Court Opinion

ID: 9536917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:09:30.010408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:33.352942
License: Public Domain

IRWIN, Vice Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
In my opinion, had claimant submitted the medical evidence of another doctor in the proceeding under review to the effect that she presently had a “45% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole”, instead of the medical evidence of Dr. M who had reported in the first proceeding that she had a “35% permanent partial disability”, a different set of facts would be presented for our consideration. In this connection see Stanolind Pipe Line Co. v. Brewer, 185 Okl. 578, 95 P.2d 625, wherein claimant’s change in condition was supported by the testimony of Dr. J. M. Harris, who had not testified in the first proceeding wherein an award was made in favor of claimant and the Industrial Court had not previously considered his testimony and entered an award substantially less than his testimony would support.
In my opinion the case of Hays v. National Zinc Company, Okl., 395 P.2d 580, is somewhat analogous to the case at bar. In the original proceeding in Hays, claimant’s claim for compensation was denied on the grounds “that claimant had sustained no loss of time from his work as a result of his condition”, although claimant had submitted the medical evidence of Dr. D that he was 25% disabled. In the change of condition proceeding, which formed the basis for our review, the employer submitted the report of the same Dr. D, who stated:
“It is my opinion that Floyd Hays’ condition is the same as when I examined him a year ago. I did not find evidence of pulmonary emphysema at that time, nor do I find any evidence of this now. He has had a bronchial condition, that is, bronchitis, and I so stated a year ago. At that time I estimated his permanent partial disability for ordinary labor as approximately 25 per cent. After re-examination at this time, I do not believe that his disability has increased.”
In sustaining the order of the Industrial Court denying claimant compensation on change of condition, we said that Dr. D’s statement that “Floyd Hays’ condition is the same as when I examined him a year ago” went “straight to the crux of the question before this court.”
In the case at bar, if Dr. M had stated in the proceeding under review that in his opinion claimant was 35% disabled, instead of 45% disabled, would there not necessarily inhere in his opinion claimant had not had a change of condition since in his previous report he stated claimant was 35% disabled. If this be true, it could not be said that Dr. M’s report could support an award for change of condition in excess of 10% disability. Since the order under review made an award for 25%, I concur specially in the majority opinion.
Nothing herein should be construed or interpreted that I am of the opinion that the Industrial Court could not rely on the medical evidence of Dr. M (see United States Gypsum Company v. Pendleton, Okl., 340 P.2d 467), but I am of the opinion his report may not support an award in excess of 10% disability on change of condition under the facts presented.