Raulerson v. State Industrial Comm. of Oklahoma

1919 OK 256, 183 P. 880, 76 Okla. 8, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 104
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided September 16, 1919·No. 10496·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

HIGGINS, J.

Suit was instituted in this court by plaintiff wherein he complains of an award of the State Industrial Commission, for the reason that the award is inadequate to compensate him for the injuries received by him.

He states that he was employed by the Tulsa Boiler and Sheet Iron Works, and while in its employ, sustained an injury to his foot; that after his injury a settlement was had with him, but owing to his immaturity of age, he being a minor, the settlement was inadequate; that the settlement was confirmed by the commission; that thereafter he discovered that he was more or loss permanently injured, made application to the commission to have the award set aside, whereupon, by order of the commission. the case was reopened and upon further hearing, the commission made an order denying the application to set aside the award previously made, whereupon th's suit was commenced.

The defendant contends that the award by the commission in passing upon matters of fact is final and not subject to a suit of this kind. In section 10, art. 20, of chapter 246, Sess. Laws 1915. in defining the powers of the State Industrial Commission, it is provided :

“The decision of the Commission shall be final as to all questions of fact, and except as provided in section 13 of this article, as to questions of law.”

In Board of Commissioners v. Barr, 68 Oklahoma, 173 Pac. 206, it is held:

“Under the provision of section 10, art. 20. of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the decision of the State Industrial Commission is final as to all questions of fact.” .

This suit is instituted upon the theory that the commission has erred in not allowing adequate compensation; that the wounds inflicted justify a greater compensation. This is a question of fact, and the law as laid down in Board of Commissioners v. Barr, supra, is- controlling.

Therefore, this suit is hereby dismissed.

. OWEN, .C. J., and PITCHFORD,. ' Mc-NEILL, and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

Raulerson v. State Industrial Comm. of Oklahoma, 1919 OK 256, 183 P. 880, 76 Okla. 8, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 104 (Okla. 1919).

1919 OK 256 (Raulerson v. State Industrial Comm. of Oklahoma) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cook v. State Industrial Commission
1939 OK 502 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Teague v. Carter Oil Co.
1933 OK 654 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Burns v. Roxana Petroleum Corp.
1929 OK 506 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Davison v. Wilson & Co.
1927 OK 313 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
Thomas v. Ford Motor Co.
1925 OK 1030 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
City of Kingfisher v. State Industrial Commission
1925 OK 979 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Grace v. Vaught
1925 OK 278 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Skelly Oil Co. v. State Industrial Commission
1923 OK 454 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Whitehead Coal Mining Co. v. State Industrial Commission
1922 OK 167 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
Missouri Valley Bridge Co. v. State Industrial Commission
1922 OK 143 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
McAlester Colliery Co. v. State Industrial Commission
1922 OK 11 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
Associated Employers' Reciprocal v. State Industrial Commission
1921 OK 323 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Mullen v. Mitchell
1921 OK 129 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Booth & Flinn, Ltd. v. Cook
1920 OK 320 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)