Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 22 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 16034. |
| Citation | 244 P. 44,116 Okla. 131,1925 OK 1026 |
| Parties | ROBINSON et al. v. STATE ex rel. TAYLOR et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 16, 1926.
Syllabus by the Court.
Section 7300, Comp. St. 1921, authorizes the State Industrial Commission to prosecute an action to enforce an award made by it; and, where the style of the action runs in the name "State of Oklahoma ex rel." the commission, it is proper compliance with the provision directing that the action be brought in the name of the people of the state.
Where the action is brought by the State Industrial Commission to enforce compliance with an award made by it, one cause of action is presented for consideration, although the award may be made up of different items of award.
Section 7300, Comp. St. 1921, is not local or special in its nature but general and state wide in its scope; and the section including the penalty clause thereof, is constitutional and valid. The penalty clause of the said section does not contravene the "due process of law" or "equal protection of the law" clauses of the federal or state Constitution.
Where under section 7300, Comp. St. 1921, the State Industrial Commission brought action in a law court to compel compliance with an award made by it, and the petition shows that the award was made by it in the course of its consideration of a claim cognizable by it, and that the time had lapsed for prosecuting original action in the Supreme Court for review without action being taken for such review, and the award had not been complied with by the parties against whom it was made, the petition states a cause of action upon a liquidated claim, and is good against a demurrer.
The record supports the judgment, and the judgment is affirmed.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4.
Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Z. I. J. Holt, Judge.
Action by the State, on the relation of Baxter Taylor, and others constituting the State Industrial Commission, for the use and the benefit of Ralph V. Smith and the Oklahoma Hospital against E. L. Robinson and the Associated Employers' Reciprocal. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
On about the 18th day of February, 1920, one Basil D. McClain was in the employ of E. L. Robinson, who was operating an oil and gas lease in Tulsa county, and on the date named sustained an injury in fighting fire, and was taken to the Oklahoma Hospital at Tulsa and there treated for his injuries by Dr. Ralph V. Smith. In due course the said injured employee presented his claim for compensation to the State Industrial Commission, and, upon a hearing, the claim was sustained, award made, and an original action was prosecuted by the employer and the insurance carrier to have the award reviewed, and upon a hearing the award was upheld and sustained by the Supreme Court. The opinion is reported in 200 P. 174, 82 Okl. 229. The claim of the attending doctor, Ralph V. Smith, and the Oklahoma Hospital of Tulsa, was presented in a claim filed in the same case, and an award was made for the benefit of Ralph V. Smith in the sum of $540 and also an award made for the benefit of the Oklahoma Hospital in the sum of $311.95. No appeal was prosecuted from such award, and the time for appeal lapsed. The employer and his insurance carrier failed and refused to pay the amounts so awarded. On the 2d day of October, 1922, for the use and benefit of the said Ralph V. Smith and Oklahoma Hospital, the State Industrial Commission, in the name of the state of Oklahoma, upon relation of the members of the State Industrial Commission, commenced an action in the district court of Tulsa county to force payment of the items of the award and for 50 per cent. thereof in addition as provided in section 7300, Comp. St. 1921. In due course the employer and insurance carrier demurred to the petition, and, the demurrer being overruled, elected to stand upon the demurrer, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the relief prayed for. The defendants appeal.
Biddison & Ladner, of Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.
West & Petry, of Tulsa, for defendants in error.
SHACKELFORD, C. (after stating the facts as above).
The parties will be referred to herein as plaintiff and defendants as they appeared in the trial court.
The cause, as filed in the district court of Tulsa county, is, "State of Oklahoma, upon Relation," etc., v. E. L. Robinson, and Associated Employers' Reciprocal, a Corporation. The opening paragraph of the petition is as follows:
"Comes now the people of the state of Oklahoma upon the relation of," etc., "suing on behalf of Ralph V. Smith and Oklahoma Hospital of Tulsa, Okla., upon a certain order of said commission made in their behalf * * * awarding to said Ralph V. Smith the sum of $540 as medical services and the Oklahoma Hospital of Tulsa the sum of $311.95 as hospital services for the treatment of one Basil D. McClain, the employee of E. L. Robinson, the defendant."
The order of the commission is attached as Exhibit 1 to the petition. It is alleged that the order had not been appealed from, and had become final and constituted a liquidated claim, and that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the award so made and for 50 per cent. of the amount to be recovered. Allegations as to the employment of the claimant, the injured employee, Basil D. McClain, followed. It is alleged that the occupation at which he was employed was hazardous, and, in the course of such occupation and in the presence of his employer and his agents, the employee was accidentally injured by being burned, requiring immediate attention to save his life from such injuries; that the urgent necessities of the case did not admit of taking time to give notice in writing or otherwise of the injury, and any such notice would have been useless, since the employer already knew of the injury and the urgent necessity for immediate treatment, and it became the duty of the employer to provide medical and surgical treatment and hospital services, but the employer failed to provide such treatment, and the employee provided medical and surgical treatment and hospital services for himself, resulting in the bills above mentioned; that a claim therefor was filed with the State Industrial Commission, and upon a hearing was allowed by it; that the time had elapsed for appeal, but the claim had not been paid. It is further alleged that certain duly authorized agents of the insurance carrier recognized that the doctor should be compensated for his services, and offered to pay him $372, but payment of that amount was declined; that, after the time had elapsed for prosecuting appeal from the order of the commission allowing the bills, demand was made upon the employer and insurance carrier that they comply with the order, but the demand was ignored; that a duly authorized agent of the defendants admitted the justice of the claim against them, and that it should be fully paid, and a letter to such effect is attached to the petition as an exhibit; that the State Industrial Commission directed that this action be prosecuted for payment of the bills in compliance with the award of the commission.
The prayer of the petition is for judgment for the amount of the award, together with the 50 per cent. penalty provided for in section 7300, Comp. St. 1921. To the petition is attached the order of the commission making the award in favor of Dr. Smith in the sum of $540, and in favor of the Oklahoma Hospital in the sum of $311.95. The award was made in the case of Basil D. McClain, Claimant, v. E. L. Robinson, Respondent, and Associated Employers' Reciprocal, Insurance Carrier, Claim No. 16418, a claim then pending before the State Industrial Commission. Also attached to the petition is a copy of a letter addressed to Dr. Smith, written by the agent of the insurance carrier, in which this statement is made:
"If the award is finally determined in favor of claimant it will be necessary for us to reimburse the party making payment to you, and in the event no payment has been made to you we will take pleasure in remitting direct."
In the original petition as filed were other allegations and exhibits attached not necessary to state. To the original petition the defendants filed an unverified answer, denying every allegation and denying that plaintiff has legal capacity to maintain the suit. Later, by permission of the court, but without notice to plaintiff, the defendants withdrew their answer and filed a motion to strike certain redundant matter. This motion seems to have been disposed of by a stipulation resulting in the petition above noted, and on which the cause was heard. In the stipulation it was agreed that the parties would stand upon the petition after certain matters were stricken, and demurrer thereto. The defendants' demurrer is upon the following grounds: (1) That the court has no jurisdiction of the defendants or of the subject-matter. (2) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue upon the subject-matter. (3) That there is a defect of parties plaintiff. (4) That several causes of action are improperly joined. (5) That the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
This demurrer was heard and overruled. Defendants excepted and stood upon the demurrer, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the relief prayed in the petition. The defendants appeal, and the cause is presented here for review. The matters presented for reversal in the petition in error are: (1) That the court erred in overruling defendants' demurrer to the plaintiff's petition. (2) That the court erred in rendering judgment for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial