LEA MACHINERY COMPANY v. EMMONS

3 Citing cases

  1. Fisher v. Douglas Aircraft Company

    440 P.2d 708 (Okla. 1968)   Cited 5 times

    We have held consistently the question whether a heart disability suffered by a workman resulted from strain or exertion arising out of and in the course of his employment, or from unrelated causes, presents a question of fact for determination of the State Industrial Court whose finding on such issue will not be disturbed by this Court on review when based on competent evidence reasonably tending to support such finding. Riley v. Cimarron-Empire Construction Company et al., supra; Griffin v. Flint Steel Corporation, Okla., 405 P.2d 63; C.T. Hughes Construction Company v. Phillips, Okla., 401 P.2d 498; Lea Machinery Company v. Emmons, Okla., 395 P.2d 857; Hefner Co. v. Lantz, Okla., 393 P.2d 845. The finding of the State Industrial Court is sustained by reasonably competent evidence. Respondent also contends the trial judge's order denying compensation is too definite to be capable of judicial interpretation and review by the Industrial Court sitting en banc, or by this Court on appeal. The material portions of the order, approved by the Industrial Court en banc, are as follows:

  2. Griffin v. Flint Steel Corporation

    405 P.2d 63 (Okla. 1965)   Cited 6 times
    In Griffin v. Flint Steel Corporation, Okla., 405 P.2d 63, this Court had for interpretation a similar order denying compensation for an alleged heart disability.

    We agree with claimant that the facts are undisputed that he was swinging an eight pound sledge hammer when he became ill and had to be taken to the hospital but we do not agree there was no competent evidence other than his own to show that he did not sustain an accidental injury. Whether a heart attack suffered by a workman resulted from strain or exertion arising out of and in the course of his employment, or from other causes which are unrelated thereto and disconnected therefrom, presents a question of fact for the determination of the State Industrial Court whose finding on such issue will not be disturbed on review when based on competent evidence reasonably tending to support it. C.T. Hughes Construction Co. v. Phillips, Okla., 401 P.2d 498; Lea Machinery Co. v. Emmons, Okla., 395 P.2d 857; Hefner Co. v. Lantz, Okla., 393 P.2d 845. We have also ruled, too many times to require citation, that where a disability for which compensation is sought is of such character as to require a determination of its nature, cause and extent, by skilled and professional persons, proof thereof must be made by the evidence of such persons.

  3. C.T. Hughes Construction Company v. Phillips

    1965 OK 66 (Okla. 1965)   Cited 9 times

    Only when both of these evidentiary components are supplied may the fact of an accidental injury from strain be established. Lea Machinery Co. v. Emmons, Okla., 395 P.2d 857; Berryhill v. Prudential Premium Co., Okla., 394 P.2d 520; Black, Sivalls Bryson, Inc., v. Coley, Okla., 367 P.2d 1017. Homer Chadwick's testimony stands uncontradicted, that on the day in question it was hot (his testimony was that the temperature was from 103 degrees F. to 104 degrees F. The weather bureau report at Will Rogers Airport was 100 degrees F.); that deceased wheeled sand in a wheelbarrow from a certain pile of sand to the location where he mixed the mortar in another wheelbarrow; that he added cement with the sand either by the shovel or by picking up a 50 pound sack of cement and pouring it into the wheelbarrow; that the water was added and he mixed the sand, cement and water together to form mortar by "a chopping" motion with a hoe; that deceased put two to three shovels of the finished mortar into a five gallon bucket and that the shovels of mortar weighed approximately 15 to 20 pounds; that he then pulled 12 to 14 of the bucketfuls up to the eight foot scaffold by