Wilson & Co. v. Moore

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Wilson & Co. v. Moore

1932 OK 513, 12 P.2d 693, 158 Okla. 140, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 948

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 28, 1932

Docket23110

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1932 OK 513 (Wilson & Co. v. Moore) 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. Moore, 1932 OK 513, 12 P.2d 693, 158 Okla. 140, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 948 (Okla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

McNEILL, J.

Review of an award made by Industrial Commission. The major proposition involved is whether there is competent evidence to substantiate the award, as to the permanency of respondent’s disability, due to the dislocation of his shoulder. The injury was compensable. If it is permanent, respondent is entitled to the award. A review of this record does not justify an award for permanent disability. The cause is remanded to the Commission, with directions to hear further testimony on this question. If respondent fails to produce competent evidence showing the permanency of such disability, the Commission is directed to dismiss the same.

HEFNER,- CULLISON, SWINDALL, and *141 ANDREWS, JJ., concur. KORNEGAY, J., dissents. LESTER, O. J., CLARK, V. O. J.,. and RILEY, J., absent.

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

McNEILL, J.

Review of an award made by Industrial Commission. The major proposition involved is whether there is competent evidence to substantiate the award, as to the permanency of respondent’s disability, due to the dislocation of his shoulder. The injury was compensable. If it is permanent, respondent is entitled to the award. A review of this record does not justify an award for permanent disability. The cause is remanded to the Commission, with directions to hear further testimony on this question. If respondent fails to produce competent evidence showing the permanency of such disability, the Commission is directed to dismiss the same.

HEFNER,- CULLISON, SWINDALL, and *141 ANDREWS, JJ., concur. KORNEGAY, J., dissents. LESTER, O. J., CLARK, V. O. J.,. and RILEY, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK 513, 12 P.2d 693, 158 Okla. 140, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-co-v-moore-okla-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack