Williams v. Central Dairy Products Co.
| Decision Date | 25 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 34947,34947 |
| Citation | 205 Okla. 266,236 P.2d 984 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. CENTRAL DAIRY PRODUCTS CO. et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
After an award of the State Industrial Commission, awarding compensation to an injured employee and directing his employer to pay all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in treating the injury in accordance with the claim then on file, becomes final, the Commission is without power to modify or change such award requiring the employer to furnish further and additional medical treatment except on application to reopen on the ground of change in condition for the worse, as provided by Sec. 28, 85 O.S.1941, and such application must be brought within the limit of time prescribed by Sec. 43, 85 O.S.1941.
Carrol Womack, Howard K. Berry, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.
Butler, Rinehart & Morrison, Oklahoma City, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
On September 28, 1937, the State Industrial Commission awarded compensation to petitioner, Eugene Debs Williams, against his employer, Central Dairy Products Company, and its insurance carrier, respondents herein, in the sum of $1,650 for the loss of use of his right eye resulting from an accidental injury sustained by him while in the employ of respondent, Central Dairy Products Company, and directed that respondents pay the authorized medical and necessary expenses incurred by petitioner by reason of such accidental injury in accordance with the claim on file within thirty days from the filing of the award.
The award was entered upon approval of an agreed settlement.
On April 1, 1950, more than twelve years after the award was entered, petitioner filed a motion to set the case for further hearing on the ground that he was then in need of additional medical attention and hospitalization as a result of his accidental injury complained of herein.
The motion was set for hearing before a trial commissioner on October 5, 1950. The trial commissioner treated the motion as an application to reopen on the ground of change in condition for the worse, held the application barred by limitation, Sec. 43, 85 O.S.1941, and entered an order denying the motion. The order was sustained on appeal to the Commission en banc. Petitioner brings the case here to review this order.
It is petitioner's contention that the Commission heard and decided the motion upon an erroneous theory. He asserts that his motion is not one to reopen because of change in condition; that in fact there has been no change in condition; that his motion is brought under the provisions of Sec. 14, 85 O.S.1941, to obtain further medical treatment and hospitalization. This section, among other things, provides: 'The employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical, surgical or other attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital service, medicine, crutches, and apparatus as may be necessary during sixty days after the injury or for such time in excess thereof as in the judgment of the Commission may be required. * * *'
Petitioner asserts that when this section is construed in connection with the continuing-jurisdiction provision of Sec. 84, it becomes clear and plain that he had the right to apply for such relief at any time and that no statute of limitation runs against that right. We do not agree.
The sections relied upon should be construed in connection with Sec. 29 of the Act. This section, as far as here material, provides: 'The award or decision of the Commission shall be final and conclusive upon all questions within its jurisdiction between the parties, unless within twenty (20) days after a copy of such award or decision has been sent by said Commission to the parties affected, and action is commenced in the Supreme Court of the State to review such award or decision. * * *'
It appears to us that when there sections are construed together there is disclosed the intent of the Legislature in enacting the statute to authorize and empower the Commission to require an employer to furnish further medical treatment to an injured employee at any time after sixty days from the date of the injury, but only prior to or at the time a final award is made and not thereafter.
The general rule is: A final award of the State Industrial Commission is just as binding and effectual upon all parties to the proceeding as the judgment of any court, and the Commission is without authority thereafter to modify or change such award, except as otherwise authorized by statute. Derr v. Weaver, 173 Okl. 140, 47 P.2d 573; Special Indemnity Fund v. Lewis, 200...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arrow Tool & Gauge v. Mead
...Switch, Inc. v. Sales, 1982 OK 12, ¶ 3, 640 P.2d 963, 965. 37. See, e.g., Williams v. Central Dairy Products Co., 1951 OK 232, ¶ 10, 236 P.2d 984, 985; Winter Livestock v. Kroll, 1996 OK 31, ¶ 1, 914 P.2d 660, 661. 38. In conjunction with her quest for review Mead sought a review-related co......
-
Bill Hodges Truck Co. v. Gillum
...Okl., 509 P.2d 116, 118 [1973].15 See supra note 10 for the pertinent parts of 85 O.S.1981 § 28.16 Williams v. Central Dairy Products Co., 205 Okl. 266, 236 P.2d 984, 985-986 [1951]; Special Indemnity Fund v. Lewis, 200 Okl. 471, 196 P.2d 684, 686 [1948].17 See Sterling Milk Products Co. v.......
-
Kelley v. Bryan
...P.2d 175; Sinclair Refining Company v. Duncan, Okl., 297 P.2d 563; Tucker v. King, 206 Okl. 463, 244 P.2d 840; Williams v. Central Dairy Products Co., 205 Okl. 266, 236 P.2d 984; Gibbins v. Indian Electric Co-Operative, 203 Okl. 187, 219 P.2d 634; Macklanburg-Duncan Co. v. Wimmer, Okl., 280......
-
Sanitary Land Fill Co. v. Pearson
...State Industrial Commission was without jurisdiction to enter the order. Petitioners cite in support thereof, Williams v. Central Dairy Products Co., 205 Okl. 266, 236 P.2d 984; 85 O.S.1951 § 14, and Derr v. Weaver, 177 Okl. 100, 57 P.2d 1153. While conceding the effect of the rule that an ......