Corzine v. Compress

• Decision Date: 18 December 1945
• Docket Number: 31529.
• Citation: 164 P.2d 625,196 Okla. 259,1945 OK 345
• Parties: CORZINE v. COMPRESS et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

164 P.2d 625

196 Okla. 259, 1945 OK 345

CORZINE v. COMPRESS et al.

No. 31529.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

December 18, 1945

Original proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Wylie B. Corzine, claimant, to review an order by a trial commissioner denying an award for disabilities, which order was affirmed by the State Industrial Commission, opposed by Traders Compress, employer, and Employers Casualty Company insurance carrier.

Order vacated.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. It is the duty of the State Industrial Commission to make specific finings 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. 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.

GIBSON C.J., and RILEY and CORN, JJ., dissenting.

Claud Briggs, of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Cheek Gibson, Savage & Benefield, of Oklahoma City, and Randell S Cobb, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

OSBORN Justice.

This is an original action in this court to review an order of the State Industrial Commission denying the claimant, Wylie B. Corzine, an award for disabilities due to an accidental injury.

Claimant filed his first notice of injury and claim for compensation on April 7, 1942, alleging an accident on November 29, 1941, while working for Traders Compress, a corporation, in the city of Chickasha, Oklahoma. On April 14, 1942, claimant filed an amended claim alleging that the accident occurred November 29, 1941, but that disability did not develop until on or about February 1, 1942. The respondents, Traders Compress and its insurance carrier, filed a general denial; alleged failure to give notice of the injury within thirty days and prejudice to them by such failure, and alleged further that claimant's disability was not the result of the accident alleged, but was due to a pre-existing condition.

The claim was heard before a Trial Commissioner. Claimant's testimony to the effect that on November 29, 1941, he accidentally stepped in a hole in the floor of a platform attached to one of the respondent's buildings, while engaged in the performance of his duties, was undisputed, the real controversy in the case apparently being upon the question of whether or not his subsequently asserted disability was due to the accident. At the conclusion of all the evidence the Trial Commissioner entered an order denying claimant an award. This order, omitting the formal parts, reads as follows:

'* * * and the Trial Commissioner having considered the evidence, the records on file and being well and fully advised in the premises, finds:

'1. That the evidence is insufficient to show claimant sustained an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent on November 29th, 1941.'

On review, the Commission sitting en banc affirmed and adopted the order of the Trial...