Watchorn Oil Co. v. Pendergrass

1936 OK 139, 56 P.2d 1170, 177 Okla. 21, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 719
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 4, 1936
DocketNo. 25914.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 1936 OK 139 (Watchorn Oil Co. v. Pendergrass) 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
Watchorn Oil Co. v. Pendergrass, 1936 OK 139, 56 P.2d 1170, 177 Okla. 21, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 719 (Okla. 1936).

Opinion

BAYLESS, J.

Watchorn Oil Company, the employer, and its insurance carrier, hereinafter referred to as petitioners, petition this court for a review of an award of the Stare Industrial Commission in favor of H. Pend-ergrass, 'an injured employee, hereinafter referred to as respondent.

No issue concerning the respondent’s right to receive compensation is raised, the contentions made going only to the interpretation and application of the law to the admitted facts.

The respondent was paid compensation for •a temporary total disability for a period of time, and the commission then had a hearing to determine the respondent’s status and to award compensation accordingly. It was found that the healing period was completed and that the respondent was suffering a 20 per cent, permanent partial disability due to the injuries to his back and hip, which injuries are classified and compensated for under the “other eases” clause of section 13356, O. S. 1931.

The commission fixed and determined the amount of the 'award, or the period over which it was run, according to the provisions of section 2, chapter 29-, g. L. 1933; that is to say, they awarded him 20 per cent, of total permanent disability or 100 weeks’ compensation, instead of determining the loss in his wage-earning capacity and awarding according to section 13356, supra.

This' ease is controlled by our opinion in No. 25521, Riverland Oil Oo. v. Williams, 176 Okla. 448, 56 P. (2d) 1167, and it is unnecessary for us to set out herein the reasoning which we gave in that case." The award of the commission in this casé-is vacated and the matter is remanded to the Industrial Commission to award compensation to the respondent herein in keeping with the rule which we laid down in the above case.

McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, Y. O. X, and *22 RILE?, WELCH, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur. BUSBY and PHELPS, JJ., absent.

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

Related

In Re the Habeas Corpus of Wells
1959 OK CR 11 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1959)
Stilwell v. Patterson
1939 OK 217 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Murch Bros. Construction Co. v. Cupp
1936 OK 391 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
J. B. Hammonds Gin Co. v. Cobb
1936 OK 352 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1936 OK 139, 56 P.2d 1170, 177 Okla. 21, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watchorn-oil-co-v-pendergrass-okla-1936.