Lumbermen's Supply Co. v. Mackey

6 Citing cases

  1. Southern Construction Co. v. St. Industrial Com'n

    335 P.2d 351 (Okla. 1959)   Cited 1 times

    We have heretofore examined, discussed and distinguished this case. Lumbermen's Supply Co. v. Mackey, 201 Okla. 296, 205 P.2d 870. In H H Supply Co. v. Bryant, 204 Okla. 515, 231 P.2d 685, 687, the same question was raised as here.

  2. Wade Lahar Construction Company v. Howell

    1962 OK 237 (Okla. 1962)   Cited 34 times

    The finding affords a sufficient basis for the award. Spartan Aircraft Company v. Stockton, supra; Lumbermen's Supply Co. et al. v. Mackey et al., 201 Okla. 296, 205 P.2d 870, 871; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Anguish et al., 201 Okla. 691, 209 P.2d 689, 691. The determination of a precise date at which a change of disability arises is necessary only to demonstrate that its occurrence is subsequent to the last prior award, and to prevent an allowance of benefits for a period included in the previous decision.

  3. Oklahoma Gass&sElec. Co. v. State Indus. Court

    366 P.2d 609 (Okla. 1961)   Cited 16 times

    Nor is it necessary that the change rest solely on objective medical findings. It is sufficient if, as here, a different condition, not ascertainable before in terms of its effect on disability, unfolds itself to the expert witness in the light of subsequent developments. Lumbermen's Supply Co. v. Mackey, 201 Okl. 296, 205 P.2d 870. Standish Pipe Line Co. v. Kirkland et al., 188 Okl. 248, 107 P.2d 1024; Wilcox Oils&sGas Co. et al. v. Satterfield et al., 178 Okl. 418, 63 P.2d 696; Cf. Southern Drilling Co. et al. v. Daley et al., 166 Okl. 33, 25 P.2d 1082.         Although nowhere in his report did Dr. J. specifically state that claimant's condition had undergone a change for the worse since the original award, the probative value of his testimony remains unimpaired.

  4. Refinery Engineering Company v. Blankenship

    353 P.2d 142 (Okla. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    The duty is on the party or parties making the application to show such change in condition. Boardman Co. et al. v. Clark et al., 166 Okla. 194, 26 P.2d 906; Blackburn Construction Co. et al. v. Kennedy et al., 184 Okla. 549, 88 P.2d 881; Lumbermen's Supply Co. et al. v. Mackey et al., 201 Okla. 296, 205 P.2d 870; and Sigler v. Tillery and Jones et al., Okla., 292 P.2d 423. In Standard Brands, Inc. et al. v. Gregor et al., Okla., 328 P.2d 181, it was held that it was the duty of the State Industrial Court to fix a date subsequent to the last prior order or award in making an award on the ground of a change in condition.

  5. H H Supply Co. v. Bryant

    231 P.2d 685 (Okla. 1951)   Cited 7 times

    At the present hearing this doctor testified that he still had a ruptured disc, but that this ruptured disc had caused increased loss of motion in respondent's back and that his back was considerably worse and more tender than in December, 1947. Dr. D.H. O'Donoghue, who had not examined respondent prior to the first award, was a competent witness to testify for respondent. Lumberman's Supply Co. v. Mackey, 201 Okla. 296, 205 P.2d 870. He testified he had examined respondent shortly before the hearing in question and estimated his disability to be 40 to 50 percent, and that according to the history of the disability given him by respondent, the respondent's condition was worse than it was at the time of the first hearing. This witness further testified as follows in answering the following questions: "Q. Doctor, do these recurrent seizures from time to time cause the condition to grow worse as these recurrent seizures recur? A. Yes, sir; the ordinary history is these attacks become more severe and more frequent and finally they become constant rather than intermittent.

  6. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Clark

    203 Okla. 561 (Okla. 1950)   Cited 4 times

    The evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding of the commission that subsequent to the last prior order of the commission, respondent had suffered a physical change in condition for the worse and that such change in condition was due to the original injury sustained on June 29, 1945, and is therefore sufficient to support the award. Lumbermen's Supply Co. v. Mackey, 201 Okla. 296, 205 P.2d 870. Award sustained.