Henry Schafer Inc. v. Mitchell

Decision Date21 September 1948
Docket NumberCase Number: 32986, 32993
Citation198 P.2d 397,1948 OK 185,200 Okla. 510
PartiesHENRY SCHAFER Inc. v. MITCHELL
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1.WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - Cause and extent of disability arising from accidental injury questions of fact for State Industrial Commission - Award based thereon not disturbed where evidence reasonably sustains finding.

The cause and extent of a disability arising from an accidental injury are questions of fact to be determined by the State Industrial Commission and where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the finding an award based thereon will not be disturbed on review.

2.SAME - Lack of showing that combination of injuries resulted in permanent total disability.

A hip and back injury cannot be combined with a prior arm and hand injury for the purpose of fixing liability against the Special Indemnity Fund in the absence of a showing that the combination of injuries resulted in permanent total disability.

3.SAME - Insufficient evidence to sustain conclusion that claimant is permanently disabled as a result of combined injuries.

Record examined.Held, evidence insufficent to sustain the conclusion of the commission that claimant as a result of combined injuries is permanently totally disabled.

Separate appeals by Henry Schafer, Incorporated, and Associated Indemnity Corporation and Special Indemnity Fund consolidated, from an order of the State Industrial Commission awarding compensation to Richard L. Mitchell.Award sustained as to petitioners, Henry Schafer, Incorporated, and Associated Indemnity Corporation, and vacated as to Special Indemnity Fund with directions.

George F. Short, Welcome D. Pierson, John N. Singletary, and Margaret Behringer, all of Oklahoma City, for petitioners.

Mont R. Powell and Don Anderson, both of Oklahoma City, for Special Indemnity Fund.

Hatcher & Hatcher and Baxter Taylor, all of Oklahoma City, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

GIBSON, J.

¶1 Separate appeals have been here filed by Henry Schafer, Incorporated, and Associated Indemnity Corporation, its insurance carrier, who will be herein referred to as petitioners, and Special Indemnity Fund which will be herein referred to as The Fund, from an order of the State Industrial Commission awarding compensation to respondent, Richard L. Mitchell.

¶2 The appeals have been here consolidated.

¶3The case was heard by a trial commissioner, who, at the conclusion of the evidence, in substance, found: that the respondent on or about the 8th day of April, 1946, while in the employ of petitioner, Henry Schafer, Incorporated, sustained an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment consisting of an injury to his back and left hip resulting in a 60 per cent permanent partial disability to his body as a whole; that he was then a physically impaired person in that on December 5, 1945, he sustained some disability to his right arm (degrees of disability not stated) and that such disability was noticeable to an ordinary layman and had been previously adjudged by an order of the State Industrial Commission under date of March 15, 1946, and that as a result of the combination of injuries he is now permanently totally disabled.Upon such findings an order was entered awarding compensation against petitioners in the sum of $6,300 for a period of 300 weeks payable at the rate of $21 per week, and against The Fund in the sum of $4,200 on the basis of 40 per cent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, payable in 200 weeks at the rate of $21 per week.

¶4 The award was sustained on appeal to the commission sitting as a whole.

¶5Petitioners contend that the award against them is not supported by the evidence.Respondent testified, and it is conceded, that on the 8th day of April, 1946, while in the employ of petitioner, Henry Schafer, Incorporated, and while working about an oil derrick, a 2x6 board six feet long fell from the derrick a distance of 90 feet striking him on the back, resulting in an injury to his hip and back whereby he sustained some permanent disability to his person.

¶6 The medical experts all agree that as a result of the accident occurring April 8, 1946, respondent sustained an injury to his back and hip which resulted in a permanent disability to his body as a whole.The only disagreement between them is as to the extent or degree of such disability.Two physicians, testifying on behalf of petitioners, testified that as a result of such injury respondent sustained a 20 per cent permanent partial disability to his body as a whole, while one physician, testifying on behalf of respondent, stated that as a result thereof he sustained a 75 per cent permanent partial disability to his body as a whole.The commission found 60 per cent disability.This finding is well within and supported by the evidence.It will therefore not be disturbed by this court on review.

¶7 The Fund contends that the award as against it is contrary...

To continue reading

Request your trial

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex
6 cases
  • Stoldt Builders, Inc. v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1964
    ...241, 219 P.2d 1001, 1002; Special Indemnity Fund v. Wade et al., 199 Okl. 547, 189 P.2d 609, 611; and Henry Schafer, Inc. et al. v. Mitchell et al., 200 Okl. 510, 198 P.2d 397, 399. The impairment of a specific or 'scheduled' member of the body may not be considered in combination with the ......
  • Special Indem. Fund v. Beller
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1962
    ...all impairments, former and latter, was permanent and total. The Fund places principal reliance on our decision in Henry Schafer, Inc. v. Mitchell, 200 Okl. 510, 198 P.2d 397. The cited case is readily distinguishable from the present. Therein claimant's doctor, in his evaluation of the com......
  • Special Indem. Fund of State v. Kilgore
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1950
    ...McMillin case, or the Bonner case. We did so hold in the Lee case, supra, and the Wade case, supra, and also in Henry Schafer, Inc., v. Mitchell, 200 Okl. 510, 198 P.2d 397, and in Special Indemnity Fund v. McWhorter, 200 Okl. 469, 196 P.2d 689. The Lee case, supra, the Schafer case, supra ......
  • Liggens v. Special Indem. Fund
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1962
    ...is obvious and apparent to an ordinary layman. Special Indemnity Fund v. Keel, 196 Okl. 315, 164 P.2d 996; Henry Schafer, Inc. et al. v. Mitchell, 200 Okl. 510, 198 P.2d 397; and Special Indemnity Fund v. Roberts, Okl., 356 P.2d A lay witness for claimant testified that he had observed clai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT