American Iron & Mach. Works v. Weatherman

• Decision Date: 07 May 1940
• Docket Number: 29574.
• Citation: 102 P.2d 604,187 Okla. 260,1940 OK 231
• Parties: AMERICAN IRON & MACHINE WORKS et al. v. WEATHERMAN et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

102 P.2d 604

187 Okla. 260, 1940 OK 231

AMERICAN IRON & MACHINE WORKS et al. v. WEATHERMAN et al.

No. 29574.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

May 7, 1940

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where an award of the State Industrial Commission is based upon a material finding of fact which is unsupported by any competent evidence this court on review will vacate such award as a matter of law.

2. In the absence of evidence showing that the refusal of an employee to accept tendered medical or surgical treatment was unreasonable, the resulting disability will be attributed to the injury rather than to such refusal.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by the American Iron & Machine Works, employer, and the Insurers Indemnity & Insurance Company, insurance carrier, to obtain a review of an award by the State Industrial Commission in favor of M. M Weatherman, employee.

Award vacated for further proceedings.

Dennis Bushyhead, of Tulsa, and T. A. Aggas, of Oklahoma City, for petitioners.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Smith & Siler, of Oklahoma City (Maurice Speers, of Oklahoma City, of counsel), for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in this court brought by American Iron & Machine Works and its insurance carrier, hereafter referred to as petitioners, to obtain a review of an award which was made on October 28, 1939, by the State Industrial Commission in favor of M. M. Weatherman, hereafter referred to as respondent.

The essential facts as shown by the record are as follows: on November 11, 1938, the respondent caught his index finger in a wrench and crushed the distal phalange. The petitioners furnished immediate medical attention and the attending physicians urged amputation of the injured phalange. The respondent demurred thereto and requested that an effort be made to save the finger and to avoid amputation; that the doctors then treated the injury in a manner calculated to preserve the finger but that it soon became evident that this was not possible and amputation of half of the finger was had on November 14, 1938; that septicemia followed which confined respondent to a hospital for seven weeks and during this time it became necessary to lance and drain the palm of respondent's hand. The petitioners paid compensation for the period of resulting temporary total disability but denied liability for disability resulting other than the 50 per cent loss of the index finger. The respondent attempted to establish a permanent total disability as a result of the injury at the hearings held to determine liability and extent of disability. The evidence was in conflict as to the extent of disability and as a result of these hearings the trial commissioner found that respondent had sustained a 25 per cent permanent partial disability to his hand and awarded compensation in accordance with such finding. The petitioners thereupon appealed the cause to the Commission en banc; it vacated the award which had been made by the trial commissioner and made a finding of a 25 per cent permanent partial disability to the respondent's...