Whitehead Coal Mining Co. v. State Industrial Commission

1923 OK 166, 213 P. 838, 89 Okla. 24, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 962
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 13, 1923
Docket13801
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 1923 OK 166 (Whitehead Coal Mining Co. v. State Industrial Commission) 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
Whitehead Coal Mining Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 1923 OK 166, 213 P. 838, 89 Okla. 24, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 962 (Okla. 1923).

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

The above named petitioners commenced this action to reverse and vacate on award made by the State In *25 dustrial Commission to the respondent W. L. Stephenson for compensation for medical services.

The record discloses that on July 1, 1919, one William Walsh was injured while in the employ of the Whitehead Coal Mining Company at Henryetta, Okla., by a fall of rock upon his back, and on the 28th day of July, 1919. the Industrial Commission made an award to William Walsh as claimant, awarding him the sum of $17.31 per week, to continue until the termination of disability, and requiring the Whitehead Coal Mining Company and the Consolidated Underwriters to pay. all medical, expenses incurred by the claimant, not to exceed the sum of $100. The award was paid until September 1, 1919, when William Wialsh returned to w'ork in the same employment as a coal miner, where he continued to work until the 15th day of March, 1921, at which time William Walsh became mentally incapacitated! and was taken to the Hospital for the Insane at Yinita, Okla. In July, 1921, the -wife of William Walsh filed a petition with the Industrial Commission, asking for a review of the award made on the 29th day of July, 1919, and the Industrial Commission, on the 25th day. of August, 1921, made an award awarding William Walsh compensation from March 15, 1921, at the rate of $18 per week, to continue during disability. From this award an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, and an opinion was rendered in case No. 12647, entitled “Whitehead Coal Mining Company, a Corporation, and the Consolidated Underwriters, Petitioners v. State Industrial Commission and William Walsh, Respondents,” on May 9, 1922, affirming said award. 86 Okla. 149, 207 Pac. 305.

On the 7th day of June, 1922, the respondent W. L. Stephenson wrote the State Industrial Commission, as follows:

“In re the William Walsh Case, of Hen-ryetta, Okla. Shall I render my bill to the insurance Co?”

And on July 12, 1922, he wrote the State Industrial Commission as follows:

“I have repeatedly requested settlements of this account and they hare regularly ignored it. Please assist me in this matter.”

This matter was thereupon set for hearing at Henryetta, Okla., on the 9th day of August, 1922, before Commissioner H. C. Meyers, at which time the evidence was beard, and on the 28thi day of August, 1922, the Industrial Commission made an order requiring the petitioners to pay to the respondent W. L. Stephenson the sum of $253, which order is as follows:

“Now on this the 28th day of August, 1922, the above cause coming on for further-consideration pursuant to hearing held in Henryetta, Okla., August 9, 1922, before a member of the State industrial Commission, to review the medical bill of Dr. W. L. Stephenson. All parties received legal notices, the respondent and insurance carrier were represented by Roberts & Foster, Dr. Stephenson appeared in person. The commission after examining the testimony taken at said hearing and the records on file, and being otherwise well and sufficiently advised in the premises, finds:
“(1) That the claimant was injured July 1, 1919, while in the employ of the above respondent and that Dr. H. D. Boswell treated said claimant until August 1, 1919; that Dr. Stephenson attended the claimant in connection with the treatment that was given by Dr. Boswell, between July 1, 1919, and August 1, 1919.
“(2) That Dr. Boswell discontinued the treatment on August 1, 1919, and that the claimant had not recovered and it was necessary for him to have further treatment. He was treated then by Dr. Stephenson and the said Dr. Stephenson treated the claimant at various times until May, 1921; that the total amount of Dr. Stephenson’s bill is $253.
“(3) That the bill is reasonable.
“ (_4) That the respondent or insurance carrier failed and neglected to furnish the. claimant the necessary medical attention, although they knew that the doctor they furnished had discontinued treatments on August 1, 1919.
“(5) That an order was made on the 25th day of August, 1921, allowing the claimant compensation at the rate of $18 per week and to continue until the terminalion of disability, and that in the same order the respondent or insurance carrier were ordered to pay all medical expenses incurred by claimant as a result of said injury.
“(6) That this case was appealed to the Supreme Court, an opinion was handed down affirming the judgment of the commission on May 9, 1922, which included the medical bill.
“It is therefore ordered: That the respondent. the Whitehead Coal Mining Company, or the Consolidated Underwriters, insurance carriers herein, pay to Dr. W. L. Stephenson of Henryetta. two hundred and fifty-three dollars ($253) as full payment for medical attention rendered William Walsh.”

Thereafter, and in due time, these petitioners filed in this court, their petition praying reversal of said order, wherein they assigned as error the following:

*26 “1. The State Industrial Commission was without jurisdiction to make such award for the following reasons: (11 That no sufficient pleading was filed with said commissioner to invoke jurisdicton of the State Industrial Commission. (2) There is no provision in the statute for allowing a claim for medical services direct to the physician, where the physician is employed by the claimant.
“2. The evidence introduced is wholly insufficient to support said award, for the reason that it fails to show that the claimant had demanded of the petitioners medical services, and that such demand had been refused.
“3. That said order is contrary to law and is not sustained by any evidence.”

These specifications of error will be considered together under the proposition, being the second subdivision of pel itioner’s first specification of error, wherein it is said:

“There is no provision in the 'statute for allowing a claim for medical services direct to the physician, where (he physician is employed by the claimant.”

■Section 4, art. 2, ch. 246, Session Laws of 1915, as amended by section 4. ch. 14, Session Laws of 1919, in so far as the same is applicable, is as follows:

• “The employer shall promptly provide for an injured 'employe such medical, surgical or other attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital service, medicine, crutches and apparatus as may be necessary, during '50 days after the injury or for such time in excess thereof as' in the judgment of the commission may be required. If the employer fails to provide the same, the injured employe may do so at the expense of the employer. The employe shall not be entitled to recover any amount expended by him for such treatment or service unless he shall have requested the employer to furnish the same and the employer shall have refused or neglected to do so. ■* * *”

This provision-of the Workman's Compensation Law has frequently been . construed by this court.

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

Related

Oklahoma Utilities Co. v. Johnson
1937 OK 110 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Sheldon Oil Co. v. Thompson
1936 OK 347 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
Southwestern Bridge & Culvert Co. v. Sullenger
1934 OK 185 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Watts
1931 OK 54 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Federal Mining & Smelting Co. v. Montgomery
1931 OK 7 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Dallas Company v. Nourse
1925 OK 204 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1923 OK 166, 213 P. 838, 89 Okla. 24, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehead-coal-mining-co-v-state-industrial-commission-okla-1923.