PARKS v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N

PARKS v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N
1938 OK 229
77 P.2d 1112
182 Okla. 413
Case Number: 28412
Decided: 03/29/1938
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PARKS
v.
STATE INDUS. COM'N

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION--Remand of Cause With Direction to Dismiss--Dismissal of Subsequent Proceeding to Vacate Order Denying Claimant's Application to Open Cause on Ground of Change in Condition.
Where this court has by its mandate directed the State Industrial Commission to dismiss a cause pending before the commission and after the mandate from this court has been forwarded to said commission and spread of record the claimant again files a proceeding to open the cause upon the ground of a change of condition, which application is denied, where said claimant prosecutes a proceeding in this court to vacate such order, the proceeding will be dismissed.

Original proceeding by Charley Parks, claimant, to review an order of the State Industrial Commission, in favor of Brown Brothers, employer, and the Employer's Casualty Company, insurer, under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Proceeding dismissed.

R. D. Howe, of Eufaula, for petitioner.
Jas. C. Cheek, of Oklahoma City, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is the fourth time this matter has been before this court. The first is Brown Bros. v. Parks, 155 Okl. 16, 7 P.2d 898; the second, Parks v. Brown Brothers, 166 Okl. 204, 26 P.2d 925; and the third, Brown Bros. v. Parks, 176 Okl. 615, 56 P.2d 883, 885. In the latter case this court said: "Since the record herein fails to disclose any further or additional facts to those disclosed in the former proceedings before the commission and on review in this court, but, on the contrary, clearly discloses a lack of jurisdiction of the commission to make any other or additional award to the respondent, it is therefore the duty of this court to put a period to any further litigation in this matter by vacating said award of July 22, 1935, and directing the commission to dismiss the claim."

¶2 We are of the opinion and hold that the matter has been finally disposed of and that the State Industrial Commission was correct in refusing to open up the proceeding upon the application of the petitioner. Such refusal was in direct response to the mandate of this court.

¶3 The proceeding is dismissed.