Manhattan Long Constr. Co. v. Bruton

• Decision Date: 15 June 1943
• Docket Number: Case Number: 31268
• Parties: MANHATTAN LONG CONSTRUCTION CO. et al. v. BRUTON et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1943 OK 242

138 P.2d 814

192 Okla. 639

MANHATTAN LONG CONSTRUCTION CO. et al. v. BRUTON et al.

Case Number: 31268

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: June 15, 1943

Syllabus

¶0 1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION--Compensation for disability under "other cases" provision--Effect of 1941 amendment.

By virtue of amendment of May 14, 1941 (85 O. S. 1941 § 22, subd. 3) disability sustained as a result of nonspecific injuries which fall within the "other cases" provision is to be compensated upon the basis of percentage of permanent total disability.

2. SAME--Authority of Industrial Commission to commute to lump sum any award for permanent disability.

By virtue of amendment of May 14, 1941 (85 O. S. 1941 § 41) the State Industrial Commission may, in its discretion, commute to a lump sum any award made for permanent disability, either total or partial.

3. SAME--Wisdom of permitting commutation of awards to lump sums for immediate payment is matter of legislative concern rather than one of judicial inquiry.

The wisdom and expediency of permitting the State Industrial Commission to commute awards to lump sums and to direct their immediate payment is a matter of legislative concern and is not a matter of judicial inquiry except where in commuting an award due process of law has been denied.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by Manhattan Long Construction Company and its insurance carrier to obtain a review of an order of a trial commissioner of the State Industrial Commission which commuted an award to a lump sum and directed immediate payment thereof. Order sustained.

George F. Short, Welcome D. Pierson, George E. Fisher, and John F. Reed, all of Oklahoma City, for petitioners.

Hughey Baker, of Tulsa, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This an original proceeding in this court brought by Manhattan Long Construction Company and its insurance carrier, hereinafter referred to as petitioners, to obtain a review of an order made by trial commissioner of the State Industrial Commission which commuted to a lump sum the balance due under an award which had previously been made in favor of Crockett Bruton, hereinafter referred to as respondent.

¶2 The authority of the State Industrial Commission in case of permanent partial disability resulting from nonspecific injury which comes under the "other cases" provision to commute an award therefor to a lump sum and direct its immediate payment, and the sufficiency of the evidence necessary to support such an order where the authority exists to make it, are the issues submitted for determination.

¶3 On October 24, 1941, respondent sustained a compensable injury when he fell and broke his pelvis, cracked his left hip, injured his left shoulder, left leg and his head and back. The petitioners furnished necessary medical attention and paid compensation for the temporary total disability which resulted from said injury. As the result of hearings held to determine the extent of disability, a trial commissioner found that the respondent had sustained permanent partial disabilities equivalent to 75 per cent disability to his entire body, and awarded compensation for such disability on the basis of percentage of permanent total disability, as directed under the "other cases" provision of the statute as amended May 14, 1941 (85 O. S. 1941 § 22, subd. 3). The award further provided that the latter part of this award be commuted to a lump sum payment of $1,000 for the respondent. Appeal to the commission sitting en banc resulted in an affirmance of the award. Petitioners permitted the award to thereupon become final and proceeded to make payments as therein directed. Thereafter, on October 6, 1942, respondent filed an application which requested the commission to commute the balance due under the award to a lump sum and to direct its immediate payment so as to enable respondent to purchase a farm and livestock and thus provide himself and his family with a permanent means of obtaining a livelihood. The petitioners appeared and opposed the application to commute the award, but offered no evidence in opposition thereto. The sole evidence adduced at the hearing consisted in the testimony of the respondent, which was to the effect that he and his wife had been reared upon farms and were best suited for that type of life, and that his family consisted of his wife and three children, and respondent believed that if he could receive the balance due him under the award in a lump sum and invest the same in a farm and some cattle, hogs and chickens, he would thereby be enabled to provide a. subsistence for himself and family and a better living than could be had expending the compensation awarded over the period of weeks for which it had been made. Upon the evidence so adduced the trial commissioner found that it would be to the best interest of the respondent to commute the balance of the award as requested and to direct immediate payment thereof to the respondent so as to enable him to purchase a farm and livestock and thus support himself and. his family with subsistence and a better living than they could otherwise obtain. The order so made is the one we are now called upon to review.

¶4 Petitioners seek to have said order vacated upon two grounds.

¶5 Petitioners first contend that since the award was made for a disability sustained as the result of nonspecific injuries for which compensation was payable under the "other cases" provision of the statute, it was therefore one which the Industrial Commission had no authority of law to commute to a lump sum. In support of the contention so made petitioners cite Pioneer Drilling Co. v. Morphis, 183 Okla. 424, 82 P. 2d 1048; Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P. 2d 749; Cornhuskers Theatres, Inc., v. Foster, 181 Okla. 341, ...