Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Eaves

• Decision Date: 13 January 1948
• Docket Number: 32969.
• Citation: 190 P.2d 462,200 Okla. 21,1948 OK 12
• Parties: PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. v. EAVES et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

190 P.2d 462

200 Okla. 21, 1948 OK 12

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. v. EAVES et al.

No. 32969.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

January 13, 1948

Rehearing Denied March 2, 1948.

Original proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Phillips Petroleum Company to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of L. W. Eaves.

Award vacated and cause remanded with directions.

Syllabus by the Court

An award based upon evidence which does not reasonably tend to support the necessary finding that an accident occurred in the course of and arising out of employment covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law will be vacated.

Don Emery, Rayburn L. Foster and R. B. F. Hummer, all of Bartlesville, and Harry D. Turner, Cecil C. Hamilton and Lloyd G. Minter, all of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Wallace Hatcher, of Pauls Valley, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty.Gen for respondents.

ARNOLD Justice.

On the 1st day of August 1946, respondent, claimant, filed two notices of accidental injury, one is based upon a claimed injury July 11th, whereby it is alleged that a sunstroke resulted; the second alleges that on July 15th an accidental injury resulted in a strain of the back by lifting a joint of pipe. As to how this alleged accident occurred the respondent said: 'Claimant was attempting to pick up one end of a 30 ft. joint of 1/2 inch pipe when he felt a sharp pain in the lower portion of his back'. The two claims were set for hearing and on the date of trial a stipulation was entered into whereby it was conceded by appellant that on the days mentioned respondent was in its employ; that his employment was within and covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law, 85 O.S.1941 § 1 et seq.; that respondent's wages were such as to entitle him to the maximum compensation rate of $21 per week and that the two claims for compensation might be heard and determined together by the commission.

The commission found that the claimant suffered two accidental injuries on the respective dates alleged and hereinbefore stated; that the nature of the accidental injuries was as alleged and that by reason thereof the claimant had a 60% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole.

The respondent testified that he was running casing on the afternoon of July 11, 1946, and working very rapidly; that the temperature was approximately 100~; that the well being drilled was located in the neighborhood of a river bottom where there were trees and high grass; that he became overtheated and had to go to the shade and rest; that he became sleepy, nauseated, had cramps in the stomach, his lower extremities ached and that be became unconscious and remained so until quitting time. Other witnesses testified to essentially the same effect and further stated that the oil surrounding the well, the high grass, the location near or in the river bottom made the general surroundings hotter than otherwise would have been.

It is not seriously contended that there is no evidence reasonably tending to support the commission's finding that the claimant suffered an accidental sunstroke. The evidence discloses the circumstances and physical surroundings at the place and time of the claimed sunstroke. The testimony including medical opinion, supports the commission in its finding that claimant suffered an accidental sunstroke. See Cowan v. Watson, 148 Okl. 14, 296 P. 974; Sheehan Pipe Line Co. v. Cruncleton, 163 Okl. 205 22 P.2d 112 and Nims & Frost v. Abner, 188 Okl. 356, 109 P.2d 237.

The evidence does not differentiate the disability, if any, resulting from the sunstroke and that following the alleged back injury.

The award was for 60% permanent partial disability to the body by reason of both alleged accidents. To sustain the award, since the compensation awarded was based on the combined disability resulting from both alleged accidents and is not separable, it must appear that an accident occurred on July 15th causing injury to the back. On this point claimant said: 'After hauling four loads of pipe we commenced screwing it together and I reached down to get a joint of pipe and when I did, in a hurry like, I couldn't straighten up and I hung my foot in something, a weed or a bush or something, and come pretty near falling and that is when the pain hit me in the back and it has never straightened up since that time to this.'

If his injury to the back was the result of merely stooping over, as every body has occasion to do frequently in movement and use of the body, whether in furtherance of employment or not, then the occurrence would not be an accident and any injury therefrom would not be compensable because not of accidental origin. It would be merely a lamentable result of an ordinary employment of the body unattended by any accidental circumstances. Such occurences are not accidental and, therefore, not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law. Oklahoma Leader Co. v. Wells, 147 Okl. 294, 296 P. 751; National Biscuit Co. v. Lout, 176 Okl. 294, 65 P.2d 497.

A witness for claimant testified:

'A. He was stabbing pipe and fell down and hit his back.

'Q. How did he know he hurt his back? A. He said he did; he turned sick.

'Q. Did he quit work then? A. He went over to the shade a while.

'Q. And you saw this

...