WIEDERKEHR v. CHAMBLESS-ROSEN DRILLING COMPANY

WIEDERKEHR v. CHAMBLESS-ROSEN DRILLING COMPANY
1961 OK 58
360 P.2d 513
Case Number: 39227
Decided: 03/14/1961
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PETE WIEDERKEHR, PETITIONER,
v.
CHAMBLESS-ROSEN DRILLING COMPANY, STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review from the State Industrial Court.

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 Findings of fact made by the State Industrial Court are conclusive and binding upon this court, where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support such findings.

Original proceeding brought by Pete Wiederkehr, claimant, to review an order of the State Industrial Court denying an award in a proceeding against Chambless-Rosen Drilling Company and its insurance carrier, Standard Insurance Company.

Order sustained.

Farmer & Kerr, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Fenton, Fenton, Smith & McCaleb, A.L. Voth, E.B. Lee, Oklahoma City, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

JACKSON, Justice.

¶1 Pete Wiederkehr, hereinafter called claimant, filed his first notice of injury and claim for compensation stating that while employed by Chambless-Rosen Drilling Company he sustained an accidental injury arising out of his employment on September 15, 1956. After a hearing the trial judge denied an award and on appeal to the State Industrial Court en banc the order was affirmed. This proceeding is brought by claimant against the employer and its insurance carrier, Standard Insurance Company, hereinafter called respondents, to review the order denying the award.

¶2 The record discloses that claimant, fifty-two years of age at the date of the claimed injury, was employed as a tool pusher for employer. On the date in question he went to a pump approximately one mile from where employer was drilling a well to start the pump to obtain water for drilling purposes. A younger employee attempted to start the pump and when he was unable to start the pump claimant jerked three times on a starting apparatus and on the third jerk felt a severe pain in his chest and arm. He drove his automobile back to the drilling location and then was helped to a trailer house. He was attended by a local physician and was taken in an ambulance to a hospital in Perry, Oklahoma. He was examined a number of times and treated by Dr. H of Oklahoma City. He remained in the hospital thirty-eight days and then was sent to his home.

¶3 It is the testimony of two physicians for claimant that he has a heart condition which renders him totally and permanently disabled and that this disability is due to myocardial infarction caused by the accidental injury of September 15, 1956. On the other hand there is competent medical evidence given by Dr. T for the respondents that the claimant's disability is not due to the accidental injury of September 15, 1956.

¶4 The sole issue presented by claimant is the alleged error in refusing to enter an award. Claimant cities, Eagle-Picher Co. v. Snyder et al., Okl.,

"It is the settled rule that, where the injuries complained of are of such a character as to require skilled and professional men to determine the cause and extent thereof, the question is one of science and must necessarily be determined by the testimony of skilled and professional persons."

To the same effect see, Oklahoma Hospital v. Brown, 87 Okl. 46, 208 P. 785; James I. Barnes Const. Co. et al. v. Hargrove et al., 167 Okl. 348,

¶5 In Kemp v. Chickasha Plumbing Co. et al., Okl.,

"Findings of fact made by the State Industrial Commission are conclusive and binding upon this court, where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support such finding."

¶6 In Lacy v. Pratt Food Stores et al., Okl.,

"Claimant first argues there is no competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding of the State Industrial Commission and the order based thereon denying an award. Claimant cited Terminal Oil Mill Co. v. Younger, 188 Okl. 316,

"`* * * Petitioner relies upon the rule that where there is sufficient evidence to support an award it will be sustained. As stated in Kemp v. Comar Oil Co., 185 Okl. 527,

See, also, Price v. Spartan Aircraft Co. et al., Okl.,

¶7 There is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding of the State Industrial Court that the disability of claimant is not due to any accidental injury arising out of and in the course of the employment.

¶8 The order denying the award is sustained.