Brooks & Dahlgren, Inc. v. Branson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Brooks & Dahlgren, Inc. v. Branson

1932 OK 793, 16 P.2d 855, 160 Okla. 224, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 747

Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided December 6, 1932·No. 23202·Published

Opinion

RILEY, J.

The State Industrial Commission on November 25, 1931, found that Daniel Branson had suffered a changed condition since July 27, 1931, and that his former temporary total disability, then ending and compensated, had become a permanent partial disability. An appropriate award was made.

Reversal is sought upon the ground that there is no competent evidence to support the finding of a changed condition.

There is ample evidence to support the finding. Dr. B. H. More testified, “He is incapacitated definitely at this time.” “He has a very pronounced arthritis”; that this arthritis deposits would develop some months after the injury and accordingly the disability would increase. This doctor testified, “I would say that it is traumatic arthritis.” The present condition of Bran-son was by the testimony attributed to his injury.

Award affirmed.

LESTER, O. J., and KEENER, CULLI-SON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. CLARK, Y. O. J., absent.

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

RILEY, J.

The State Industrial Commission on November 25, 1931, found that Daniel Branson had suffered a changed condition since July 27, 1931, and that his former temporary total disability, then ending and compensated, had become a permanent partial disability. An appropriate award was made.

Reversal is sought upon the ground that there is no competent evidence to support the finding of a changed condition.

There is ample evidence to support the finding. Dr. B. H. More testified, “He is incapacitated definitely at this time.” “He has a very pronounced arthritis”; that this arthritis deposits would develop some months after the injury and accordingly the disability would increase. This doctor testified, “I would say that it is traumatic arthritis.” The present condition of Bran-son was by the testimony attributed to his injury.

Award affirmed.

LESTER, O. J., and KEENER, CULLI-SON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. CLARK, Y. O. J., absent.

Brooks & Dahlgren, Inc. v. Branson, 1932 OK 793, 16 P.2d 855, 160 Okla. 224, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 747 (Okla. 1932).

Pincite

1932 OK 793 (Brooks & Dahlgren, Inc. v. Branson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.