James v. M. P. Thomas & Co.

1941 OK 136, 113 P.2d 386, 189 Okla. 52, 1941 Okla. LEXIS 136
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 15, 1941
DocketNo. 29714.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1941 OK 136 (James v. M. P. Thomas & 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
James v. M. P. Thomas & Co., 1941 OK 136, 113 P.2d 386, 189 Okla. 52, 1941 Okla. LEXIS 136 (Okla. 1941).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George A. James, as claimant, filed in the Industrial Commission on January 13, 1939, a proceeding against M. P. Thomas & Company, claiming compensation for an injury claimed to have occurred on June 9, 1938, while in the employ of said respondent. No written notice of said injury was given by claimant. After extended hearings the Industrial Commission denied his claim, its order of denial embracing the following:

“That on June 9th, 1938, the claimant herein was in the employ of the respondent, engaged in a hazardous occupation within the terms and meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and on said date sustained an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, to wit: Injury to back and hips.
“That the respondent had actual notice of claimant’s accidental injury and respondent tendered medical treatment which claimant refused, and by reason of said refusal and failure to make further request for medical treatment the claimant prejudiced the rights of the respondent.”

Claimant contends that the commission denied compensation by reason of his refusal to accept tendered medical treatment and to make further requests for medical treatment; whereas, respondents, M. P. Thomas & Company and the State Insurance Fund, contend that compensation was denied because the commission found prejudice by reason of failure to give written notice of said injury. From a consideration of the language- used- it appears that the order of the commission is susceptible of the two interpretations. We shall not devote our' efforts to an endeavor to determine the correct interpretation, but deem it advisable to vacate the order and remand the cause to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings to the end that its order may not be misinterpreted.

Order vacated.

WELCH, C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, GIBSON, HURST, DAVI-SON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. CORN, V. C. J., absent.

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

Related

Foster Wheeler Corporation v. Bennett
1960 OK 186 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1941 OK 136, 113 P.2d 386, 189 Okla. 52, 1941 Okla. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-m-p-thomas-co-okla-1941.