a fire under a furnace blew out and inflicted burns upon his head, face, and feet.A hearing was had and the Commission entered its order and award in said cause on July 6, 1931, in favor of claimant.(R. 40, 41, 42)The record further shows that the parties hereto entered into a stipulation by the terms of which claimant had received $ 630 for temporary total disability resulting from said injury, from August 3, 1930, to April 8, 1931.(R. 2.)
¶3 It therefore follows that the question of temporary total disability is eliminated from this discussion.It should also be remembered that claimant on May 2, 1931, filed a motion (which may be designated a claim) in which he says:
No award for left foot was made by the Commission and no contention is raised by either party regarding the same.
¶4 At the close of the hearing, July 6, 1931, the Commission made the following finding of facts, conclusions of law, and order.
¶5Petitioners bring the case to this court for review.Petitioners assign two errors which they designate as propositions 1 and 2, both of which are in fact contained in the first proposition, which reads as follows (R. 10):
"Error of the Commission in holding that the loss of both hands constitutes permanent total disability for which compensation is provided under the law, for a period of 500 weeks, and that section 7290, subsection 1 expresses the proper basis on which the percentage of loss is to be ascertained."
¶6 There has been much discussion by members of the legal profession as to the number of weeks which should be used as a basis in computing percentage allowed claimants in cases arising under the Workmen's Compensation Law where it appears that claim ant has sustained a permanent partial disability to both hands, or feet, or legs, or eyes.
¶7This court has many times held that: Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is a specific provision for the loss of one hand (subdivision 3, section 7290,C. O. S. 1921, as amended) and another for the loss of both hands (subdivision 1. sec. 7290,C. O. S. 1921, as amended).And where it appears the claimant has sustained a permanent partial disability to both hands, the award should be based upon subdivision 1, sec. 6, c. 61, Session Laws 1923, which relates to permanent total disability of the members therein enumerated, which reads, in part:
"In case of total disability adjudged to be permanent, 66 2/3 per centum of the average weekly wages shall be paid to the employee during the continuance of such total disability not exceeding 500 weeks."
SeeMaryland Casualty Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 139 Okla. 302, 282 P. 293;Capital Drilling Co. v. Cole, 143 Okla. 279, 288 P. 473;Oklahoma City v. State Industrial Commission, 147 Okla. 261, 298 P. 577; and many other cases.
¶8This court in determining the number of weeks upon which an award should be based, holds: Where it appears the claimant has sustained a permanent partial disability to both hands, the percentage of loss to each hand, as determined by the Commission, should be added together, and divided by two; the quotient will be the percentage of the permanent partial disability sustained by claimant for the loss to both hands, on the basis of 500 weeks.
¶9 The compensation allowed by the Commission for permanent partial disability sustained by claimant to both hands based on 500 weeks is affirmed.
¶10Petitioners further contend:
"The award is erroneous in that it allows 10 per cent. loss of use of claimant's...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Stoldt Builders, Inc. v. Thomas
...a 'scheduled' or specific injury to a member and is compensated on the basis of disability to the foot. American Tank Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 153 Okl. 117, 5 P.2d 137, 139; and Merrick et al. v. Blackman et al., 201 Okl. 553, 207 P.2d 942, 943. The back is not classified or 'sch......
-
Loffland Bros. Drilling Co. v. State Indus. Comm'n
...award upon the basis of 500 weeks under section 7290, C. O. S. 1921 (as amended by Laws 1923, c. 61, sec. 6). American Tank Co. v. Industrial Comm., 153 Okla. 117, 5 P. (2d) 137; Barnsdall Refining Co. v. Ramsdall, 149 Okla. 99, 299 P. 499. Original action in the Supreme Court by the Loffla......
-
Elk City Cotton Oil Co. v. State Indus. Com'n
... ... Prior ... to the decision in the case of Porter v. Sinclair Prairie ... Co., supra, there had not been a departure from the rule so ... announced for computing an award where there is a partial ... loss of use of more than one specific member. See ... American Tank Company v. State Industrial ... Commission, 153 Okl. 117, 5 P.2d 137; Dolese Bros ... Co. v. Roberts, 155 Okl. 198, 8 P.2d 756; Loffland ... Bros. Drilling Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 157 ... Okl. 78, 10 P.2d 1096; Barnsdall Refining Co. v ... Ramsdall, 149 Okl. 99, 299 P. 499; ... ...
-
Nuway Laundry Co. v. Hacker
...below his knee and was hence compensable on the basis of disability to the foot rather than to the leg. American Tank Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 153 Okl. 117, 5 P.2d 137, 139; Merrick v. Blackman, 201 Okl. 553, 207 P.2d 942, 943. An injured workman may not be foreclosed from additi......