Hill v. Culligan Soft Water Service Co.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1963
• Docket Number: No. 40363,40363
• Citation: 1963 OK 254,386 P.2d 1018
• Parties: Glen E. HILL, Petitioner, v. CULLIGAN SOFT WATER SERVICE COMPANY, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and State Industrial Court, Respondents.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1018

386 P.2d 1018

1963 OK 254

Glen E. HILL, Petitioner, v. CULLIGAN SOFT WATER SERVICE COMPANY, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and State Industrial Court, Respondents.

No. 40363.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 12, 1963.

Syllabus by the Court

Where a finding or order of the State Industrial Court is not supported by any competent evidence, it will be vacated on review in the Supreme Court.

Original proceeding by petitioner Glen E. Hill for the review of an order of the State Industrial Court denying him an award as against respondents, Culligan Soft Water Service Company, employer, and, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, insurance carrier. Order vacated.

Schwoerke & Schwoerke, by K. J. Schwoerke, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

George E. Fisher, Oklahoma City, for respondents.

JACKSON, Judge.

This is an original proceeding by petitioner (claimant) Glen E. Hill for the review of an order of the State Industrial Court en banc denying him an award against respondents, employer and insurance carrier, under the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Hill was the employee of a partnership composed of himself and his wife, doing business as Culligan Soft Water Service Company. No question is raised as to the right of a partner who is also an employee of the partnership to recover compensation payments as against the partnership and its insurance carrier. The record shows that Hill had had previously compensable injuries to his back of a serious nature, and that at the time of the injury here concered he was drawing compensation for total and permanent disability. In the instant proceeding before the State Industrial Court, growing out of an accident on February 14, 1961, he asked only for the payment of medical bills.

Hill was the only witness before the trial judge. He testified as to the details of the accident and the injury which resulted from it, and introduced in evidence a medical report which plainly and unequivocally attributes the injury to the accident. This is the only medical report in the record.

On cross examination it was shown that after the accident, Hill was treated or examined by three different doctors and was hospitalized twice. He gave no notice to the insurance carrier until December, 1961 and he did not file his first notice of injury and claim for compensation until Jan. 25, 1962. It is conceded that he obtained medical treatment and hospitalization on his own initiative, and that the same was not authorized by the insurance carrier. However, see 85 O.S.1961 § 64(b).

The only evidence introduced by respondents consisted of Anadarko Hospital records which were introduced for the purpose of showing that over a period of years since 1954, Hill had been treated for recurrent back pain and back trouble.

The trial judge entered an order in effect finding that Hill had sustained an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his hazardous employment; that as a result of the accident he was temporarily totally disabled; that he was not entitled to any compensation for the injury under the circumstances, but that respondents should pay all reasonable and necessary medical expenses.

On appeal to the State Industrial Court en banc, the order of the trial judge was vacated and an order denying any award was made, based on the following finding:

'That claimant did not sustain an accidental personal injury, arising out of and in the course of his hazardous employment with the above named respondent, on February 14, 1961, as alleged in his form 3 filed herein.'

On review in this court, claimant Hill argues the single proposition that 'The matter of an accident and injury under the evidence in this record is one of law and not of fact and since all the competent evidence in this record shows an accident and injury to the claimant the State Industrial Court erred as a matter of law in failing to find that claimant sustained an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his hazardous employment on February 14, 1961.'

This argument must be sustained. Without setting out the evidence in greater detail, it is sufficient to say that the record before us shows conclusively and without contradiction that there was an accident and an injury arising out of and in the course of claimant's hazardous employment, and that the injury and the consequential disability were the result of the accident. It follows that the finding that there was no...