Ausbrook v. Empire Oil & Gas Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Ausbrook v. Empire Oil & Gas Refining Co.

1933 OK 421, 24 P.2d 646, 165 Okla. 28, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 233

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 5, 1933

Docket24201

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK 421 (Ausbrook v. Empire Oil & Gas Refining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ausbrook v. Empire Oil & Gas Refining Co., 1933 OK 421, 24 P.2d 646, 165 Okla. 28, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 233 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

OULLISON, V. C. J.

This is an original proceeding in this court by Walter H. Aus-brook to review an order of the State Industrial Commission entered September 29, 1932, denying the claim for compensation of Walter H. Ausbrook made against the Empire Oil & Gas Refining Company for the reason that claimant did not file his claim for compensation either with his employer or the Commission within the statutory period.

The record discloses that claimant filed with the Commission an employee’s first notice of injury and claim for compensation May 5, 1932, and thereafter filed two amended notices. The date of the accident in the first notice was “from July 20, 1929, to November 26, 1931,” the nature of the accident being from inhaling gas and fumes. Two hearings were had before the Commission, as well as oral argument before the three Commissioners, and two orders were entered at different dates, each denying claimant compensation. The second order, dated September 29; 1932; finds “that claimant did not file his claim for compensation either with the respondent or with this Commission within the statutory period, and (the Commission) is of the opinion respondent’s1 demurrer to the evidence in this ease should be sustained and compensation denied.”

The claimant, petitioner herein, contends that said finding is contrary to law under the testimony and evidence in the case, and that error was committed in sustaining the respondent’s demurrer to claimant’s evidence. With this contention we cannot agree. After a careful consideration of the transcript of the record, we hold the findings of the Commission and order based thereon are reasonably supported by competent evidence. Nash-Finch Co. v. Harned, 141 Okla. 187, 284 P. 633.

The petition to review is denied, and the order of the Commission is affirmed.

RILEY, C. J., and SWINDALL, MC-NEILL, OSBORN, BAYLESS, and WELCH, JJ., concur. ANDREWS and BUSBY, JJ., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OULLISON, V. C. J.

This is an original proceeding in this court by Walter H. Aus-brook to review an order of the State Industrial Commission entered September 29, 1932, denying the claim for compensation of Walter H. Ausbrook made against the Empire Oil & Gas Refining Company for the reason that claimant did not file his claim for compensation either with his employer or the Commission within the statutory period.

The record discloses that claimant filed with the Commission an employee’s first notice of injury and claim for compensation May 5, 1932, and thereafter filed two amended notices. The date of the accident in the first notice was “from July 20, 1929, to November 26, 1931,” the nature of the accident being from inhaling gas and fumes. Two hearings were had before the Commission, as well as oral argument before the three Commissioners, and two orders were entered at different dates, each denying claimant compensation. The second order, dated September 29; 1932; finds “that claimant did not file his claim for compensation either with the respondent or with this Commission within the statutory period, and (the Commission) is of the opinion respondent’s1 demurrer to the evidence in this ease should be sustained and compensation denied.”

The claimant, petitioner herein, contends that said finding is contrary to law under the testimony and evidence in the case, and that error was committed in sustaining the respondent’s demurrer to claimant’s evidence. With this contention we cannot agree. After a careful consideration of the transcript of the record, we hold the findings of the Commission and order based thereon are reasonably supported by competent evidence. Nash-Finch Co. v. Harned, 141 Okla. 187, 284 P. 633.

The petition to review is denied, and the order of the Commission is affirmed.

RILEY, C. J., and SWINDALL, MC-NEILL, OSBORN, BAYLESS, and WELCH, JJ., concur. ANDREWS and BUSBY, JJ., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 421, 24 P.2d 646, 165 Okla. 28, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ausbrook-v-empire-oil-gas-refining-co-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack