Title: CARL B. KING DRILLING CO. v. FARLEY
Citation: 163 Okla. 304, 1933 OK 291, 22 P.2d 80
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 9, 1933

CARL B. KING DRILLING CO. v. FARLEY Annotate this Case CARL B. KING DRILLING CO. v. FARLEY 1933 OK 291 22 P.2d 80 163 Okla. 304 Case Number: 23924 Decided: 05/09/1933 Supreme Court of Oklahoma CARL B. KING DRILLING CO. v. FARLEY Syllabus ¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Question of Fact Whether Loss of More Than One Finger of Hand Constitutes Disability. "Whether or not the loss of more than one finger constitutes a disability to the hand, incapacitating the workman from labor for which he is mentally and physically adapted is a question of fact for the Commission, and where more than one finger is lost and there is competent evidence showing that such loss of more than one finger results in disability to the hand, incapacitating the workman from labor for which he is mentally and physically adapted, the Commission is authorized to award compensation upon the basis of disability to the hand." Planters Gin Co. v. McCurley, Original action in the Supreme Court by the Carl B. King Drilling Company et al. to review order and award made by the State Industrial Commission in favor of C. W. Farley. Award affirmed. Thurman, Bowman & Thurman, for petitioners. Leo J. Williams and M. J. Parmenter, for respondents. McNEILL, J. ¶1 This action involves the rendition of an order of the Industrial Commission adverse to the petitioners. This is the second time this case comes to this court. The only question presented herein is whether there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding of the Industrial Commission that respondent, the injured employee, has suffered a change of condition, entitling him to an award of 30 per cent. permanent partial disability to the right hand as a result of an admitted compensable injury to the second, third, and fourth fingers of his right hand. This court, in the case of Planters' Gin Co. v. McCurley, ¶2 Award affirmed.