Thomas v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1925
• Docket Number: 16523.
• Citation: 242 P. 765,114 Okla. 3,1925 OK 1030
• Parties: THOMAS v. FORD MOTOR CO. et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

242 P. 765

114 Okla. 3, 1925 OK 1030

THOMAS v. FORD MOTOR CO. et al.

No. 16523.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

December 22, 1925

Syllabus by the Court.

The law is now well settled in this state that in a proceeding in this court to review an order of the State Industrial Commission such proceeding is to review errors of law and not of fact. The finding of facts by the Industrial Commission is conclusive upon this court, and will not be reviewed by this court where there is any competent evidence in support of same.

Section 7283, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes 1921, as amended by chapter 61, Session Laws of Oklahoma 1923, provides by section 1 thereof that compensation, as provided for in the Workmen's Compensation Act, shall be payable for injuries sustained by employees engaged in hazardous employments, and paragraph 7 of section 7284, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes 1921 defines "injury" and "personal injury" to mean only accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment and such diseases and infections as may naturally result therefrom, construed in connection with section 7285, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes 1921, providing compensation for disability resulting from an accidental personal injury, makes the foundation of such compensation claim a casualty, and excludes occupational diseases as a basis of such compensation.

Appeal from State Industrial Commission.

Action by Guy Thomas against the Ford Motor Company and the State Industrial Commission to reverse an order of the Commission denying compensation to him under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Order affirmed.

S. J Clay, of Oklahoma City, for claimant.

Everest Vaught & Brewer, of Oklahoma City, George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and Fred Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

RILEY J.

Guy Thomas prosecutes this proceeding for a review of an order of the State Industrial Commission made on May 27, 1925, denying an award of compensation to him as claimant.

The first contention of claimant is that he contracted lead poisoning and painter's colic while in the employ of respondent, and that the same is an accident within the meaning of the Compensation Act of the state of Oklahoma (Comp. St. 1921, §§ 7282-7340), and that the Industrial Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters to order compensation paid to the claimant for disability received by him.

The commission found:

"That claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent herein; that the disability of said claimant is not a result of any accidental injury."

The commission did not find that claimant was suffering from lead poisoning or painter's colic, but from pyorrhea and constipation, and indeed there is evidence to sustain this finding. Dr. Horace Reed testified:

"A. Yes, sir; he had pyorrhea. The pus could be pressed from around his teeth. He had retraction of the gum lines, and some tenderness across the abdomen with pressure, with some muscle resistance on the right of the midline.

Q. What would ordinarily cause the conditions that you relate? A. The pyorrhea."

And in his report to the commission, after having examined claimant, Dr. Reed used these words:

"Disability, whatever the claimant's disability be, I can see no connection of such disability with his previous occupation or with any injury."

The law is now well settled in this state that in a proceeding in this court to review an order of the state Industrial Commission such proceeding is to review errors of law and not of fact. The finding of facts by the Industrial Commission is conclusive upon this court, and will not be reviewed by this court where there is any conpetent evidence in support of same. Southern Surety Co. v. Taber, 212 P. 128, 88 Okl. 103; Raulerson v. State Industrial Commission, 76 Okl. 8, 183 P. 880; Wilson Lumber Co. v. Wilson, 77 Okl. 312, 188 P. 666; Northeast Okl. Ry. Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 88 Okl. 146, 212 P. 136; Choctaw Portland Cement Co. v. Lamb, 79 Okl. 109, 189 P. 750; Board of County Commissioners v. Barr, 68 Okl. 193, 173 P. 206; Stephenson v. State Industrial Commission, 79 Okl. 228, 192 P. 580; Booth & Flinn v. Cook, 79 Okl. 280, 193 P. 36; Oscar Grace v. Vaught et al. (Okl Sup.) 235 P. 590; Fitzsimmons v. State Industrial Commission et al. (Okl. Sup.) 236 P. 616; St. Louis Mining & Smelting Co. v. State Industrial Commission and R. J. Turner (Okl. Sup.) 241 P. 170.

The claimant alleges that he has worked for the respondent seven years, and that his disability evidenced by his recent illness began three years ago incident to his service as a painter and diagnosed as lead poisoning. He contends that the "accident,"...