Mead v. Thurman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Mead v. Thurman

1932 OK 739, 16 P.2d 78, 160 Okla. 115, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 698

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 15, 1932

Docket23917

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1932 OK 739 (Mead v. Thurman) 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

Mead v. Thurman, 1932 OK 739, 16 P.2d 78, 160 Okla. 115, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 698 (Okla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

MoNEILL, J.

This is a proceeding to review an order and award of the Industrial Commission entered on June 30, 1932. The respondent was 'employed by petitioner, Victor Mead, contractor, as an assistant carpenter in wrecking and rebuilding certain buildings in Oklahoma City, and, while carrying timber, fell across the sleepers of a building, injuring the right side of his chest and shoulder. The injury was compensable. The Commission found that by reason of this accidental injury respondent was tem *116 porarily totally disabled from the performance of ordinary manual labor; that he was suffering from a permanent partial disability, and that his wage-earning capacity by reason of said permanent partial disability had decreased in the same employment or otherwise from $4 to $2 per day. The Commission made its award for compensation in accordance with said findings.

The only question presented for the consideration of this court is whether or not the findings and award of the State Industrial Commission are supported by competent evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to set out in detail any of this evidence. An examination of the record shows that there is competent evidence, including expert testimony, to support the findings and award of the Industrial Commission. The Industrial Commission is the finder of the facts. This court does not weigh conflicting evidence in industrial cases.

Award affirmed.

CLARK, Y. C. J., and RILEY, HEFNER, CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and KORNEG-AY, JJ., concur. LESTER, C. J., absent.

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

MoNEILL, J.

This is a proceeding to review an order and award of the Industrial Commission entered on June 30, 1932. The respondent was 'employed by petitioner, Victor Mead, contractor, as an assistant carpenter in wrecking and rebuilding certain buildings in Oklahoma City, and, while carrying timber, fell across the sleepers of a building, injuring the right side of his chest and shoulder. The injury was compensable. The Commission found that by reason of this accidental injury respondent was tem *116 porarily totally disabled from the performance of ordinary manual labor; that he was suffering from a permanent partial disability, and that his wage-earning capacity by reason of said permanent partial disability had decreased in the same employment or otherwise from $4 to $2 per day. The Commission made its award for compensation in accordance with said findings.

The only question presented for the consideration of this court is whether or not the findings and award of the State Industrial Commission are supported by competent evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to set out in detail any of this evidence. An examination of the record shows that there is competent evidence, including expert testimony, to support the findings and award of the Industrial Commission. The Industrial Commission is the finder of the facts. This court does not weigh conflicting evidence in industrial cases.

Award affirmed.

CLARK, Y. C. J., and RILEY, HEFNER, CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and KORNEG-AY, JJ., concur. LESTER, C. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK 739, 16 P.2d 78, 160 Okla. 115, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mead-v-thurman-okla-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack