AETNA LIFE INS. CO. v. HENNINGTON

AETNA LIFE INS. CO. v. HENNINGTON
1933 OK 271
21 P.2d 773
163 Okla. 198
Case Number: 23359
Decided: 05/02/1933
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO.
v.
HENNINGTON et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Right to Award on Ground of Change of Condition--Burden of Proof Upon Claimant.
In order to reopen a case and to obtain an award of further compensation on account of a change of condition, the claimant must establish before the State Industrial Commission that there has in fact been a change of condition since the original award was made, and further, that the same was due to the original injury.
2. Same--Review of Awards--Sufficiency of Evidence.
Findings of fact made by the State Industrial Commission and an award based thereon will not be set aside in a proceeding for review when there is competent evidence reasonably tending to support such finding and award.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by the Aetna Life Insurance Company et al. to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of J. R. Hennington. Petition to vacate award denied.

Green & Farmer, for petitioner.
A. P. Murrah, Luther Bohanon, and M. F. Boddie, for respondents.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 This proceeding was instituted in this court by the Aetna Life Insurance Company for the purpose of obtaining a review of an award made by the State Industrial Commission in favor of J. R. Hennington, the claimant before the State Industrial Commission, against the petitioner herein and the employer of the claimant, the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company.

¶2 The real issue presented herein is whether or not an award should have been made against the petitioner. The Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company does not contend that the award should not have been made against it. The issue was caused by the fact that the petitioner ceased to be an insurance carrier for the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company after the claimant was injured on January 27, 1930, and prior to the time the claimant was again injured on February 17, 1930.

¶3 The State Industrial Commission found that the claimant had suffered a change in his condition. The petitioner contends that there was no competent evidence to sustain the finding for the reason that there was no competent evidence that the change of condition was caused by the injury which the claimant received on January 27, 1930. An examination of the record discloses material competent testimony to sustain the award.

¶4 The petition to vacate the award is denied.