Anschutz v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

• Decision Date: 01 July 1940
• Docket Number: No. 19712.,19712.
• Citation: 142 S.W.2d 110
• Parties: ANSCHUTZ v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

142 S.W.2d 110

ANSCHUTZ v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO.

No. 19712.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

July 1, 1940.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Brown Harris, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by John R. Anschutz, claimant, opposed by the Phillips Petroleum Company, employer. From a judgment affirming an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission denying compensation, claimant appeals.

Affirmed.

R. J. Holmden, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Don Emery and R. L. Foster, both of Bartlesville, Okl., and H. H. Booth and John H. Haley, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

SPERRY, Commissioner.

This is a workmen's compensation case. John R. Anschutz, claimant, sought compensation against Phillips Petroleum Company, defendant. The Commission's award was against claimant and in favor of defendant. Claimant appealed to circuit court where the award of the Commission was affirmed. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

On an appeal from an award of the Workmen's Commission, in a case of this kind, the court is limited to the determination on one question only, to-wit: "Does the record contain sufficient competent evidence to support the order made by the Commission?" Stepaneck v. Mark Twain Hotel, Mo.App., 104 S.W.2d 761, loc. cit. 762; Erwin v. Railway Express Agency, Mo.App., 128 S.W.2d 1077, loc. cit. 1078. Of course if there should be a pure question of law involved such question would be considered by the court; but the court has no power to weigh the evidence. Erwin v. Railway Express Agency, supra. The circuit court on review, is bound to believe the evidence in the record that tends to support the award, to draw all reasonable inference therefrom favorable to such award, and to disregard the evidence contradictory thereto. Erwin v. Railway Express Agency, supra, and authorities there cited. On appeal to this court we will determine whether or not the circuit court has followed the above rule in its review of the case.

There was substantial evidence offered, of probative force, tending to establish the following facts: That the Independent Oil & Gas Company, a Delaware Corporation, hereafter known as Independent, was operating a refinery in Kansas City, Kansas; that such corporation never, at any time, operated in the state of Missouri, nor ever had any employees working in this state; that claimant, a citizen of Missouri, went to the office of Independent, in the state of Kansas, and there filled out and filed, on Independent's regular form provided for that purpose, an application for employment, such application being filed in the early part of August, 1933; that on August 30, 1933, one Bickford, an operating foreman of Independent, and who had no power to employ men, sent a message to claimant to come over and go to work; that claimant at said time was employed by Wilson & Company; that claimant received said message and went to the plant in Kansas, where he was given a physical examination on that date; that Independent hired no men until after a physical examination had been had and approved by its physician, Dr. Nesselrode; that the medical examination was had on August 30, 1933; that final approval of employment contracts were made in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, but that one J. W. Mitchell, superintendent of Independent, had power to tentatively employ men; that claimant worked but one day, eight hours, at 35 cents per hour, in August, 1933.

The inferences favorable to the award, as gleaned from these facts, are as follows: Claimant did not become an employee until after physical examination on August 30th; his employment contract was actually made in the state of Kansas; he actually did no work until August 31, 1933, the next day after he was physically examined; and the contract of employment was entered into by a Missouri citizen, in the state of Kansas, with a corporation then engaged in business in that state, and which corporation was never engaged in business in Missouri, nor had ever had any employees working for it in the state...