Choctaw Cotton Oil Co. v. Boyd

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Choctaw Cotton Oil Co. v. Boyd

1933 OK 39, 18 P.2d 859, 162 Okla. 15, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 470

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 31, 1933

Docket24013

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 1933 OK 39 (Choctaw Cotton Oil Co. v. Boyd) 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

Choctaw Cotton Oil Co. v. Boyd, 1933 OK 39, 18 P.2d 859, 162 Okla. 15, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 470 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

McNEILL, ,T.

This is a proceeding to review an order and award of the State Industrial Commission. The only question is whether there is any competent evidence to support the finding of the Commission that the respondent was temporarily totally disabled, as found by the Commission. Petitioners, Choctaw Cotton Oil Company and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, contend that there is no such evidence. Respondent urges that there is. It appears that respondent was injured on March 29, 1932, while engaged in a hazardous occupation for the Choctaw Cotton Oil Company. Respondent and another employee were lifting press boxes weighing approximately 250 pounds and sustained an injury which was described in his claim for compensation as “back strain, injury to back, straining muscles of abdomen, injury to testicles and otherwise straining and injuring him.”

Respondent testified that he still suffered from his injury and is unable to perform manual work. There is expert testimony to show that this condition was due to the injury he received while in the course of his employment and that he was unable to perform manual work at the time of the hearing.

Some evidence is directed to the fact that he suffered from a previous disease, gonorrhea, thirty years ago. Even though respondent had a previous latent or dormant infectious disease, he would not be estopped to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law if the injury so received aggravated and lighted up such pre-existing physical condition. Patrick & Tillman Drilling Co. v. Gentry, 156 Okla. 142, 9 P. (2d) 921; Lee Drilling Company v. Ralph, 156 Okla. 140, 9 P. (2d) 954. There is expert testimony to show that the strain would cause and aggravate the pre-existing condition.

Award affirmed.

RILEY, O. J., CULLISON, V. C. J., and swindall, Andrews; osborn, bay-less, and WELCH, JJ., concur. BUSBY, J., absent.

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

McNEILL, ,T.

This is a proceeding to review an order and award of the State Industrial Commission. The only question is whether there is any competent evidence to support the finding of the Commission that the respondent was temporarily totally disabled, as found by the Commission. Petitioners, Choctaw Cotton Oil Company and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, contend that there is no such evidence. Respondent urges that there is. It appears that respondent was injured on March 29, 1932, while engaged in a hazardous occupation for the Choctaw Cotton Oil Company. Respondent and another employee were lifting press boxes weighing approximately 250 pounds and sustained an injury which was described in his claim for compensation as “back strain, injury to back, straining muscles of abdomen, injury to testicles and otherwise straining and injuring him.”

Respondent testified that he still suffered from his injury and is unable to perform manual work. There is expert testimony to show that this condition was due to the injury he received while in the course of his employment and that he was unable to perform manual work at the time of the hearing.

Some evidence is directed to the fact that he suffered from a previous disease, gonorrhea, thirty years ago. Even though respondent had a previous latent or dormant infectious disease, he would not be estopped to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law if the injury so received aggravated and lighted up such pre-existing physical condition. Patrick & Tillman Drilling Co. v. Gentry, 156 Okla. 142, 9 P. (2d) 921; Lee Drilling Company v. Ralph, 156 Okla. 140, 9 P. (2d) 954. There is expert testimony to show that the strain would cause and aggravate the pre-existing condition.

Award affirmed.

RILEY, O. J., CULLISON, V. C. J., and swindall, Andrews; osborn, bay-less, and WELCH, JJ., concur. BUSBY, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 39, 18 P.2d 859, 162 Okla. 15, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/choctaw-cotton-oil-co-v-boyd-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack