Bybee Construction Co. v. Bybee

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bybee Construction Co. v. Bybee

1933 OK 81, 19 P.2d 141, 162 Okla. 88, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 518

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 14, 1933

Docket23872

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK 81 (Bybee Construction Co. v. Bybee) 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

Bybee Construction Co. v. Bybee, 1933 OK 81, 19 P.2d 141, 162 Okla. 88, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 518 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

CULLISON, y. C. J.

This is an original proceeding in the Supreme Court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission rendered on June 17, 1932, in favor of J. P. • Bybee,- claimant.

Claimant was in the employment of the Bybee Construction Company, and while so employed received an accidental injury resulting in the complete loss of the right eye, and claimant contended that there was a partial loss of sight in the left eye. Said cause was- tried to the Commission and considerable medical testimony was introduced by both sides. The Commission found *89 that claimant had suffered complete loss of his right eye and 16 per cent, loss of vision in the left eye and awarded him 290 weeks of compensation in payment thereof.

Petitioner appeals from the award of June 17, 1932, and contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the award rendered by the Commission. We have carefully examined the evidence in said cause, and find that there was a conflict between the medical testimony of claimant and petitioner before the Commission. We also And that there was ample competent testimony before the Commission in support of the award as made.

The question presented here for review is one that- has been before this court many times, and this court holds that where there is competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the award, this court will not reverse an award of the State Industrial Commission on appeal, but will affirm the same. Canadian Mining & Development Co. et al. v. Robbins et al., 155 Okla. 20, 7 P. (2d) 886.

In applying this rule to the case at bar, we find that there was sufficient competent evidence to support the award, and that under the numerous decisions of this court, the petition to vacate should be denied and the award affirmed.

RILEY, C.. X, and SWINDALL, ANDREWS, OSBORN, BAYLESS, BUSBY, and WELCH, XL, concur. McNEILL, X, absent.

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

CULLISON, y. C. J.

This is an original proceeding in the Supreme Court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission rendered on June 17, 1932, in favor of J. P. • Bybee,- claimant.

Claimant was in the employment of the Bybee Construction Company, and while so employed received an accidental injury resulting in the complete loss of the right eye, and claimant contended that there was a partial loss of sight in the left eye. Said cause was- tried to the Commission and considerable medical testimony was introduced by both sides. The Commission found *89 that claimant had suffered complete loss of his right eye and 16 per cent, loss of vision in the left eye and awarded him 290 weeks of compensation in payment thereof.

Petitioner appeals from the award of June 17, 1932, and contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the award rendered by the Commission. We have carefully examined the evidence in said cause, and find that there was a conflict between the medical testimony of claimant and petitioner before the Commission. We also And that there was ample competent testimony before the Commission in support of the award as made.

The question presented here for review is one that- has been before this court many times, and this court holds that where there is competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the award, this court will not reverse an award of the State Industrial Commission on appeal, but will affirm the same. Canadian Mining & Development Co. et al. v. Robbins et al., 155 Okla. 20, 7 P. (2d) 886.

In applying this rule to the case at bar, we find that there was sufficient competent evidence to support the award, and that under the numerous decisions of this court, the petition to vacate should be denied and the award affirmed.

RILEY, C.. X, and SWINDALL, ANDREWS, OSBORN, BAYLESS, BUSBY, and WELCH, XL, concur. McNEILL, X, absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 81, 19 P.2d 141, 162 Okla. 88, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bybee-construction-co-v-bybee-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack