Liggens v. Special Indem. Fund

Decision Date27 March 1962
Docket NumberNo. 39741,39741
Citation370 P.2d 303
PartiesDon LIGGENS, Petitioner, v. SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND and State Industrial Court, Respondents.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

1. This Court will make an independent review of facts to determine whether under 85 O.S.1951 § 171, a claimant is a physically impaired person.

2. Where the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the State Industrial Court are too indefinite and uncertain for judicial interpretation, this Court, on appeal, will vacate the order for further proceedings.

Original proceeding brought by Don Liggens against the Special Indemnity Fund to review an order of the State Industrial Court denying an award. Order vacated with directions.

Harold Dodson, Butler, Rinehart & Morrison, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Mont R. Powell, James N. Khourie, Oklahoma City, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

HALLEY, Justice.

Don Liggens, hereinafter called claimant, filed his first notice of injury and claim for compensation stating that on February 25, 1960, he sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with Haggard's, Inc. On October 6, 1960, the claim with the employer was settled on joint petition for $1,500.00. Claimant then commenced this proceeding to recover against Special Indemnity Fund and on April 5, 1961, the trial judge entered an order in part as follows:

'That on February 25, 1960, claimant was an employee of Haggard's, Inc., covered by Workmen's Compensation insurance policy carried with Pacific National Fire Insurance Company, and earning wages sufficient to entitle him to a compensation rate of $30.00 per week for permanent disability; that on said date claimant sustained an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, consisting of injury to his right shoulder, and his claim for compensation therefor was settled by joint petition settlement in the amount of $1,500.00, as appears from Order entered herein on October 6, 1960.

'That prior to claimant's last injury, he had sustained injuries on January 27, 1959, to his eyes and left middle finger, which was settled by joint petition settlement in the amount of $143.00, as appears from Order entered herein on April 23, 1959; injury on June 10, 1952, consisting of hernia which was settled by joint petition settlement in the amount of $600.00, as appears from order entered herein on August 5, 1952; injury on May 15, 1952, to his right elbow which was settled by joint petition settlement in the amount of $100.00, as appears from order entered herein on August 5, 1952, none of said injuries being obvious and apparent to an ordinary layman; that prior to claimant's last injury claimant had contracted the disease of multiple sclerosis which was not obvious and apparent to an ordinary layman.

'That claimant's prior injuries and disease of multiple sclerosis are not combinable with claimant's last injury to entitle him to an award as against the Special Indemnity Fund, and his claim for compensation as against said Fund should be denied.'

This order was affirmed by the State Industrial Court en banc.

The evidence discloses that claimant is afflicted with multiple sclerosis. Dr. F filed a report in which he stated that there was a disability to the left arm caused by the disease and that this disability is obviously due to the marked impairment of the left arm. He further stated that it was his opinion that claimant was a physically impaired person under the law prior to his accidental injury of February 25, 1960. Dr. L filed a report in which he stated claimant's multiple sclerosis had left him with a marked limitation of the use of his left arm and hand and there was atrophy of the forearm and in the hand itself; that there was marked limitation of the rotation of the forearm and limitation of the motion of the left shoulder.

We have stated that a medical expert is competent to give expert information necessary to disclose that an injured employee is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Special Indem. Fund v. Liggens
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1964
    ...as to whether a claimant is a physically-impaired person within the meaning of 85 O.S.1961 § 171. See Liggens v. Special Indemnity Fund et al., Okl., 370 P.2d 303. Upon further hearing in the industrial Court, responsive to this Court's mandate in the cited case, it was stipulated claimant ......
  • Bermea v. State Indus. Court
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1963
    ...total, obvious and apparent to an ordinary layman. Special Indemnity Fund v. Roberts, Okl., 356 P.2d 561; see also, Liggens v. Special Indemnity Fund, Okl., 370 P.2d 303. There is no showing here that either of the mentioned disability factors did have that effect upon the Thus, the ultimat......
  • Threatt v. Special Indem. Fund, 50914
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1977
    ...independent review of facts to determine whether claimant is a physically impaired person as defined in the Act. Liggens v. Special Indemnity Fund (Okl.1962), 370 P.2d 303. The Trial Court correctly determined the lay testimony insufficient to establish Claimant was a physically impaired pe......

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