Eagle-Picher Lead Co. v. Black
| Decision Date | 16 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 24117 |
| Citation | 22 P.2d 907,1933 OK 320,164 Okla. 67 |
| Parties | EAGLE-PICHER LEAD CO. v. BLACK |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Change of Condition--Burden of Proof.
On a motion to reopen on the ground of a change of condition, the burden is on the claimant to prove, first, the change of condition, and, second, that the change of condition was the result of an original compensable injury.
2. Same--Proof of Cause and Extent of Injury by Expert Witnesses.
When, in an action for personal injury, the injury complained of is of such a character as to require skilled and professional men to determine the cause and extent thereof, the question is one of science, and must necessarily be proven by the testimony of skilled professional persons.
3. Same--Statements by Patient to Physician--Res Gestae.
A physician in giving evidence as an expert may testify to a statement made him by the patient in relation to his condition, symptoms, sensations, and feelings, both past and present, when such statements were received and were necessary to an examination, with a view of his treatment and when made the basis, in part, at least, of the physician's opinion; but such testimony cannot be considered as independent evidence of the facts stated, except in cases where the same is competent as forming a part of the res gestae.
4. Same--Findings of Facts--Evidence to Support.
Under the Workmen's Compensation Law, the findings of fact of the Commission in industrial cases should be followed, but the qualifier is that there must be evidence reasonably tending to support the award.
Original action in the Supreme Court by Eagle-Picher Lead Company to review award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Alston Black. Award vacated.
John Campbell and A. C. Wallace, for petitioner.
Anton Koch, for respondent.
¶1 Alston Black, hereinafter called the claimant, sustained an accidental injury in the course of a hazardous employment while employed by Eagle-Picher Lead Company, hereinafter called employer, on May 12, 1928. As a result of this accidental injury, claimant lost a few days from work, received medical attention, was paid compensation, and returned to work May 28, 1928.
¶2 April 28, 1932, claimant filed a motion to reopen the case to determine the extent of disability on the ground of change of condition. The matter was heard, and an award made for additional compensation upon the finding of a change of condition. The employer, carrying its own risk, appealed.
¶3 The second contention of the employer, that the Commission was without authority to reopen the matter after it had been closed for one year, when no separate claim for compensation had been filed by the injured employee, must be overruled upon the authority of Steffens Ice Cream Co. v. Jarvis, 132 Okla. 300, 270 P. 1103, and numerous other cases, establishing and upholding the continuing jurisdiction of the Commission. Argument as to the unfairness to the employer, and prejudice resulting to it from claims filed after great lapses of time, are matters of legislative cognizance, and we cannot weigh the discretion of the Legislature in that respect.
¶4 The first contention is that there is no competent evidence to support the finding of a change of condition. The evidence in this case shows: That claimant is a man of slight physical build, who was operated upon for appendicitis while serving in the army, who was discharged with a disability resulting therefrom, and who is receiving disability pay from the United States government; that about 1923, he was operated upon and a gall bladder removed; that he suffered from abdominal adhesions, resulting from these operations, which occasionally so pained him it was necessary to administer morphine and give purgatives; that he had worked off and on for this employer for several years up to the time of the injury; that the accident occurred as he was wheeling a wheelbarrow, when he stepped into a hole and fell upon a pile of bricks, injuring his back. He was given medical attention and released as fit for work. The claimant testified that he was not able to work when he returned to work after the accident, and that he had not been able to work and had not worked, except driving a huckster wagon, for about a month and a half since. He further testified that his back hurt him continuously, and that his condition has gradually grown worse. Dr. Simpson testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wise v. State Industrial Accident Commission
... ... VII and VIII, citing authorities; Ross' ... Case, 124 Mo. 107, 126 A. 484; Eagle-Picher Lead Co. v ... Black, 164 Okl. 67, 22 P.2d 907; Bunker v. Motor ... Wheel Corp., ... ...
-
Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Satterfield
... ... Clark, 166 Okla. 194, 26 P.2d 906; Brown Bros. v. Parks, 176 Okla. 615, 56 P.2d 883: Eagle Picher Lead Co. v. Black, 164 Okla. 67, 22 P.2d 907; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Nalley, 176 Okla. 491, 56 ... ...
-
Manhattan Const. Co. v. Beasley, Case Number: 33206
...and must necessarily be proved by the testimony of skilled professional persons.'"And to the same effect in Eagle-Picher Lead Co. v. Black, 164 Okla. 67, 22 P.2d 907. This does not mean that the testimony of such skilled and professional persons has to be given categorically, but when their......
-
Choctaw County v. Bateman
...v. State Industrial Commission, 194 Okl. 101, 147 P.2d 795; Andrews Mining & Milling Co. v. Atkinson, supra; Eagle-Picher Lead Co. v. Black, 164 Okl. 67, 22 P.2d 907; J. J. Harrison Construction Co. v. Mitchell, 170 Okl. 364, 40 P.2d 643; Skelly Oil Co. v. Rose, 176 Okl. 313, 55 P.2d 1019; ......