Title: LUBRITORIUM Inc. v. ADAMS
Citation: 144 Okla. 234, 1930 OK 381, 291 P. 96 1
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 9, 1930

LUBRITORIUM Inc. v. ADAMS Annotate this Case LUBRITORIUM Inc. v. ADAMS 1930 OK 381 291 P. 961 144 Okla. 234 Case Number: 21304 Decided: 09/09/1930 Supreme Court of Oklahoma LUBRITORIUM, Inc., et al. v. ADAMS et al. Syllabus ¶0 Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation Law--Award for Total Temporary Disability Sustained. Record examined: Held, evidence sufficient to sustain the award of the State Industrial Commission. Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Original action in the Supreme Court by Lubritorium, Inc., and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, to review an award of the Industrial Commission in favor of Pinkie Adams. Petition denied and award affirmed. Owen & Looney, Paul N. Lindsey and J. Fred Swanson, for petitioners. Lydick & West and Murray F. Gibbons, for respondents. HERR, C. ¶1 This is a proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission. ¶2 It appears that on and prior to March 7, 1930, Pinkie Adams was an employee of Lubritorium, Inc., and on said day, while engaged in washing a car, and in the course of his employment, slipped and fell astride the bumper causing injury to his left testicle. The Industrial Commission found that by reason of the accident, claimant suffered total temporary disability and awarded compensation accordingly. Lubritorium, Inc., and its insurance carrier bring the case here for review. ¶3 The contention of respondents is that there is no sufficient competent evidence to support the award. This contention is based on the theory that claimant offered no expert or medical evidence tending to establish his contention that the injury complained of resulted from the accident. Considering the nature of the injury, we are of the opinion that such evidence is not necessary in this case. Claimant testified that he was able to work prior to the injury, and unable to work thereafter; that his injury was due to the accident. Other lay witnesses testified as to the accident. Respondents offered medical evidence to the effect that the injury complained of was the result of disease and not of the accident. This conflict in the evidence presented a question of fact for the determination of the Industrial Commission, and its finding is binding upon us. ¶4 Petition for review should be denied, and the award of the Industrial Commission affirmed.