Sturm Drilling Co. v. Story

2 Citing cases

  1. Dunning-James-Patterson v. Rickert

    196 Okla. 237 (Okla. 1945)   Cited 4 times

    We are inclined to the view, therefore, that before this court is justified in precluding an injured employee from an award for further disability, on the ground that such disability has been determined, it must clearly appear that the question has been formerly determined. We have held that the State Industrial Commission is authorized to review any award made by it upon its own motion, or on the application of any interested party, upon the ground of change in condition (Sturm Drilling Co. v. Story, 165 Okla. 34, 24 P.2d 650); and where the question presented is one of fact as to the disability resulting from a change in condition, and where there is any competent evidence to support the finding of the State Industrial Commission, an award based thereon will not be disturbed on review. Sturm Drilling Co. v. Story, supra; Wilcox Oil Gas Co. v. Satterfield, 178 Okla. 418, 63 P.2d 696.

  2. Standish Pipe Line Co. v. Kirkland

    107 P.2d 1024 (Okla. 1940)   Cited 12 times

    The State Industrial Commission is authorized to make an additional award on the ground of change in condition when the proof shows there has been a physical change for the worse in the condition of the employee due to the original injury, and that such change has occurred since the last prior order of the commission. Wilcox Oil Gas Co. v. Satterfield, 178 Okla. 418, 63 P.2d 696; Sturm Drilling Co. v. Story, 165 Okla. 34, 24 P.2d 650; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Chandler, supra; Natural Gas Utilities Co. v. Andrews, 164 Okla. 267, 23 P.2d 697; Chicago Bridge Iron Works v. Lawson, 163 Okla. 224, 22 P.2d 86; Loffland Bros. v. Velvin, 152 Okla. 83, 3 P.2d 855. Petitioner has cited authorities holding that there must be an actual and apparent change in the physical condition.