Fund v. Farmer, Case Number: 31768
Decision Date | 06 February 1945 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 31768 |
Citation | 195 Okla. 262,1945 OK 47,156 P.2d 815 |
Parties | SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND v. FARMER |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION-Compensation based on disability to hand in case of loss of more than one finger.
Whether or not the loss of more than one finger constitutes a disability to the hand incapacitating the workman from labor for which he is mentally and physically adapted is a question of fact for the commission, and, where more than one finger is lost and there is competent evidence showing that such loss of more than one finger results in disability to the hand incapacitating the workman from labor for which he is mentally and physically adapted, the commission is authorized to award compensation upon the basis of disability to the hand, and such finding will not be disturbed by this court.
2. SAME-Subsequent injury to ''physically impaired" person-Apportionment of liability between employer and Special Indemnity Fund.
Under the provisions of House Bill No. 249, Sess. Laws, 1943 (Title 85, O.S. Supp. 1943, §172), if an employee, who is a physically impaired person as defined in said act, receives an accidental personal injury compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law which results in additional permanent disability so that the degree of disability caused by the combination of both disabilities is materially greater than that which would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone, such employee shall be entitled to compensation for such permanent disability caused by the combined injuries and the employer shall be liable only for such per centum of disability resulting from the latter injury, and the remainder of such compensation shall be paid out of the Special Indemnity Fund provided for in such act without credit for the compensation paid for the first or prior injury.
3. STATUTES-Statutes not within constitutional inhibition against amendment or extension of law by reference to title only.
Statute which is in form original and in itself intelligible and complete and does not, either in title or body, appear to be revisory or amendatory of any existing law, is not within the inhibition of Constitution prohibiting amendment or extension of law by reference to its title only.
4. STATUTES-Requirements for statute to be general and have uniform operation-Law general though having local application or applying to designated class.
In order for a law to be general in its nature and to have uniform operation, it is not necessary that it shall operate upon every person and every locality in the state. A law may be general and have local application or apply to a designated class if it operates equally upon all the subjects within the class for which it was adopted. But where a statute operates upon a class, the classification must not be capricious or arbitrary and must be reasonable and pertain to some peculiarity in the subject-matter calling for the legislation. As between the persons included within the operation of the law and those omitted, there must be some distinctive characteristic upon which a different treatment may be reasonably founded and that furnishes a practical and real basis for discrimination.
Original proceeding by the Special Indemnity Fund administered by the State Insurance Fund to review an award of a trial commissioner and the State Industrial Commission affirmed by the Commission in favor of E. H. Farmer. Award sustained.
Mont R. Powell, of Oklahoma City, T. D. Lyons, of Tulsa, and L. B. Moore, of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.
Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., E. J. Broaddus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bulla & May, and W. F. Smith, all of Oklahoma City, for respondents.
Claud Briggs, of Oklahoma City, amicus curiae.
¶1 This is an original proceeding in this court to review an award made by a trial commissioner and affirmed by the State Industrial Commission in favor of E. H. Farmer, claimant, against Douglas Aircraft Company, Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company, and Special Indemnity Fund administered by the State Insurance Fund. For the purpose of this opinion E. H. Farmer will be referred to as claimant, Douglas Aircraft Company as employer, Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company as insurance carrier, Special Indemnity Fund as petitioner, and State Industrial Commission as commission
¶2 On May 19, 1943, claimant suffered an accidental personal injury to the third or ring finger of his left hand by its being cut and the long tendon of that finger severed. Some seven years prior to the date of this injury claimant lost the first phalange of the first or index finger of the left hand and was awarded compensation for 17 1/2 weeks therefor.
¶3 In the instant action, which involves the injury suffered on May 19, 1943, the commission found there was permanent partial disability of 161/2 per cent of the hand, including permanent partial disability of 50 per cent of the third or ring finger, and made an award of compensation for a period of 33 weeks, ordering the employer and insurance carrier to pay for ten weeks thereof, and the petitioner to pay for 23 weeks.
¶4 The determination of the controversy in this action involves construction of House Bill No. 249 of the Oklahoma Legislature of 1943 (Title 85, O.S. Supp. 1943, §§ 171-176), which creates the Special Indemnity Fund and provides for the apportionment of liability between the employer and the Special Indemnity Fund in cases involving injuries to an employee who is a "physically impaired person" as defined by the act.
¶5 The essential parts of Title 85, O.S. Supp. 1943, to be considered in this opinion are as follows:
¶6 The petitioner first contends that the finding of the commission that the claimant has sustained 161/2 per cent disability to his (left) hand as a whole, as a result of both of said injuries, is not supported by the evidence, but is merely an arbitrary conclusion based on a formula used in cases of injuries involving two or more fingers of the same hand, citing in support thereof Cox v. State Industrial Commission et al., 140 Okla. 59, 282 P. 610, and Sampley ( Southwest Const. Co. ) et al. v. Aldridge et al., 164 Okla. 66, 22 P.2d 1036, and cases from other jurisdictions. The Sampley Case relies upon the Cox Case for authority, and the Cox Case was expressly overruled in Planters Gin Co. et al. v. McCurley et al., 157 Okla. 273, 12 P.2d 173, wherein we said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Wade
... ... In ... 180 P.3d 1207 ... this case, the date of last payment by the employer is a fact to be found by the ... Special Indemnity Fund v. Farmer, et al, 195 Okl. 262, 156 P.2d 815 ... ¶ 16 The ... a claim against the Fund be filed under the same court case number as the claim against the employer. 5 The special indemnity statutes ... ...
-
Cameron & Henderson, Inc. v. Franks
... ... The ... Special Indemnity Fund was a party to the proceeding, ... Order ... interest in the subject matter of the particular case" ... entitling such party to such review ... \xC2" ... 203, 164 P.2d 240; Special Indemnity Fund v. Farmer, ... 195 Okl. 262, [199 Okla. 150] 156 P.2d 815; Special ... ...
-
Special Indem. Fund v. Laxton
... ... Page 823 ... in this case is too indefinite and uncertain for judicial interpretation. We do not ... Claimant cites Special Indemnity Fund v. Farmer et al., 195 Okl. 262, 156 P.2d 815 and Special Indemnity Fund v. Davidson ... of an award, but the basis and procedure for granting each and the number of installments required to be paid are entirely different. They serve ... ...
-
Special Indem. Fund v. Farmer
...156 P.2d 815 195 Okla. 262, 1945 OK 47 SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND v. FARMER et al. No. 31768.Supreme Court of OklahomaFebruary 6, 1945 ... Rehearing ... Denied March 20, ... the amount the injured employee shall be paid weekly, the ... number of week's compensation which shall be paid by ... the employer, or his or its insurance carrier, ... al., 164 Okl. 66, 22 P.2d 1036, and cases from other ... jurisdictions. The Sampley case relies upon ... [156 P.2d 818] ... the Cox case for authority, and the Cox case was expressly ... ...