"Where the State Industrial Commission finds that claimant did not sustain an accidental personal injury arising out of or in the course of his employment, and from an examination of the record it reasonably appears that claimant's disability did not result from an accidental injury, the findings of the commission and the order based thereon will not be set aside as being too indefinite for judicial interpretation." See also, Beck v. J.B. Cuppy Freight Lines, Okla., 344 P.2d 1061; Parvin v. Jays Electric Service, Okla., 309 P.2d 1067. The proceedings are free from error of law and the trial tribunal's order rests on competent evidence.
Finally, it is argued that the finding of the State Industrial Court is vague and indefinite within the rule of Corzine v. Traders Compress et al., 196 Okla. 259, 164 P.2d 625, and cases related thereto citing this case. We think the rule applicable is announced in Cranfill v. J.G. Beard Estate et al., Okla., 348 P.2d 506; Jamison v. Big Four Foundry Co., Inc. et al., Okla., 336 P.2d 349; Parvin v. Jays Electric Ser. et al., Okla., 309 P.2d 1067; Lacy v. Pratt Food Stores et al., Okla., 347 P.2d 788. As stated in Jamison v. Big Four Foundry Co., Inc. et al., supra, the order is not vague and indefinite. It is susceptible to judicial interpretation. It determined definitely that there was no permanent disability by reason of the accidental injury of September 21, 1956. Order denying award sustained.
thy v. Forbes Painting Decorating Co., 200 Okla. 555, 198 P.2d 212; DeVore v. Maidt Plastering Co., 205 Okla. 612, 239 P.2d 520; Corzine v. Traders Compress, 196 Okla. 259, 164 P.2d 625; Skelly Oil Co. v. Witty, 198 Okla. 384, 179 P.2d 119; Adams v. City of Anadarko, 198 Okla. 484, 180 P.2d 159; and Orman v. Capitol Steel Iron Co., Okla., 289 P.2d 375, on the contention that the order denying compensation is too indefinite and uncertain for judicial interpretation. If the trial commissioner was correct in his finding that the claimant did not sustain an accidental injury on September 10, 1957, arising out of and in the course of his employment, then the order is sufficiently definite, clear and certain, for judicial interpretation. The cases relied on by the claimant that the trial commissioner erred in finding that an accidental injury did not occur are not applicable to the facts in this case, (but the cases of Souder v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 187 Okla. 698, 105 P.2d 750; Parvin v. Jays Electric Service Co., Okla., 309 P.2d 1067 and Beck v. J.B. Cuppy Freight Lines, Okla., 344 P.2d 1061, are applicable) as hereinafter explained. It is not denied that something happened on September 10, 1957, but the mere happening of an event, in itself, would not require an award in favor of the claimant.
Inasmuch as the order complained of found that claimant's condition was not the result of trauma, we are of the opinion that the order sufficiently disposes of all issues presented, and it will not be set aside as being too indefinite and uncertain for judicial interpretation. Parvin v. Jays Electric Service, 309 P.2d 1067. Having found that claimant sustained no disability resulting from an accident, it was unnecessary for the commission to find whether or not claimant had an accident, which, without a resulting injury, is not cognizable under the Act, under the above cited cases.
Claimant argues the order is too indefinite and uncertain for judicial interpretation and cites McCarthy v. Forbes Painting Decorating Co., 200 Okla. 555, 198 P.2d 212; Orman v. Capitol Steel Iron Co., Okla., 289 P.2d 375, and related cases. These cases are not applicable. The cases applicable are: Souder v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 187 Okla. 698, 105 P.2d 750; and Parvin v. Jays Electric Service, Okla., 309 P.2d 1067. In Souder v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., supra, it is stated: