State Fuel Supply Co. v. State Industrial Com.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

State Fuel Supply Co. v. State Industrial Com.

1931 OK 140, 298 P. 258, 148 Okla. 193, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 839

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 14, 1931

Docket22082

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK 140 (State Fuel Supply Co. v. State Industrial Com.) 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

State Fuel Supply Co. v. State Industrial Com., 1931 OK 140, 298 P. 258, 148 Okla. 193, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 839 (Okla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDREWS, J.

This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State *194 Industrial Commission in favor of the claimant therein, respondent herein.

That the respondent was injured while in the employ of the petitioner, the State Fuel Supply Company, and that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment, is admitted. The testimony shows a loss of vision of SO per cent, of the right eye. No question is raised as to that. The only-question here is whether the condition oi the eye is due to the injury received. If there is any competent evidence reasonably tending- to show that the present condition of the eye is the result of the injury sustained, then, under the decision of this court, the a-svard must bo approved. Transcontinental Oil Co. v. Eoff, 126 Okla. 91, 258 Pac. 743.

None o’ the doctors testified as to the cause of the condition of the eye. Respondent testified that he had never had trouble with the eye before; that he had had his eyes examined when he entered the army and that this eye was all right; that he had them examined in 1926, and they were all right; that after his injury he .was troubled with the sight of this eye; that he told his fellow employees and his wife thereof; that the doctor treated his eye while he was suffering from the burns received by him in the accident; that he complained of his eyes -when he returned to .work; that he was working in a pit on a gas line when the gas exploded and burned him severely, including his body and his face. We think that there is abundant evidence to sustain the. award, and the same is approved.

LESTER, C. J., and-RILEY, OULLISON, SWINDALL, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, J.T., concur. CLARK, V. O. J., and HEFNER, J., absent.

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

ANDREWS, J.

This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State *194 Industrial Commission in favor of the claimant therein, respondent herein.

That the respondent was injured while in the employ of the petitioner, the State Fuel Supply Company, and that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment, is admitted. The testimony shows a loss of vision of SO per cent, of the right eye. No question is raised as to that. The only-question here is whether the condition oi the eye is due to the injury received. If there is any competent evidence reasonably tending- to show that the present condition of the eye is the result of the injury sustained, then, under the decision of this court, the a-svard must bo approved. Transcontinental Oil Co. v. Eoff, 126 Okla. 91, 258 Pac. 743.

None o’ the doctors testified as to the cause of the condition of the eye. Respondent testified that he had never had trouble with the eye before; that he had had his eyes examined when he entered the army and that this eye was all right; that he had them examined in 1926, and they were all right; that after his injury he .was troubled with the sight of this eye; that he told his fellow employees and his wife thereof; that the doctor treated his eye while he was suffering from the burns received by him in the accident; that he complained of his eyes -when he returned to .work; that he was working in a pit on a gas line when the gas exploded and burned him severely, including his body and his face. We think that there is abundant evidence to sustain the. award, and the same is approved.

LESTER, C. J., and-RILEY, OULLISON, SWINDALL, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, J.T., concur. CLARK, V. O. J., and HEFNER, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK 140, 298 P. 258, 148 Okla. 193, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-fuel-supply-co-v-state-industrial-com-okla-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack