Wilson Drilling Co. v. Beyer

• Citation: 280 P. 846,138 Okla. 248,1929 OK 379
• Decision Date: 24 September 1929
• Docket Number: Case Number: 20088
• Parties: WILSON DRILLING CO. et al. v. BEYER et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

1929 OK 379

280 P. 846

138 Okla. 248

WILSON DRILLING CO. et al. v. BEYER et al.

Case Number: 20088

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 24, 1929

Syllabus

¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation Law--Physician's Claim for Services not Considered Independently of Proceeding by Employee for Compensation for Injuries.

Under the Workmen's Compensation Act proceedings by a physician to recover for the value of his services in treating an injured employee engaged in hazardous employment is ancillary to proceedings by the employee to recover compensation and cannot be considered independently.

2. Same.

The State Industrial Commission is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. Its primary purpose is to adjust settlement between injured workmen engaged in hazardous employment and their employers. Physician's claims for services rendered such injured employees, to be cognizable by the State Industrial Commission, are dependent upon the existence of claims for compensation for injuries and in the absence of such primary claims such dependent claims are relegated to the courts of law.

Action by the Wilson Drilling Company and another to review award for medical services to Dr. J. Walter Beyers, made by the State Industrial Commission. Reversed and remanded.

Clayton B. Pierce, for petitioners.

RILEY, J.

¶1 This is a proceeding in review of an award in the sum of $ 100, made by the State Industrial Commission to Dr. J. Walter Beyers, based upon a claim for medical services rendered to E. J. Gibson, a workman in the employ of Wilson Drilling Company. Respondent Dr. Beyers filed with the Commission on August 24, 1928, an attending physician's report wherein is detailed the nature of the injury and treatment and showing that a piece of steel was removed from the right eye of the injured workman, as the result of an injury occurring the date of December 3, 1926. More than two years thereafter, and on August 29, 1928, the doctor filed his claim in the amount subsequently allowed by the order of the Commission. The injured workman never filed claim for compensation and no award was ever made to him. On January 2, 1929, the Commission entered the order before us, wherein it is found that the claim of respondent Dr. Beyer for medical services rendered E. J. Gibson for an injury sustained on December 3, 1926, arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Wilson Drilling Company, is reasonable and fair and the customary charge for such service and that respondent (petitioner) and insurance carrier herein are liable for the services rendered.

¶2 Specifications of error set forth by petitioners are as follows:

"(1) That the State Industrial Commission was wholly without jurisdiction to make the order complained of for the reason that no claim was filed by E. J. Gibson, the alleged or purported injured employee, within the period of one year from the happening of the alleged or purported accident, to-wit, December 3, 1926, as required by the provisions of section 7301, C. O. S. 1921.

"(2) The State Industrial Commission was wholly without jurisdiction for the reason that no claim had been filed by J. Walter Beyer within the period of one year, as required by the provisions of section 7301, C. O. S. 1921.

"(3) That the finding of the State Industrial Commission that the alleged claimant, E. J. Gibson, received an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment is not supported by any evidence.

"(4) That the findings do not support the order in that there is no finding that the alleged claimant, E. J. Gibson, received an accidental personal injury.

"(5) That there is no evidence to support the order.

"(6) That the provisions of section 7288, C. O. S. 1921, purporting to confer upon the State Industrial Commission of the state of Oklahoma, jurisdiction to hear, pass upon and order payment for services of physicians rendered under verbal contract, is unconstitutional and void, being in derogation to and contrary to the provisions of section and section 7, and section 15, all of article 2, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, and by reason thereof the State Industrial Commission of the State of Oklahoma was wholly without jurisdiction over the person and property of these petitioners."

¶3 Consideration of the proposition that under the Workmen's Compensation Act the proceedings by a physician to recover the value of his services in treating an injured employee is ancillary to the proceedings by the employee to recover compensation, is decisive of the matter presented.

¶4 This question is novel in this jurisdiction, for every case considered by this court involving compensation for medical services has had its origin under circumstances where an award for compensation was also rendered the injured employee. Briefly, then, the history is that proceedings for recovery of compensation for medical services are ancillary to claims for compensation for injuries to workmen; the question presented is whether such a relation of claims is necessarily so in order to give the Commission jurisdiction to hear, determine, and allow a claim to an attending physician, alone, or, on the other hand, whether such a right, when alone, is relegated to the courts of law.

¶5 Section 7288, C. O. S. 1921, 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 60 days after the injury or for such time in excess thereof as in the judgment of the Commission may be required. If the employer fails or neglects to provide the same within a reasonable time after knowledge of the injury, the injured employee, during the period of such neglect or failure, may do so at the expense of the employer; provided, however, that the injured employee or another in his behalf may obtain emergency treatment at the expense of the employer where such emergency treatment is not provided by the employer. Whoever renders medical, surgical or other attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital service, medicine, crutches and apparatus, or emergency treatment, shall submit the reasonableness of the charges to the State Industrial Commission for its approval and such charges shall be limited to such charges as prevail in the same community for similar treatment of like injured person, and when so approved shall be enforceable by the Commission in the same manner as provided in this act for the enforcement of compensation payments; provided, however, that the foregoing provision, relating to approval and enforcement of such charges, shall not apply where a written contract exists between the employer or insurance carrier and the person who renders such medical, surgical or other attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital service or furnishes medicine, crutches or apparatus. The Commission shall have authority to order a change of physicians at the expense of the employer when in its judgment such change is desirable or necessary; provided, the employer shall not be liable to make any of the payments provided for in this section, in case of a contest of liability where the Commission shall decide that the injury does not come within the terms of this act."

¶6 T...