111 P.2d 814 | Okla. | 1941
This is an original proceeding in this court brought by Earl Mason, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, to obtain a review of an order made by the State Industrial Commission on January 3, 1939, which denied a claim to compensation which he was asserting against Kay county, hereinafter referred to as respondent.
The record shows that on September 6, 1934, the petitioner filed with the State Industrial Commission his first notice of injury and claim for compensation for disability which he alleged had resulted from an injury sustained on June 15, 1934, as the result of the overturning of his truck while he was hauling sand from a pit maintained by Kay county on the banks of the Chikaskia river. The respondent denied that the petitioner was in its employ at the time of the injury and alleged that he was an independent contractor. As the result of hearings held to determine liability and extent of disability the State Industrial Commission, on August 1, 1935, entered an order which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petitioner's claim to compensation. This order was vacated by an order nunc pro tunc on July 10, 1936, and further hearings were conducted, and at the conclusion thereof the commission entered the order which we are now called upon to review. In this order the State Industrial Commission made the following finding of fact:
"That at the time of said accidental injury the claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee as defined by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that the relationship of master and servant did not exist."
Upon the foregoing finding of fact, compensation was again denied.
The petitioner contends that, since the respondent offered no evidence and petitioner's evidence was uncontroverted and showed that at the time of his injury he was hauling sand for Kay county in his own truck and upon a per yard per mile basis, that this brought him within the rule announced by this court in the case of State Highway Commission v. Gaston,
The finding and order of the commission is one which was made in administering relief under the Workmen's Compensation Law and is supported by competent evidence shown in the record, and therefore will not be disturbed by this court on review. McKeever Drilling Co. v. Egbert,
Order sustained.
WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, GIBSON, and DAVISON, JJ., concur.