Employers' Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Coffman
| Decision Date | 17 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 21547 |
| Parties | EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORP. et al. v. COFFMAN et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation Law--Award for Temporary Total Disability--Disease Aggravated by Injury.
Where claimant was performing manual labor in a hazardous employment and sustained an injury in the course of such employment, resulting in temporary total disability, held, he is entitled to recover compensation during the continuance of such disability; further held, the fact that such employee had prior to such injury a disease such as did not impair him from performing labor, which disease was aggravated and accelerated by the injury, the presence of such disease will not prevent the injured employee from recovering compensation for the entire time of his disability and until such time as it can be definitely determined that the disability caused by such injury has ceased.
2. Same--Burden on Employer to Prove Cessation of Compensable Disability.
Where petitioners admit that respondent suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment resulting in total disability and seek to avoid payment of compensation on the ground that disability had ceased, and that the continued disability of respondent was the result of disease, the burden of proving such change is on petitioner.
Original action in Supreme Court by Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation and Pierce Petroleum Corporation to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of W. M. Coffman. Judgment and award affirmed.
A. C. Saunders, for petitioners.
John M. Chick and Chas. Hill Johns, for respondents.
¶1 This is an original action filed in this court by petitioners to review an award of the State Industrial Commission, made and entered on the 27th day of June, 1930, in favor of respondent W. M. Coffman. Said award found that on February 17, 1930, respondent Coffman was in the employ of petitioners and engaged in a hazardous occupation subject to and covered by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act; and that on said date respondent Coffman sustained in accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with petitioners; that respondent Coffman had received compensation in the sum of $ 180, computed from February 27, 1930, to May 8, 1930, or for a period of ten weeks. The Commission further found that respondent was due compensation from the 8th day of May to the date of trial; that payment of compensation should continue from said date at the rate of $ 18 per week until the termination of respondent's disability or until further ordered by the Commission.
¶2 Petitioners' first contention is that the award can only be sustained by assuming the finding that the respondent was disabled as of the date of the hearing by reason of the accidental injury. Second, that the burden of proof to establish that his disability was caused by the admitted accidental injury was upon the respondent. Third, that there is no evidence that respondent's disability was caused by the accidental injury.
¶3 The evidence discloses that respondent's injury was an accidental injury to the eye, and erysipelas resulted therefrom, and that respondent has been disabled since the injury.
¶4 It is the contention of petitioners that there was no testimony showing that the continued disability of respondent Coffman was due to the injury. Petitioners on page 2 of their brief state:
"It is undisputed in the record that the claimant was an employee of the petitioner, Pierce Petroleum Corporation, engaged in a hazardous occupation; that in the course of his employment on the 17th day of February, 1930, the said claimant sustained an accidental injury consisting of a gash over the left eye, in consequence of which erysipelas set in; that as a result of said injury the claimant became totally disabled; that the rate of his compensation for total temporary disability was $ 18 per week and that the insurance carrier, the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, one of the petitioners herein, duly paid the amount of such compensation to the claimant up to and including May 8, 1930."
¶5 This is an admission on the part of the petitioners that the claimant, respondent herein, had an accidental injury while engaged in a hazardous occupation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carlson v. F. H. Deatley & Co., 6196
... ... continued disability is insufficient. (Employers' ... Liability Assur. Corp. v. Coffman, 147 Okla. 227, 296 ... Liability Assurance Corp. v. Coffman, 147 Okla. 227, 296 ... P. 395; Sanders ... ...
-
Van Ness Const. Co. v. Waltcher
...upon the movant." ¶4 See, also, Canadian Mining & Developing Co. v. Robbins, 155 Okla. 20, 7 P.2d 886; Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Coffman, 147 Okla. 227, 296 P. 395. ¶5 The parties appear to have overlooked the above rule in the proceedings had before the commission, and the arg......
-
Petroleum Chem. Corp. v. State Indus. Com
...evidence to sustain the award of the State Industrial Commission under the rule stated by this court in Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Coffman, 147 Okla. 227, 296 P. 395, wherein it was held:"Where claimant was performing manual labor in a hazardous employment and sustained an inju......
-
Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. v. Stevens
...Okla. 170, 244 P., 778; Northwestern Refining Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 145 Okla. 72, 291 P. 533; Employees' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Coffman, 147 Okla. 227, 296 P. 395; Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Moore, 147 Okla. 243, 296 P. 390; Protho v. Nette, 173 Okla. 114, 46 P. 2d 942. ¶1......