TULSA ROLLING MILLS CO. v. KREJCI

TULSA ROLLING MILLS CO. v. KREJCI
1931 OK 278
299 P. 225
149 Okla. 103
Case Number: 21867
Decided: 05/19/1931
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

TULSA ROLLING MILLS CO. et al.
v.
KREJCI et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Wages Paid Employee to Be Deducted from Amount of Award for Temporary Total Disability.
Where a salaried employee receives an accidental injury, arising out of and in the course of his employment, within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and is thereby temporarily totally disabled; files no claim with the State Industrial Commission for compensation therefor; continues to receive his wages as such employee until discharged, but does no work; thereafter files his claim for compensation, and receives an award based on temporary total disability, the amount of the wages so paid must be charged against him and deducted from the amount of the award due to him under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act for the temporary total disability.

Original proceeding by the Tulsa Rolling Mills Company and insurance carrier to review an award of State Industrial Commission in favor of Joe Krejci. Award vacated.

Hal Crouch, for petitioners.
J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Robt. D. Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission made on the 6th day of October, 1930, in favor of the claimant therein, respondent herein, awarding him compensation at the rate of $ 18 per week, computed from June 1, 1930, to September 24, 1930, in payment for temporary total disability resulting from an accidental injury received by him while in the employ of the petitioner and arising out of and in the course of his employment on March 5, 1930.

¶2 The State Industrial Commission found that the respondent was kept on the pay roll of the petitioner until June 1, 1930, and that the average wage of the claimant at the time of the injury was $ 250 per month.

¶3 The award discloses that it was made for a period beginning on June 1, 1930, at the time the petitioner ceased to pay him his wages, and extending to and including September 24, 1930, the date of his recovery.

¶4 We will not here determine whether or not the respondent received an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the petitioner. A determination of that question is not necessary to a determination of the issue presented here.

¶5 The respondent claimed to have sprained his ankle and to have been totally disabled from the time of the injury.

¶6 If, as found by the Commission, the injury occurred on March 5, 1930, and if the injury resulted in temporary total disability of the respondent to September 24, 1930, then the disability continued for a period of six months and 19 days, which, after deducting the five-day waiting period, leaves a compensable period of six months and 14 days, or 26 weeks, which, at the rate of $ 18 per week awarded by the State Industrial Commission, would make a total of $ 468 compensation to which the respondent would be entitled.

¶7 The record shows:

"Q. How many days did you work after this injury? A. I didn't work any."

--and that the respondent was, from the 5th day of March, 1930, to the 1st day of June, 1930, paid his regular salary of $ 250 per month as the foreman of the petitioner's mill. That amount is considerably more than the amount of compensation due him from the date of the injury to the date of the recovery. Having been paid more than he is entitled to recover as compensation, no further compensation should have been awarded.

¶8 The record shows that the respondent continued to work for the petitioner whenever the petitioner's mill was operated until discharged on the 1st day of June, 1930. The discharge was caused by the closing of the mill and the reorganization of the company. His claim was signed on the day of July, 1930, at Kansas City, Mo., to which place he had gone to live. He had not asked the petitioner for compensation and he had not filed a claim with the State Industrial Commission for compensation.

¶9 We are not willing to say that a man drawing a salary by the month, which is paid to him whether the business is operated or not, may, after receiving an injury, continue to draw his salary until such time as he is discharged, thereafter file a claim for compensation on the basis of temporary total disability, be awarded compensation therefor and not be charged with the amount of salary he has theretofore received after the date of the alleged injury and while the temporary total disability continued.

¶10 We are of the opinion that where a claim is filed with the State Industrial Commission asking for an award for temporary total disability and the evidence shows that the salary paid to the injured employee after the date of the injury and during the period of the total disability is in excess of the amount of compensation that could be awarded therefor, the salary so paid must be considered by the State Industrial Commission and deducted from the amount of the compensation otherwise due to the injured employee.