MAXWELL v. O. K. TRANSFER & STORAGE CO.

MAXWELL v. O. K. TRANSFER & STORAGE CO.
1937 OK 680
73 P.2d 838
181 Okla. 328
Case Number: 27732
Decided: 11/23/1937
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Maxwell
v.
O.K. Transfer & Storage Co.

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION--Review by Supreme Court--Orders Supported by Competent Evidence not Disturbed.
Where there is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding of the State Industrial Commission, the order made by said commission will not be disturbed.

Original proceeding by M. P. Maxwell against the O. K. Transfer & Storage Company and others to review an order of the State Industrial Commission denying an award. Order affirmed.

Fred M. Hammer and M. J. Parmenter, both of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.
S. S. Wachter, of Oklahoma City, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 On December 1, 1936, M. P. Maxwell filed first notice of injury stating that while employed by the O. K. Transfer & Storage Company at 521 West Main street, Oklahoma City, Okl., two heavy two by fours nailed together struck his right foot, fracturing it. The date of the accident is given as December 14, 1935, at 9:15 a. m.

¶2 On the 31st day of December, 1936, the State Industrial Commission denied an award. The reason for denying the award is stated to be that the evidence is insufficient to show claimant's disability was due to the alleged accident. The claimant has commenced this proceeding to have said order vacated. The parties will be referred to as petitioner and respondent. We are of the opinion and hold that the order must be affirmed. On December 3, 1936, there was filed employee's first notice. In this notice it is stated that the accident occurred when two heavy two by fours nailed together about nine feet long struck the claimant's right foot. The attending physician's report, filed December 3, 1936, also described the accident as being sustained when two, two by fours, nailed together, fell striking the patient's right foot. On December 7, 1936, there was filed employer's first notice of injury, and this notice stated that a crew of men were removing stumps and timber from a piece of ground on a farm with a winch truck and cable; that one member of the crew was removing the chain and cable from stumps and tossed the chain hook to one side; that in doing so the hook fell on Mr. Maxwell's foot, breaking a small bone in foot. The date of this accident is given as December 14, 1935.

¶3 In a proceeding before the State Industrial Commission prior to the hearing upon which the order of the 31st day of December, 1936, is based, petitioner appeared and testified in cause No. A-95601. In his testimony given at said hearing petitioner stated that while working on said farm with the farmer and Tommy Gibson and a fellow by the name of Ross he sustained an accidental injury on the 12th day of December, 1935, when a log chain was thrown by the said Ross striking his foot and fracturing it; that he made the report thereof on the following Monday and quit work on the 15th day of December, which was on Sunday, that he did not work that day but stayed home and kept his foot in hot water, and that he returned to work on the 17th day of February thereafter; that from the 15th day of December, 1935, until the 17th day of February, 1936, he was unable to work because of the accident.

¶4 The petitioner attempted to justify his claim of an injury on December 14, 1935, on the premises of said company when he claimed that he was injured by the two by four by stating that the first injury occurred December 12, 1935, and that thereafter on the 14th day of December, 1935, he sustained the second accidental injury in question. It is sufficient to state that the evidence is in conflict. We have said that the State Industrial Commission is the exclusive fact-finding body in such cases, and if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the award such finding will not be disturbed. Southern Ice & Utilities Co. v. Barra, 178 Okla. 291, 62 P.2d 988; Empire Oil & Ref. Co. v. Myers, 177 Okla. 401, 60 P.2d 730. There is competent evidence in the record to sustain the order and finding of the State Industrial Commission.

¶5 The order is affirmed.