TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lubritorium, Inc. v. Adams

LUBRITORIUM, Inc., Et Al. v. ADAMS Et Al.

Lubritorium, Inc. v. Adams, 1930 OK 381, 291 P. 94
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 9, 1930
Docket
No. 21304
Judges
Err, Bennett, Diffendaffer, Hall, Eagleton, Commissioners
Citations
291 P. 941930 OK 381144 Okla. 2341930 Okla. LEXIS 713

Opinion of the Court — Err

H|ERR, C.

This is a proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission.

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.

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 tile injury, we are of the opinipn that such evidence is not necessary in this case. Claimant testified that he was able to work prior to the injury, and unable ttCwdi’lc'1 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 ánd 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.

Petition for review should be denied, and the award of the Industrial Commission affirmed.

BENNETT,, DIFFENDAFFER, HALL, and EAGLETON, Commissioners, concur.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11936: 11946: 11984: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Aragon690 P.2d 293 (Idaho 1984)
  2. Smith v. Baker1932 OK 380, 11 P.2d 132
  3. Biser v. Biser1936 OK 194, 55 P.2d 446
  4. Jupe v. Jupe1946 OK 10, 166 P.2d 769

Most recent

  1. State v. Aragon690 P.2d 293 (Idaho 1984)
  2. Jupe v. Jupe1946 OK 10, 166 P.2d 769
  3. Biser v. Biser1936 OK 194, 55 P.2d 446
  4. Smith v. Baker1932 OK 380, 11 P.2d 132

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list