It expressly excluded from its operation those cases where the accident resulted in death. 85 O.S. 1941 ยง 121[ 85-121]; Black Gold Petroleum Co. et al. v. Hirshfield, 182 Okla. 634, 79 P.2d 566, 569; Oklahoma Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Douglas, 193 Okla. 498, 145 P.2d 180, 182. The effect of the Compensation Act was to afford to the employee a special procedure under which to maintain his action where the injuries did not result in death.
Notwithstanding the amendment to ยง 14(E), we reaffirm our prior case law which holds that a medical care provider's claim for services rendered is ancillary to the injured worker's claim for benefits. See Black Gold Petroleum Co. v. Hirschfield, 182 Okla. 634, 79 P.2d 566, 569 (1938); Swift Co. v. Walden, 176 Okla. 268, 55 P.2d 71, 77 (1936). CONCLUSION
Respondents also argue that medical treatment is one of the "benefits" under ยง 22(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and that it is limited to the 300-weeks period in excess of which temporary total compensation payments may not be required. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brock, 176 Okla. 348, 55 P.2d 788. They urge that the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Court to award medical treatment is "ancillary to its jurisdiction to award compensation to the injured employee," citing Black Gold Petroleum Co. v. Hirshfield, 182 Okla. 634, 79 P.2d 566. It, of course, is elementary that any court must have jurisdiction in three well-known aspects before it can render an effective judgment.
Therefore, the Industrial Commission could not make an award for either compensation or medical bills. Oklahoma Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Douglas, 193 Okla. 498, 145 P.2d 180, and Black Gold Petroleum Co. v. Hirshfield, 182 Okla. 634, 79 P.2d 566. The plaintiff Hartford asserts a right to proceed in the district court on account of the rule of the following cases: Amerada Petroleum Corp. v. Stricklin, 164 Okla. 131, 23 P.2d 162; Wilson Drilling Co. v. Beyer, 138 Okla. 248, 280 P. 846, and Wentz v. Thomas, 159 Okla. 124, 15 P.2d 65. The Amerada case is not in point.
" Other decisions from sister states the opinions in which are illuminating and are persuasive of the correctness of the conclusion reached by me in the case at bar are C. G. Potts Co. v. Fortney, Ind. App., 69 N.E.2d 752; Black Gold Petroleum Co. v. Hirshfield, 182 Okla. 634, 79 P.2d 566; Sorensen v. Six Companies, 53 Ariz. 83, 85 P.2d 980; Harrison v. Tierney, 276 Ky. 637, 124 S.W.2d 757; Turner v. Shropshire, 285 Ky. 256, 147 S.W.2d 388; Lawrence v. Natural Gas Pipe-Line Co., 152 Kan. 558, 106 P.2d 685; Hogsten v. Compensation Commissioner, 124 W. Va. 153, 19 S.E.2d 439; State v. Industrial Commission, 141 Ohio St. 174, 47 N.E.2d 217. Feeling, as I do, that the provisions of 1941 Comp., ยง 57-913, were never designed to work survivorship of a claim such as that here made, the Kentucky cases of Harrison v. Tierney Mining Co., supra, and Turner v. Shropshire, supra, impress me as on all fours with the case at bar and deny recovery to the plaintiff. Even if we had the Indiana statute construed in Wenning v. Turk, supra, as we do not, it would in no wise aid the plaintiff as is made abundantly clear by the opinions in the cases of Hogsten v. Compensation Commissioner (W.Va.)
That is, unless death resulted "from causes other than the injury," within the meaning of the statute, the commission could not revive the cause and conduct a hearing on the claim. Black Gold Petroleum Co. v. Hirshfield, 182 Okla. 634, 79 P.2d 566. Considerable argument is devoted to the nature of the court's duty in reviewing the evidence relating to the cause of death.
"An award for disability may be made after the death of the injured employe when the death results from causes other than the injury." The provision relating to revivor was discussed in Washabaugh v. Bartlett-Collins Glass Co., 177 Okla. 159, 57 P.2d 1162; Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Pettyjohn, 179 Okla. 222, 65 P.2d 415; Swatek Const. Co. v. Williams, supra; Black Gold Pet. Co. v. Hirshfield, 182 Okla. 634, 79 P.2d 566. In Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Pettyjohn, supra, the court authorized and directed the proceedings to be revived in the name of the beneficiaries designated by the statute where an award had been made.
A claimant's right to medical treatment is an ancillary remedy connected to and dependent upon the claimant's right to recover compensation in the first place. Black Gold Petroleum Co. v. Hirshfield, 182 Okla. 634, 79 P.2d 566 (1938). Yet, Reaves did not avail himself of that remedy, nor did he seek any provision for additional future relief whatsoever.