Case Name: PILEY v. SINCLAIR PIPE LINE CO. et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1925-10-20
Citations: 117 Okla. 296
Docket Number: No. 15968
Parties: PILEY v. SINCLAIR PIPE LINE CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
PILEY v. SINCLAIR PIPE LINE CO. et al.
No. 15968
Opinion Filed Oct. 20, 1925.
Rehearing Benied May 11, 1926.
Thompson & Smith, for petitioner.
W. E. Ziegler, O. L. Canfield, and Edward H. Clmndler, for respondents.

Opinion:
Opinion by
STEPHENSON, C.
Tbe petitioner was in tbe employ of tbe Sinclair Pipe Line Company on August 1, 1922. Tbe claimant sustained an injury in tbe nature of a strain to the muscles of bis back, on account of tailing while carrying a piece of pipe. A report of tbe injury was filed with the Industrial Commission and claimant was allowed $5.77 as compensation for tbe injury. Tbe claimant executed a final receipt and report in which be stated that his disability ended on August 28, 1922, and caused the same to be filed with tbe Industrial Commission on September 19, 1922. The commission approved tbe final receipt and report as of September 28, 1922. Tbe claimant filed bis application before tbe commission on June 4, 1924, to cause a modification of tbe order made in September, 1922, on account of changed condition. The cause was tried before the commission on tbe 31st day of October, 1924, which resulted in a judgment denying the application of petitioner. Tbe commission made the following finding of fact upon which tbe judgment was based:
"That claimant failed to establish a change in condition, or other facts sufficient to entitle him to further compensation."
The trial of the question was one of fact for determination by the commission. The commission heard the evidence and has made its findings of fact against the petitioner. The rule is that a judgment of the commission upon a question of fact will not be disturbed upon appeal. Such judgment is not subject to review on appeal upon the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. This court will consider and review the questions of law involved in the appeal, but will not undertake to weigh the evidence upon which any finding of fact is based. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 109 Okla. 65, 234 Pac. 765; Sun Coal Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 84 Okla. 164, 203 Pac. 1042.
It is recommended that the judgment of the commission be affirmed.
By the Court: II is so ordered.
Note. — See under (1) Workmen's Compenstation Acts, C. J. p. 122, § 127; anno. L. R. A. 1917D, 186, et seq.; 28 R. C. L. 828; 3 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1600; 4 R. C. L. Supp. pp. 1871, 1872; 5 R. C. L. Supp. pp. 1580, 1581. (2) Workmen's Compensation Acts, C. J. p. 122, § 127,