Stumpf v. Albright

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Stumpf v. Albright

1934 OK 20, 28 P.2d 991, 167 Okla. 156, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 459

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 16, 1934

Docket24298

StatusPublished

This text of 1934 OK 20 (Stumpf v. Albright) 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

Stumpf v. Albright, 1934 OK 20, 28 P.2d 991, 167 Okla. 156, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 459 (Okla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

McNEILL, J.

This original proceeding involves the review of an award of the State Industrial Commission. The Commission on November 4, 1932, awarded respondent, an employee of petitioner, compensation for 50 per cent, permanent partial disability of left hand. The evidence does not sustain this percentage for permanent partial disability. Under the admitted expert. medical testimony, the partial permanent loss of the use of the finger as result of the accident was approximately 30 peícent.

Petitioner also urges that the respondent was the only employee of petitioner, and by reason thereof the Commission had no jurisdiction to enter an award under' the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Suffice it to say that there is evidence to show that there were two workmen at times working in the distributing department of petitioner’s business at the time of said injury. This brings the department in which respondent was engaged at the time of his injury within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. On this question the evidence was conflicting. The Commission found that the injury was compensable and that the occupation was covered by and subject to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. There is evidence to support these findings, and the same are binding and conclusive upon this court.

The award is vacated and the cause te re *157 rnanded to the Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.

RILEY, C. J., and SWINDALL, BAY-LESS, and WELCH, JJ., concur.

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

McNEILL, J.

This original proceeding involves the review of an award of the State Industrial Commission. The Commission on November 4, 1932, awarded respondent, an employee of petitioner, compensation for 50 per cent, permanent partial disability of left hand. The evidence does not sustain this percentage for permanent partial disability. Under the admitted expert. medical testimony, the partial permanent loss of the use of the finger as result of the accident was approximately 30 peícent.

Petitioner also urges that the respondent was the only employee of petitioner, and by reason thereof the Commission had no jurisdiction to enter an award under' the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Suffice it to say that there is evidence to show that there were two workmen at times working in the distributing department of petitioner’s business at the time of said injury. This brings the department in which respondent was engaged at the time of his injury within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. On this question the evidence was conflicting. The Commission found that the injury was compensable and that the occupation was covered by and subject to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. There is evidence to support these findings, and the same are binding and conclusive upon this court.

The award is vacated and the cause te re *157 rnanded to the Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.

RILEY, C. J., and SWINDALL, BAY-LESS, and WELCH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1934 OK 20, 28 P.2d 991, 167 Okla. 156, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stumpf-v-albright-okla-1934.