Douglas v. Okmar Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 39869,39869 |
| Citation | 383 P.2d 681 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles Argoles DOUGLAS, Petitioner, v. OKMAR OIL COMPANY and The Travelers Insurance Company and State Industrial Court, Respondents. |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Under 85 O.S.1961, § 28, the burden is on the claimant to show that subsequent to the time of the prior award there has been a change in his physical condition for the worse and that such change is due to the original injury before he can obtain an additional award because of change of condition.
2. The decision of the State Industrial Court is final as to all questions of fact, and where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the same, the order of the State Industrial Court will not be disturbed on review by this court.
Original proceeding by claimant, Charles Argoles Douglas, to review an order of the State Industrial Court denying an award for additional disability payments and medical treatment, upon the ground of change of condition, as against the respondents, Okmar Oil Company and The Travelers Insurance Company. Order sustained.
Jack B. Sellers and Charles S. Woodson, Drumright, for petitioner.
Sanders, McElroy & Whitten, Tulsa, Charles R. Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
This is an original proceeding for the review of an order of the State Industrial Court denying claimant's motion to re-open an earlier proceeding and award him further disability payments upon the ground of change of condition, under the provisions of 85 O.S.1961, § 28.
The earlier award, entered May 22, 1959, had been made for an injury to the back occurring on June 14, 1957, and was for 22 1/2% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Subsequent to the original award, claimant filed his motion to re-open, and hearing on the motion was had on June 22, 1961 before a trial judge. Claimant's evidence consisted of his own testimony, and, as exhibits, two letters written by Dr. G, who had examined him in connection with the earlier proceedings. Employer and insurance carrier introduced no evidence. The trial judge denied the motion upon the ground that no change of condition had been shown, and the order was sustained on appeal to the State Industrial Court en banc.
On appeal, claimant states that the issue which decides this case is whether the evidence was sufficient to show that the claimant had suffered a change of his condition since the previous award. To that sentence we would add the words 'and that such change was due to the original injury'. It is well settled that under 85 O.S.1961, § 28, the burden is on the employee to show that subsequent to the time of the prior award there had been a change in his physical condition for the worse and that such change was due to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeShaw v. Energy Mfg. Co.
...allowed for amount of increased disability which existed prior to second injury). Cases of the latter kind are Douglas v. Okmar Oil Co., 383 P.2d 681 (Okla.) (original injury not shown to be proximate cause of subsequent incidents and ensuing disability); and McDougle v. Department of Labor......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Rhine
...be disturbed on review. Hays v. National Zinc Co., Okl., 395 P.2d 580; Barnard v. Public Service Co., Okl., 394 P.2d 534; Douglas v. Okmar Oil Co., Okl., 383 P.2d 681; General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Mowry, Okl., 262 P.2d The testimony of Dr. M is competent evidence and amply suppo......
-
Blackwell v. Special Indem. Fund
...on review. Hays v. National Zinc Co., Okl., 395 P.2d 580; Barnard v. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, Okl., 394 P.2d 534; Douglas v. Okmar Oil Co., Okl., 383 P.2d 681. The findings of the trial court being reasonably sustained by the evidence the petition to vacate is denied and the award HA......
-
Royal Crown Cola Co. v. Hinesly
...by this Court. Hays v. National Zinc Company, Okl., 395 P.2d 580; Barnard v. Public Service Company, Okl., 394 P.2d 534; Douglas v. Okmar Oil Company, Okl., 383 P.2d 681; General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., v. Mowry, Okl., 262 P.2d We think under the evidence in this case that not......