Fischer-Kimsey Co. v. King

14 Citing cases

  1. Frisco Transportation Co. v. State Indus. Com'n

    346 P.2d 182 (Okla. 1959)   Cited 1 times

    * * *" See also Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. v. Welch, 195 Okla. 636, 159 P.2d 1017; and Fischer-Kimsey Co. v. King, 196 Okla. 92, 162 P.2d 519. In Skelly Oil Co. v. Grimm, 196 Okla. 122, 163 P.2d 234, 237, it is stated:

  2. Bartlett-Collins Company v. Armstrong

    1959 OK 205 (Okla. 1959)   Cited 2 times

    "Where there is competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the finding that the employer or the insurance carrier, as the case may be, has not been prejudiced by failure to give the statutory written notice and the trial commissioner, or the State Industrial Commission, has excused the giving of the statutory written notice on that ground, the award will not be vacated for failure to give the notice required in the time and manner prescribed." See, also Fischer-Kimsey Co. v. King, 196 Okla. 92, 162 P.2d 519; Gulf Oil Corporation v. Rouse, 202 Okla. 395, 214 P.2d 251; Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. White, 187 Okla. 627, 105 P.2d 225. In two other propositions petitioner argues the evidence does not support the finding that claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment; and there is no medical evidence reasonably tending to support the finding that there is any disability due to an accidental injury.

  3. Reints v. Diehl

    317 P.2d 750 (Okla. 1957)   Cited 5 times

    We shall now consider the alleged error in excusing the giving of the statutory written notice under the provisions of said section 24, supra. This court has discussed the excusing of the giving of the statutory written notice required by said section in the following cases: Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. v. Welch, 195 Okla. 636, 159 P.2d 1017; Fischer-Kimsey Co. v. King, 196 Okla. 92, 162 P.2d 519; Skelly Oil Co. v. Grimm, 196 Okla. 122, 163 P.2d 230; Oklahoma Steel Casting Co. v. Cates, 195 Okla. 646, 163 P.2d 1013; Shell Oil Co., Inc. v. Thomas, 202 Okla. 190, 211 P.2d 263; Gulf Oil Co. v. Rouse, 202 Okla. 395, 214 P.2d 251; Bash-Ross Tool Co. v. State Industrial Commission, (Okla.) 289 P.2d 659; and United States Gypsum Co. v. State Industrial Commission, Okla., 307 P.2d 135. In Oklahoma Steel Casting Co. v. Cates, supra, it is stated [ 195 Okla. 646, 163 P.2d 1014]:

  4. United States Gypsum Co. v. State Industrial Com'n

    307 P.2d 135 (Okla. 1957)   Cited 5 times

    It is contended that since no statutory written notice was given the State Industrial Commission erred in finding that actual notice was given and that the petitioner was not prejudiced by a failure to give said statutory written notice. Although the testimony is in conflict the State Industrial Commission was authorized to find that the day after the accidental injury the son of claimant informed the personnel manager or foreman of the accidental injury and that within three weeks after the accidental injury claimant reported to the personnel manager the details of the accidental injury. Under the holdings of this court in Fischer-Kimsey Co. v. King, 196 Okla. 92, 162 P.2d 519; Skelly Oil Co. v. Grimm, 196 Okla. 122, 163 P.2d 234; Oklahoma Steel Castings Co. v. Cates, 195 Okla. 646, 163 P.2d 1013; and Frank Sharp v. Whiting, Okla., 276 P.2d 759, there is competent evidence to sustain the finding as to notice. In Skelly Oil Co. v. Grimm, supra, we said [ 196 Okla. 122, 163 P.2d 237]:

  5. Baash-Ross Tool Company v. State Industrial Com'n

    289 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1955)   Cited 12 times
    In Baash-Ross Tool Co. v. State Industrial Commission, Okla., 289 P.2d 659, an award was sustained where the employee died of a brain tumor.

    Petitioners cite Producers Pipe Supply Co. v. Clevenger, 198 Okla. 601, 180 P.2d 667, in which this court remanded the cause to the State Industrial Commission for failure to excuse the giving of the statutory written notice on the statutory grounds. Therein we recognized the rule stated in Fischer-Kimsey Co. v. King, 196 Okla. 92, 162 P.2d 519, 521, wherein we stated: "We therefore hold that when the State Industrial Commission has made the finding excusing the giving of the statutory written notice on the ground that the employer or the insurance carrier, as the case may be, has not been prejudiced by failure to give the statutory written notice and there is competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the finding an award based thereon will not be disturbed simply because the trial commissioner, or the State Industrial Commission on appeal, as the case may be, has made a finding that the employer, or the insurance carrier, had had `actual notice' of the injury."

  6. Okemah Publishing Company v. Aaron

    1955 OK 186 (Okla. 1955)   Cited 7 times

    We have many times held that the State Industrial Commission is authorized to excuse the giving of the statutory written notice on the ground that the employer has not been prejudiced by a failure to give the same, and if there is any competent evidence to support the finding that the employer has not been prejudiced this court will not disturb the action of the State Industrial Commission. Jones v. Oliver, 204 Okla. 164, 228 P.2d 173; Shell Oil Co. Inc., v. Thomas, 202 Okla. 190, 211 P.2d 263; Fischer-Kimsey Co. v. King, 196 Okla. 92, 162 P.2d 519. There is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding that the petitioners were not prejudiced by a failure to give the statutory written notice.

  7. Frank and Sharp v. Whiting

    1954 OK 317 (Okla. 1954)   Cited 11 times

    Petitioners rely on Skelly Oil Co. v. Johnson, 157 Okla. 278, 12 P.2d 177, and cases following it. The rule announced in these cases is discussed in Fischer-Kimsey Co. v. King, 196 Okla. 92, 162 P.2d 519, 521. Therein we stated:

  8. Glencliff Dairy Products Co. v. Rowton

    261 P.2d 449 (Okla. 1953)

    "Under the provisions of 85 O.S. 1951 ยง 24[ 85-24], the State Industrial Commission is authorized to excuse the giving of the statutory notice either on the ground that for some reason the injured employee was not able to give the same or that the insurance carrier, or the employer, as the case may be, has not been prejudiced thereby." See, also, in this connection Fischer-Kimsey Co. v. King, 196 Okla. 92, 162 P.2d 519. The State Industrial Commission did not err in excusing the giving of the statutory written notice. Finally it is argued that the State Industrial Commission erred in allowing medical expenses.

  9. Jones v. Oliver

    228 P.2d 173 (Okla. 1951)   Cited 19 times

    " See, also, Producers Pipe Supply Co. et al. v. Clevenger et al., 198 Okla. 601, 180 P.2d 667; Fischer-Kimsey Co. et al. v. King et al., 196 Okla. 92, 162 P.2d 519. The purpose of the statute requiring that the employee give written notice of his injury is to furnish prompt information to the employer in order that he may make a proper and timely investigation of the accident in order to determine the cause, nature and extent of the injury and in order that he might furnish prompt medical treatment to prevent or minimize resulting disability.

  10. Gulf Oil Corporation v. Kincannon

    218 P.2d 625 (Okla. 1950)   Cited 10 times

    We cannot say, as a matter of law, under the foregoing facts and circumstances, that this was error. See Fischer-Kimsey Co. v. King, 196 Okla. 92, 162 P.2d 519; Skelly Oil Co. v. Grimm, 196 Okla. 122, 163 P.2d 234; Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. v. Welch, 195 Okla. 636, 159 P.2d 1017; and Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. White, 187 Okla. 627, 105 P.2d 225. Award sustained.