McAlester - Edwards Coal Co. v. State Industrial Commission

1922 OK 190, 207 P. 446, 86 Okla. 192, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 147
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 30, 1922
Docket12879
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 1922 OK 190 (McAlester - Edwards Coal Co. v. State Industrial Commission) 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
McAlester - Edwards Coal Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 1922 OK 190, 207 P. 446, 86 Okla. 192, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 147 (Okla. 1922).

Opinion

MieNBILL, J.

The McAlester - Edwards Coal Company, a corporation, filed its petition in this court to reverse an order of the Industrial -Commission, wherein said commission awarded B. S. Sewell compensation for permanent loss of the use of two fingers, and fixed the compensation at $18 per week for a total of 35 weeks. The company contends the a'ward is not supported by the facts, nor by the law, for the reason the loss of the use of said fingers was caused by the neglig’enee of the claimant to take care of and to submit to treatment, which said neglect and refusal -on the part of the claimant resulted in the loss of the use of two fingers; that being true, that the claimant is not entitled to an award for compensation for the loss of said fingers, but only for a period of time in w-hieh he was disabled by injury. The testimony of the physician, Dr. Busley, was to the effect that the claimant would not let him open or lance the infected portion of the hand, nor permit him to remove the core from the infected hand. This evidence was denied by the claimant, who testified that the doctor did lance the hand. Mr. Keller testified that he was present and saVv the doctor lance the hand. Under, this state of the record, the -appeal involves a question -of fact, and not an error of law. Under and by virtue of section 10, chapter 14, Session Laws 1919, the decisions of the commission upon questions of fact are final and conclusive.

This court, in the case of Wilson Lumber Co. v. Wilson, 77 Okla. 312, 188 Pac. 666, in construing said act, held that this court would not review a question of fact. By applying the rule announced in the above case, the relief of petitioners is denied and award of claimant is affirmed.

KANE, JOHNSON, ELTING, and NICHOLSON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Westchester Fire Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Federal Nat. Bank
1928 OK 707 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Smith
1928 OK 506 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Kerr v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
1926 OK 1019 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Uhrina v. Rock Island Coal Mining Co.
1924 OK 659 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Hunt v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
1924 OK 169 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Murphey v. Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co.
1922 OK 275 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1922 OK 190, 207 P. 446, 86 Okla. 192, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcalester-edwards-coal-co-v-state-industrial-commission-okla-1922.