Lubritorium, Inc. v. Adams

1930 OK 381, 291 P. 94, 144 Okla. 234, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 713
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 9, 1930
Docket21304
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 1930 OK 381 (Lubritorium, Inc. v. Adams) 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
Lubritorium, Inc. v. Adams, 1930 OK 381, 291 P. 94, 144 Okla. 234, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 713 (Okla. 1930).

Opinion

H|ERR, C.

This is a proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission.

It appears that on and prior to March 7, 1930, Pinkie Adams was an employee of Lubritorium, Inc., and on said day, while engaged in washing a car, and in the course of his employment, slipped and fell astride the bumper causing injury to his left testicle. The Industrial Commission found that by reason of the accident, claimant suffered total temporary disability and awarded compensation accordingly. Lubritorium, Inc., and its insurance carrier bring the case here for review.

The contention of respondents is that there is no sufficient competent evidence to support the award. This contention is based on the theory that claimant offered no expert or medical evidence tending to establish his contention that the injury complained of resulted from the accident. Considering the nature of tile injury, we are of the opinipn that such evidence is not necessary in this case. Claimant testified that he was able to work prior to the injury, and unable ttCwdi’lc'1 thereafter; that his injury was due to the accident. Other lay witnesses testified as to the accident. Respondents offered medical evidence to the effect that the injury complained of was the result of disease ánd not of the accident. This conflict in the evidence presented a question of fact for the determination of the Industrial Commission, and its finding is binding upon us.

Petition for review should be denied, and the award of the Industrial Commission affirmed.

BENNETT,, DIFFENDAFFER, HALL, and EAGLETON, Commissioners, concur.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Related

State v. Aragon
690 P.2d 293 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1984)
Jupe v. Jupe
1946 OK 10 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1946)
Biser v. Biser
1936 OK 194 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
Smith v. Baker
1932 OK 380 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1930 OK 381, 291 P. 94, 144 Okla. 234, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubritorium-inc-v-adams-okla-1930.