Zimmerman v. Leo Sanders Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 January 1941 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 29669 |
| Citation | 188 Okla. 361,109 P.2d 486,1941 OK 26 |
| Parties | ZIMMERMAN v. LEO SANDERS CONST. CO. et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION--Conclusiveness of finding as to cause and extent of disability.
The cause and extent of the disability arising from an accidental injury are questions of fact to be determined by the State Industrial Commission, and where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the finding, an order based thereon will not be disturbed on review.
Original proceedings in the Supreme Court by George E. Zimmerman to review an order of the State Industrial Commission refusing to make award for permanent disability against Leo Sanders Construction Company. Order sustained.
H. M. Redwine, of Spiro, for petitioner.
John R. Wallace and A. C. Wallace, both of Miami, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
¶1 This is an original proceeding to review an order of the State Industrial Commission entered on the 12th day of December, 1939, wherein it found that the petitioner sustained an accidental injury when he lighted a match near a gasoline tank of a truck he was driving, causing facial burns.
¶2 The order was entered after exhaustive hearings. The State Industrial Commission found that the petitioner was temporarily disabled from February 14, 1939, to and including February 19, 1939. The petitioner prosecutes this proceeding because of the refusal of the State Industrial Commission to make an award for permanent disability.
¶3 The petitioner raises two issues in his proceedings to vacate the order. It is first argued there is no competent evidence to sustain the order. Several witnesses testified and the evidence is in irreconcilable conflict. It was the theory of the petitioner that he had sores on his body and a temperature of a little above a hundred degrees and possibly some eye trouble due to the accidental injury. It is pertinent to remark that Dr. Stafford, the expert witness for the petitioner, refused to support this claim by his testimony. Later another expert witness, Dr. Childs, supported this claim. Other expert witnesses denied this claim. The testimony of expert witnesses for the respondent was to the effect that there would be no permanent result from the burns, and that they were completely healed with no ill effects. The testimony of the expert witnesses for respondent, as reviewed above, reasonably supported the finding that the petitioner had no permanent disability. This was a question of fact for the determination of the State Industrial Commission. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Watkins, 177 Okla. 30, 57 P.2d 622. The rule to be applied, many times expressed by this court, is that the extent of the disability resulting from the accidental injury is a question of fact for the determination of the State Industrial Commission, and if there is any competent...
To continue reading
Request your trial