Black Gold Petroleum Co. v. Hirshfield

8 Citing cases

  1. Roberts v. Merrill

    1963 OK 250 (Okla. 1963)   Cited 66 times
    In Roberts v. Merrill, Okla., 386 P.2d 780, 785 [1963], we held that the provisions of 85 O.S. 1961 ยง 22[ 85-22](7), which precluded compensation recovery when death occurred more than five years after the injury, violated Art. 23, ยง 7, Okla. Const.

    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.

  2. Romero v. Workers' Compensation Court

    1993 OK 150 (Okla. 1993)   Cited 8 times

    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

  3. Orrick Stone Company v. Jeffries

    1971 OK 116 (Okla. 1971)   Cited 22 times
    In Orrick, this Court determined that since the original award had provided for continuing medical care, and the claimant in that matter needed such care, "[t]he question of when medical treatment should cease or whether an operation is reasonably necessary is one of fact to be resolved by the State Industrial Court. That Court, if supported by sufficient evidence, may direct treatment in the future."

    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.

  4. Hartford Accident & Ind. Co. v. Tri-State Casualty Ins.

    235 P.2d 703 (Okla. 1951)   Cited 5 times
    Reasoning that the state district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between two insurance carriers because an insurer's liability existed only by virtue of the workers' compensation law, over which the workers' compensation agency had exclusive jurisdiction

    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.

  5. Gonzales v. Sharp Fellows Contracting Co.

    51 N.M. 121 (N.M. 1947)   Cited 13 times

    " 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.)

  6. Oklahoma Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Douglas

    193 Okla. 498 (Okla. 1944)   Cited 5 times
    In Oklahoma Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Douglas, 193 Okla. 498, 145 P.2d 180, we held that where an employee dies as a proximate result of an accidental personal injury, the State Industrial Court is thereupon deprived of jurisdiction to make any award in favor of his dependents.

    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.

  7. Chaves v. State Industrial Commission

    188 Okla. 438 (Okla. 1941)   Cited 1 times

    "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.

  8. Reaves v. Uniroyal Tire Co.

    671 P.2d 679 (Okla. Civ. App. 1983)   Cited 4 times

    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.