State Highway Dept. v. Rhine
| Decision Date | 15 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 41524,41524 |
| Citation | 411 P.2d 548 |
| Parties | STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT and the State Insurance Fund, Petitioners, v. Verl J. RHINE and the State Industrial Court of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The determination of a precise date at which a change of disability arises is necessary only to demonstrate that its occurrence is subsequent to the last prior award, and to prevent an allowance of benefits for a period included in the previous award.
2. The question of change of condition is a question of fact and the decision of the State Industrial Court is final as to all questions of fact, and where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the same it will not be disturbed on review.
Original proceeding by State Highway Department and its insurance carrier, State Insurance Fund, for review of an order of the State Industrial Court awarding compensation to Verl J. Rhine, claimant. Award sustained.
Sam Hill, Guy A. Secor, Oklahoma City, for petitioners.
B. E. Bill Harkey, Charles Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for respondents.
On August 20, 1962, Verl J. Rhine, claimant, sustained an accidental injury to his back arising out of and in the course of his employment with the State Highway Department. On October 31, 1963, the State Industrial Court determined that claimant had sustained 35 per cent permanent partial disability to his body as a whole as a result of the accidental injury.
On August 11, 1964, claimant filed a motion to reopen his claim on the ground he had suffered a change of condition for the worse since the order of October 31, 1963. On May 18, 1965, a trial judge of the Industrial Court found that since the order of October 31, 1963, claimant had suffered a change in condition for the worse in that he was now totally and permanently disabled and awarded him additional compensation.
State Highway Department and its insurance carrier, State Insurance Fund, who will be hereinafter referred to as petitioners, bring this original action for a review of the lower court's order and, for vacation of the same, advance the following three contentions:
1. 'The Industrial Court erred in failing to make a finding relative to the date on which claimant's change of condition occurred.'
2. 'The Industrial Court's order should be vacated for the reason it is too indefinite and uncertain for judicial interpretation and omits a necessary finding.'
3. 'There is no competent medical evidence to support the order for change of condition resulting in permanent and total disability to claimant.'
The contentions will be considered in the order presented.
The determination of a precise date at which a change of disability arises is necessary only to demonstrate that its occurrence is subsequent to the last prior award, and to prevent an allowance of benefits for a period included in the previous award. Wade Lahar Construction Co. v. Howell, Okl., 376 P.2d 221; Capitol Well Servicing Co. v. Levescy, Okl., 371 P.2d 905; Standard Brands v. Gregor, Okl., 328 P.2d 181.
Where, as here, the evidence is clear and undisputed that the change for which additional compensation was sought occurred after the last prior award, and the increased benefits allowed did not fall concurrently with those payable under the prior award, the trial tribunal's failure to fix the precise date of the change will not be deemed to constitute error. Wade Lahar Construction Co. v. Howell, supra.
Petitioners urge that since the lower court did not fix the precise date when the change of condition occurred, they would be unable to determine how much compensation would have accrued to plaintiff in the event he prevailed herein.
Since the award was for total and permanent disability claimant would be entitled to the maximum of 500 weeks less the number of weeks that had been paid him under the prior award. The trial tribunal having found that there had been a change of condition since the last award, the additional benefits commence at the end of the compensatory period fixed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City Diesel Service v. Collier
...the Workers' Compensation Court. Goombi v. Trent, 531 P.2d 1363 (Okl.1975); In re Loague, 450 P.2d 492 (Okl.1969); State Highway Dept. v. Rhine, 411 P.2d 548 (Okl.1966). Respondent contends that whether an employee is a "loaned servant", i. e. what is the identity of the employer, is a ques......
-
National Zinc Co. v. Thomas
...has sustained change of condition for the worse presents a fact question for State Industrial Court determination. State Highway Dept. v. Rhine (Okl.) 411 P.2d 548. An award which is based upon undisputed evidence showing no change in condition resulting in additional physical disability wi......
-
Allen v. Russell
...in claimant's condition on April 26, 1969, citing Warden-Pullen Coal Co. v. Cain, 188 Okl. 357, 109 P.2d 487, and State Highway Department v. Rhine, Okl., 411 P.2d 548. The cases cited are not applicable to the facts presented here. In each of the cited cases claimant had secured an award f......
-
N. D. Crutcher Const. Co. v. Harbin
...the Industrial Court. We will not disturb an award of the State Industrial Court supported by any competent evidence. State Highway Department v. Rhine, Okl., 411 P.2d 548; Curtis v. Transcon Lines, Inc., Okl., 411 P.2d 544; Blackwell v. Special Indemnity Fund, Okl., 398 P.2d Lastly, respon......