Petitioners failed to raise that question before the Industrial Commission, and it cannot be raised here for the first time." Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Grant, 147 Okla. 177, 296 P. 389. Original action in the Supreme Court by the Oklahoma Portland Cement Company for review of order and award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of B.H. Holcum. Affirmed.
It is next contended that there is no competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding that the respondent is totally and temporarily disabled as a result of the accidental injury of October 1, 1942. A competent medical expert witness testified, after reviewing the history of the accidental injury as detailed by the respondent, that in his opinion the respondent was totally disabled, and that the nature of the disability was temporary; that in his opinion such disability was a result of the accidental injury. The cause and extent of the disability arising from an accidental injury are questions of fact, and if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding of the State Industrial Commission, an award based thereon will not be disturbed on review. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Grant, 147 Okla. 177, 296 P. 389; Standard Roofing Material Co. v. Mosley, 176 Okla. 517, 56 P.2d 847; Southern Ice Utilities Co. v. Barra, 178 Okla. 291, 62 P.2d 988. The award of the State Industrial Commission is sustained.
Oklahoma Hospital Co. v. Brown, 87 Okla. 46, 208 P. 785; St. Louis Mining Smelting Co. v. State Ind. Com., 113 Okla. 179, 241 P. 170; Shepard v. Crumby, 146 Okla. 118, 293 P. 1049. It will be observed, however, thatthe testimony of the claimant above referred to concerns neither the cause nor the extent of the injury, but refers rather to its existence or nonexistence. Assuming, however, that the rule applies to the character of testimony given by the claimant in this case, and that a man is not competent to testify that his vision is normal, the rule referred to is subject to the well-recognized exception that if a witness is permitted to testify concerning the matters falling within the rule without objection being made to his competency, such testimony is competent for the consideration of the Industrial Commission in determining the facts in the case. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Grant, 147 Okla. 177, 296 P. 389; Atlantic Oil Producing Co. v. Houston, 148 Okla. 197, 298 P. 245. The, testimony of the claimant was therefore sufficient to support the finding of the commission on a disputed question of fact, and supports the view that the claimant was not suffering from a loss of vision at the time of the injury which is the basis for the award in this case.
Claimant, however, contends that the extent and cause of the disability is established by his own testimony, and that in the absence of specific objection as to his competency as a witness on that point, his testimony is in itself sufficient to establish the existence and cause of the disability forming the basis of the award. In support of this contention he relies upon the exception to the rule invoked by respondent, which exception was recognized by this court in the case of Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation v. Grant, 147 Okla. 177, 296 P. 389, wherein it was held, in substance, that when a claimant testified before the State Industrial Commission as to the nature and extent of his disability, and such testimony is not objected to upon the ground that the witness is incompetent to testify, such testimony is sufficient upon which to base an award notwithstanding the absence of medical testimony. To the same effect the case of Atlantic Oil Producing Co. v. Houston et al., 148 Okla. 197, 298 P. 245, is also cited.
As to whether or not the record contains competent evidence to show that the changed condition was due to the original injury, we observe that claimant testified that no other injury had ever occurred to his hand. No objection was raised to his so testifying. This court held, in Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Grant, 147 Okla. 177, 296 P. 389, as follows: "Where a witness testifies before the State Industrial Commission as to the nature and extent of his disability, and the same is not objected to upon the ground the witness is incompetent to testify, this court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the witness was incompetent.
To the same effect is Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Nalley et al., 156 Okla. 156, 10 P.2d 249. One other question arises with respect to this aspect of the case — was there any competent evidence to show that the changed condition was due to the original injury? There was no evidence to show that any other injury had ever occurred to the thumb, the doctors testifying were all of the opinion that the injury described by claimant could result in the present condition, and the claimant testified that the present condition was due to the original injury. No objection was raised to his so testifying. This court held in Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation v. Grant, 147 Okla. 177, 296 P. 389, as follows: "Where a witness testifies before the State Industrial Commission as to the nature and extent of his disability, and the same is not objected to upon the ground the witness is incompetent to testify, this court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the witness was incompetent.
Petitioners failed to raise that question before the Industrial Commission, and it cannot be raised here for the first time." Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Grant, 147 Okla. 177, 296 P. 389. Original action by the Oklahoma Portland Cement Company for review of order and award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of P.W. Pitts. Affirmed.
Objection cannot be made for the first time in this court. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Grant, 147 Okla. 177, 296 P. 389; Atlantic Oil Producing Co. v. Houston, 148 Okla. 197, 298 P. 245. Dr. Walker testified as to the description of the nature and extent of the injury of the claimant as follows:
Having been so received, the objection cannot be made for the first time in this court. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation v. Grant, 147 Okla. 177, 296 P. 389. The respondent testified that after the injury to the left eye his vision in the right eye was such that he could read everything on the examiner's chart and that he now cannot read a newspaper without glasses.