Court Opinion

ID: 9536918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:09:30.019227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:33.354185
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Justice
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
To my mind there was ample predicate within the limits of the lower and higher percentages of disability testified to by the expert witnesses to warrant the finding of disability made by the trial tribunal.
Where the finding falls within the limits so fixed in the testimony, the award based thereupon should be sustained.
*211In the case of Standard Roofing & Material Co. v. Mosley et al., 176 Okl. 517, 56 P.2d 847, this Court quoted from Briscoe Const. Co. et al. v. Listerman et al., 163 Okl. 17, 20 P.2d 560, which in turn had quoted from Schneider’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, as follows: “The board is at liberty to refuse to give credence to any portion of the evidence which in its opinion is not entitled to credence, nor are they required to give credence to the greater amount of evidence as against the lesser.” The principle was reiterated in Stanolind Pipe Line Co. v. Brewer et al., 185 Okl. 578, 95 P.2d 625.
In that case there was involved a situation in which claimant contended before an award of July 28, 1934 was made, that he was permanently and totally disabled. The Industrial Commission held with the employer. The Court in the body of the opinion there said, “At the hearings which cul-' minated in the award now under review, while the respondent contended that he was permanently and totally disabled as he had previously contended he, at the same time, offered evidence which tended to establish as a fact an actual change in his physical condition attributable to his original injury which had resulted in a total loss of ability to labor and perform work, and in this he was supported by the testimony of Dr. J. M. Harris, who had examined the respondent in September, 1932, and at various intervals thereafter. At the same time the petitioner contended that the condition of respondent had not changed since the last prior order of the Commission except for the better and in this contention it was supported by the evidence of its medical witnesses. This presented a conflict in the competent evidence which became a question for the Commission and was resolved by it in favor of the respondent. In so doing the Commission acted within its province.” The award was sustained.
There this Court further said, “The petitioner denied prior to July 28, 1934, and now denies, that the respondent has a permanent total disability as a result of his injury.”
“This being true it is immaterial what the respondent contended previously if in truth and in fact he has undergone a change in condition attributable to his original injury and which has resulted in further impairment, * * * The fact that respondent claimed that he was totally and permanently disabled prior to the award of July 28, 1934, while a matter of proper consideration by the Commission as to the bona fides of the claim thereafter asserted, did not preclude the Commission from granting a further award, if from the evidence adduced before it, it believed that an actual change in condition had resulted. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. State Industrial Commission, [185] Okl. Sup. [72], 90 P.2d 398, * * *.”
In the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company case just referred to, the Court, referring to testimony given by Dr. W, said: “The fact that this witness when confronted with the record of his testimony given at hearings held prior to the entry of the order of November 14, 1932, denied that he had testified as shown by said record and claimed that he had been misunderstood by the reporter who took the testimony at said hearings while affecting the credibility of his testimony and the weight to be given thereto in no manner prevented the Industrial Commission from accepting and believing such testimony should they find it credible.”
In the same opinion this Court further said, “A change in condition which authorizes an additional award is an actual one and not a change in opinion relative to a pre-existing condition (Southern Drilling Co. v. Daley, 166 Okl. 33, 25 P.2d 1082) and must be one in physical condition which causes (except in cases of loss of use of a specific member) a decrease in the ability of the injured employee to labor and perform work and must be shown to have occurred since the last prior order of the Commission and to be attributable to the original injury” (citing cases).
*212As quoted in Spartan Aircraft Co. v. Stockton et al., Okl., 370 P.2d 13, 16, this Court in United States Gypsum Co. v. Pendleton, Okl., 340 P.2d 467, 468, said, “The fact that the doctor or claimant testified in the hearing on a former order or award that claimant could do no work does not prevent testimony by either the doctor or claimant as to a change in condition. Nor does it preclude the Commission from considering testimony on change in condition and accepting and believing the testimony of the doctor or claimant tending to establish a change in condition.”
In the case of Hays v. National Zinc Co. et al., Okl., 395 P.2d 580, the employer convinced the State Industrial Court that claimant had no permanent partial disability. On application to reopen, the employer relied on a medical expert who had given testimony at the first hearing of effect that claimant was 25% permanently and partially disabled and stated that after reexamination the witness was of the opinion claimant was still so disabled. Claimant urged upon this Court that employer was bound by such testimony but this Court took the view that the same doctor also had said that claimant’s condition “is the same as when I examined him a year ago” (prior to the original order) and that the Industrial Court having found no disability could still properly be upheld in having the same view.
In the present case, by determination of the State Industrial Court the claimant originally received an award of only 10% permanent partial disability although her doctor, Dr. M, said she then had 35% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. After hearing on the matter of reopening, the trial tribunal reviewed the medical testimony including that of claimant’s Dr. M that she had “a 45% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for the performance of ordinary manual labor due to the accident of February 2, 1962.” The trial tribunal found claimant, at the time of the latter hearing, was then permanently partially disabled to the extent of 35%, representing a 25% increase.
It is argued that there was no medical expert testimony to substantiate the finding.
' In my view, while Dr. M gave testimony before of effect that claimant was 35% disabled, the facts were that she was in law disabled only to the extent of 10% because the trial court so found and its finding became final. In law, it is a fact she was then only 10% disabled. Now, the doctor testifies she is 45% disabled, she testified her right arm hurts all the time, that she can’t put her left foot down at times, that in pursuit of her present part-time house to house sales position she cannot carry her bag of samples of cosmetic supplies, etc. to her customers, just the order book, that she has to get in traction, that she cannot sleep in certain positions, that she has to have chiropractic treatments to relieve her pain, that she cannot do light work for long at a time, cannot drive a car for long at a time, etc. The trial tribunal determined she is now 35% disabled. Since it is a fact she formerly was disabled only 10%, and it is now a fact she is disabled 35%, as found by the trial tribunal, she has had a 25% increase as a matter of fact, in law, as I see it.
As was said in the case of Nuway Laundry Co. v. Hacker, Okl., 396 P.2d 659, 663: “The evidence as outlined is sufficient to establish the factum of a change in condition. * * * The medical evaluation is not vulnerable to objection that it constitutes a mere reappraisal of disability identical to that which had been determined by the prior award. This is because the expert opinion addressed itself to factors not in existence and ascertainable before.” This is borne out here for one thing by Dr. M’s statement in his last report that claimant’s “condition has changed for the worse and further treatment would be of some value, so far as relieving her pain.”
I dissent.