Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. v. ARY et al.

(Syllabus.)

Master and Servant — Workmen's Compensation — Award for Permanent Disability of Arm and Both Feet.

The Workmen's Compensation Law allows certain compensation for loss of an arm and also allows certain compensation for the total loss of both feet. Since the statute definitely fixes the amount which may be allowed for the loss of these members and the award as made by the Commission is in accordance therewith, and since the aggregate amount allowed by the Commission does not exceed the total amount authorized by statute for permanent total disability, held, the allowence as made by the Commission awarding injured employee 62 I/2 weeks' compensation for ten per cent. permanent disability for each foot and 5 per cent. permanent disability of left arm is authorized by the statute. Dolese Bros. Co. v. Roberts, 155 Okla. 198, 8 P.2d 756.

McNEILL, J.

This is an original action to review an award of the State Industrial Commission made on February 5, 1932. The Commission entered its order and award allowing the respondent 62 I/2 weeks' compensation for ten per cent. permanent disability for each foot and five per cent. permanent disability of left arm. The only contention of petitioner is that the compensation made by the Industrial Commission is erroneous in that the Commission erred in computing the disability as to the specific members and basing the same on 500 weeks. The award as made by the Commission is proper. See Dolese Bros. Co. v. Roberts, 155 Okla. 198, 8 P.2d 756.

LESTER, C. J., CLARK, V. C. J., and RILEY, HEFNER, CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur.

Note. — See under (1) annotation in L. R. A. 1916A, 257; 28 R. C. L. 820, 821.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. v. ARY
(Sep 13, 1932)