Skelly Oil Co. v. Rose
| Decision Date | 17 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | 25850. |
| Citation | 55 P.2d 1019,176 Okla. 313,1936 OK 255 |
| Parties | SKELLY OIL CO. v. ROSE et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. An accidental injury, sustained by a workman engaged in a hazardous occupation within the Workmen's Compensation Act (St. 1931, § 13348 et seq.), which aggravates or produces activity of a latent or dormant disease, thus creating a disability which did not previously exist, is compensable.
2. When an injury is of such a character as to require skilled and professional men to determine the cause, nature, and extent thereof, the question is one of science requiring the testimony of skilled professional persons for its determination.
3. A physician engaged in the general practice of medicine, when called as a witness, is not disqualified to express an opinion upon a matter of medical science merely because he admits that his knowledge and experience are more limited or restricted than that of a specialist, provided, of course, he possesses sufficient familiarity with the subject-matter of his testimony to formulate an opinion. Nor should the testimony of such a witness be rejected as a matter of law merely because it is opposed by the testimony of a specialist.
4. The questions of when temporary total disability ceases and when permanent partial disability commences are questions of fact to be determined from the evidence. Findings determining these questions cannot be sustained when there is an entire absence of evidence supporting the same.
Original proceeding by the Skelly Oil Company, self-insurer, to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Burney Rose, employee.
Award vacated.
W. P Z. German, Alvin F. Molony, Robert M. Turpin, Wm. F Pielsticker, and C. L. Swim, all of Tulsa, for petitioner.
Champion Champion & Fischl, of Ardmore, for respondents.
This is an action to review an award of the State Industrial Commission granting compensation for temporary total and permanent partial disability to Burney Rose, an employee of the Skelly Oil Company. The disability for which compensation was awarded is asserted by the employee to have been the result of an accidental personal injury which occurred on February 14, 1933, while he was admittedly engaged in an occupation classified as hazardous under the Workmen's Compensation Act (St. 1931, § 13348 et seq.).
Our review of the record convinces us that the award must be vacated. The basis of our decision, however, is such that a recovery is not thereby precluded, and in order that confusion in the future hearings on this case before the State Industrial Commission may be avoided and to eliminate the necessity of another review of such action as the commission may take, we shall not restrict our discussion entirely to the particular question which constitutes the immediate basis of our opinion.
On the 14th day of February, 1933, during a period of very cold weather, the claimant, an oil field employee, was attempting to "thaw out" some frozen connections by pouring boiling water on them. According to his testimony there was a quantity of crude oil around the connections, the same being about 1 1/2 inches thick on the ground. When the hot water struck the connections and crude oil, gas or vapor arose. The claimant began to choke and gasp and finally became unconscious. This happened about 12 noon. Claimant regained consciousness a few minutes later. He made his way to his car and drove home. Despite the coldness of the weather he had to keep the windows of his car open on the way home in order to get enough fresh air to retain his consciousness.
The claimant returned to work the next day, but quit working the third day after the accident because of his physical condition. He first consulted a doctor the evening of the day following the accident. He also within a short time told the superintendent, a Mr. Cummings, of the accident.
On the hearing of this cause medical testimony was produced in behalf of the claimant supporting the view that subsequent to and because of the accident the claimant was suffering from active pulmonary tuberculosis. This medical testimony proceeds upon the theory that prior to the accident the claimant was affected with dormant or inactive tuberculosis of which he was not aware, and which did not then constitute a disability; that the choking, gasping, and inhalation of vapors or gases changed the tubercular condition from one of dormancy to one of activity, which created the disability which constitutes the basis of the award herein reviewed.
The claimant relies upon the rule long recognized in this jurisdiction in connection with workmen's compensation cases that an accidental injury which aggravates or produces activity of a latent or dormant disease thus creating a disability which did not previously exist is compensable. Manhattan Construction Co. et al. v. Tottress et al., 161 Okl. 69, 17 P.2d 407; Fairmont Creamery et al. v. Lowe, 160 Okl. 32, 15 P.2d 133; Lee Drilling Co. et al. v. Ralph et al., 156 Okl. 140, 9 P.2d 954; Petroleum Chemical Corporation et al. v. State Industrial Commission et al., 154 Okl. 67, 6 P.2d 775; Coline Oil Corporation v. Burrows et al., 153 Okl. 116, 3 P.2d 230; Protho et al. v. Nette et al., 173 Okl. 114, 46 P.2d 942.
The employer in this case does not dispute the compensable nature of claimant's disability, but does dispute the existence of competent medical testimony sufficient to show a causal connection between the claimant's disability and the accident above described. It is asserted that this causal connection can be established by expert testimony alone, and that none of the witnesses produced by claimant were qualified to express an opinion on the subject. The legal basis of the argument is the established rule that when an injury is of such a character as to require skilled and professional men to determine the cause, nature, and extent thereof, the question is one of science and must necessarily be established by the testimony of skilled professional persons. Williams Bros., Inc., v. State Ind. Comm. et al., 158 Okl. 171, 12 P.2d 896; Oklahoma Hospital v. Brown, 87 Okl. 46, 208 P. 785; Channing et al. v. Payton et al., 152 Okl. 153, 4 P.2d 1; James I. Barnes Const. Co. et al. v. Hargrove et al., 167 Okl. 348, 29 P.2d 573.
In invoking this rule, the employer produced a specialist on chest diseases who had also made a special study of oil field gases and vapors. This specialist who had examined claimant was of the opinion he did not have tuberculosis at all, but, on the contrary, was suffering from a condition...
To continue reading
Request your trial