Raulerson v. State Indust. Com'n of Oklahoma

• Decision Date: 16 September 1919
• Docket Number: 10496.
• Citation: 183 P. 880,76 Okla. 8,1919 OK 256
• Parties: RAULERSON v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

183 P. 880

76 Okla. 8, 1919 OK 256

RAULERSON v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA et al.

No. 10496.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

September 16, 1919

Syllabus by the Court.

In a suit instituted in this court to review an award of the state Industrial Commission, the suit must be to review an error of law, and not an error of fact. Their decision as to all matters of fact is final.

Original suit in the Supreme Court by John Raulerson appealing from an award of the State Industrial Commission of Oklahoma on the theory that it erred in not allowing adequate compensation for personal injury against the Tulsa Boiler & Sheet Iron Works and the Kansas Employés Inter-insurance Exchange. Dismissed.

Wilson Tomerlin & Buckholtz, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff.

S. P Freeling, Atty. Gen., R. E. Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Twyford & Smith, of Oklahoma City, for respondents.

HIGGINS J.

Suit was instituted in this court by plaintiff, wherein he complains of an award of the state Industrial Commission, for the reason that the award is inadequate to compensate him for the injuries received by him.

He states that he was employed by the Tulsa Boiler & Sheet Iron Works, and while in its employ sustained an injury to his foot; that after his injury a settlement was had with him but, owing to his unmaturity of age, he being a minor, the settlement was inadequate; that the settlement was confirmed by the commission; that thereafter he discovered that he was more or less permanently injured, made application to the commission to have the award set aside, whereupon, by order of the commission, the case was reopened, and upon further hearing the commission made an order, denying the application to set aside the award previously made, whereupon this suit was commenced.

The defendant contends that the award by the commission, in passing upon matters of fact is final and not subject to a suit of this kind. In section 10, art. 2, of chapter 246, Session Laws 1915, in defining the powers of the state Industrial Commission, it is provided:

"The decision of the commission shall be final as to all questions of fact, and except as provided in section 13 of this article, as to questions of law."

In Board of Commissioners v. Barr, 173 P. 206, it is held:

"Under the provisions of section 10, art. 2, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, *** the decision of the state Industrial Commission is final as to all questions of

...