Nat'l Zinc Co. v. Goines

Decision Date25 January 1944
Docket NumberCase Number: 31204
PartiesNATIONAL ZINC CO. et al. v. GOINES et al.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1.WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION--Industrial Commission without jurisdiction where disabilities result from occupational disease.

The jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission extends only to disabilities which result from an accidental injury and does not extend to disabilities which result from an occupational disease.

2. SAME--Dismissal of claim for want of jurisdiction.

Where a claim for compensation is based upon disabilities for which the State Industrial Commission is without jurisdiction to make an award, the commission should dismiss the claim for want of jurisdiction to entertain it.

3. SAME--Vacation of award or order on review where material finding not supported by competent evidence.

Where a finding of fact material to an order or award of the State Industrial Commission is unsupported by any competent evidence, this court on review will vacate the award or order based thereon.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma Court by the National Zinc Company and its insurance carrier to obtain review of order of State Industrial Commission made in connection with claim of Buford C. Goines. Order vacated, with directions.

Shirk, Gilliland, Ogden, Withington & Shirk, of Oklahoma City, for petitioners.

Williams & Teague, of Oklahoma City, and Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is an original proceeding in this court brought by National Zinc Company and its insurance carrier, hereinafter referred to as petitioners, to obtain a review of an order made by a trial commissioner of the State Industrial Commission which, in effect, overruled and denied a plea to the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission over a claim to compensation asserted by Buford C. Goines, hereinafter referred to as respondent.

¶2 The facts are not in dispute. On June 6, 1938, respondent filed with the State Industrial Commission employee's first notice of injury and claim for compensation for disability alleged to have been sustained as a result of inhalation of chlorine gas on May 28, 1938. The petitioners denied respondent had sustained an accidental injury, but thereafter, on September 8, 1939, paid the sum of $891 in settlement of temporary total disability. The settlement so made was evidenced by a form 7 agreement which was approved by the State Industrial Commission on September 21, 1939. Thereafter, on May 17, 1942, petitioners, upon leave granted so to do, renewed their plea to the jurisdiction of the commission over the subject matter of the claim of respondent and sought a dismissal of the claim for the reason of lack of an accidental injury upon which to base the claim and necessary to the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission to make an award or order other than one of dismissal. Hearings were held to determine liability and extent of disability. The medical evidence adduced at the hearings disclosed that the disability of respondent was attributable solely to chronic lead poisoning and to no other cause. Upon the evidence so adduced, the trial commissioner made the following findings of fact and order:

"1. That on the 28th day of May, 1938, the claimant was in the employ of the respondent and engaged in a hazardous occupation, subject to and covered by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that on said date he sustained an accidental personal injury, arising out of and in the course of his employment, consisting of violent illness in stomach.
"2. That the average wages of the claimant at the time of said accidental personal injury were $28.80 per week.
"3. That the claimant has therefore been paid the sum of $891, as compensation for temporary total disability, by reason of said accidental injury, as evidenced by Form 7 filed herein September 8, 1939, and approved September 21, 1939.
"4. That the evidence is insufficient to prove any decrease in wage earning capacity, and claimant's claim for compensation for permanent partial disability should therefore be denied.
"It is
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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