Wilson & Co. v. Kennedy

1932 OK 383, 11 P.2d 187, 157 Okla. 139, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 819
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 10, 1932
Docket22884
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1932 OK 383 (Wilson & Co. v. Kennedy) 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
Wilson & Co. v. Kennedy, 1932 OK 383, 11 P.2d 187, 157 Okla. 139, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 819 (Okla. 1932).

Opinion

McNEILL, J.

This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission rendered on September 18, 1931, in favor of the respondent, H. G. Kennedy, and against the petitioner, Wilson & Company, Inc., whereby respondent was awarded compensation for temporary total disability.

The Commission found that respondent suffered a compensable injury on May 15, 1931, and made a finding as follows:

“The nature of said injury being strain to back in the sacral region while lifting vat of meat; that the respondent had actual notice of said injury, therefore, there was no prejudice by failure to give notice. That claimant has been temporarily totally disabled since the date of the accident, and that he is temporarily totally disabled at this time.”

It is unnecessary to discuss in detail this record. The essential facts are stated in the above .finding of the Commission.

Petitioner contends respondent has not submitted evidence reasonably tending to support his claim for compensation, and that the court should scrutinize with- more than ordinary care evidence tending to support a claim of traumatic injury where such evidence is largely’ subjective.

After a review of all the facts and circumstances, including expert testimony, the Commission found respondent was entitled to an award for temporary total disability. This case presents a pure question of fact. This court, in industrial cases, cannot weigh conflicting evidence. If there is competent evidence to support the finding of the Commission, the same is binding and conclusive on this court. In our opinion there is com *140 petent evidence reasonably tending to support the award.

Award affirmed.

CLARK, Y. C. X, and RILEY, HEFNER, OULLISON, SWINDALL, and KORNEGAY, XL, concur. LESTER, O. X, and ANDREWS, X, absent.

Note. — See under (1) annotation in L. R. A. 1916A, 266; L. R.. A. 1917D, 186; 28 R. C. L. 828, 829; R. G. L. Perm. Supp. p. 6254; R. C. L. Pocket Part, title Workmen’s Compensation, § 116.

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

Related

Victor Gasoline Co. v. Weatherman
1933 OK 245 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1932 OK 383, 11 P.2d 187, 157 Okla. 139, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-co-v-kennedy-okla-1932.