Spetyla v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 27 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 43316,43316 |
| Citation | 319 N.E.2d 40,59 Ill.2d 1 |
| Parties | Petras P. SPETYLA, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Company, Appellee.) |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Frank S. Calandrino, Springfield (Michael J. Logan, Springfield of counsel), for appellant.
Samuel C. Patton, Springfield, for appellees.
An arbitrator for the Industrial Commission awarded petitioner, Petras P. Spetyla, compensation for permanent and total disability suffered as the result of an accident while in the employ of respondent, Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Company. On review, the Industrial Commission set aside the award and rendered a decision awarding petitioner compensation for temporary total disability for a period of 5 6/7 weeks but finding that the injuries sustained in the accident did not result in any permanent disability for which compensation was payable under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 48, par 138.1 et seq.). On Certiorari the circuit court of Sangamon County found that the decision of the Industrial Commission that no permanent disability had resulted from the injuries suffered in the accident was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence but that the award for temporary total compensation should be increased to cover a period of nine weeks. Except for ordering the increase in the amount of the award for temporary total compensation, the decision of the Industrial Commission was confirmed, and petitioner appealed to this court. 50 Ill.2d R. 302(a)(2), Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, § 302(a)(2).
Petitioner contends that the evidence shows that he was permanently and totally disabled as the result of the injuries suffered and that the decision of the Industrial Commission is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Respondent argues that it was the function of the Industrial Commission to determine the disputed questions of fact presented by the evidence, that the Commission is not bound by the findings of the arbitrator and that the findings of the Commission are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
That petitioner suffered an accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment is not disputed. The testimony shows that while he was pulling on a wrench, the wrench slipped and petitioner fell backward striking his head against a steel table. He was taken to the plant infirmary where he was examined by Dr. Meyer, supervisor of medical services at respondent's plant. Dr. Meyer made a diagnosis of 'contusion mild to moderate posterior to the ear, right, contusion or brachium right moderate acute, contusion acute posterior chest mild.' Petitioner was given empirin and codeine for the pain. Dr. Meyer saw him the next day, at which time he complained of numbness and dizziness. The doctor administered a drug to reduce the swelling. He saw him again four days later and administered a shot of vitamin B12 because he was complaining of numbness in his fingers. The doctor saw him on three occasions over the next two weeks and then referred him to Dr. Hayner, a neurosurgeon. At that time he was complaining of 'hissing' in his right ear.
Petitioner returned to work approximately three weeks after the accident, worked three weeks and returned to Dr. Meyer complaining of headaches in the temporal area and back of the right ear, and dizziness. Approximately six weeks later Dr. Meyer permitted petitioner to return to work 'with limited bending,' but petitioner complained of pain when bending over to pick up things.
In addition to Dr. Hayner, Dr. Meyer referred petitioner for examination to Dr. Robert Alexander, a psychologist, and Dr. Rauh, a psychiatrist. None of these doctors was called to testify and their reports were not offered in evidence.
Approximately 17 months after the accident petitioner was seen by Dr. Gospodinoff, a psychiatrist. He was complaining of dizziness, weakness and general symptoms of malasie. He was constantly tired and could not work. He had poor balance, felt lightheaded, and a roaring noise bothered him all the time. Dr. Gospodinoff's initial diagnosis was neurological impairment and depressive reaction. Petitioner was admitted to the hospital for a period of 15 days and was given antidepressants. He was seen by Dr. Wacaser, a neurosurgeon, who diagnosed petitioner as suffering from a post-concussion syndrome. Approximately two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pathfinder Co. v. Industrial Commission
...when there was some physical injury include: City of Chicago v. Industrial Com., 59 Ill.2d 284, 319 N.E.2d 749; Spetyla v. Industrial Com., 59 Ill.2d 1, 319 N.E.2d 40; Hook v. Industrial Com., 53 Ill.2d 245, 290 N.E.2d 890; Thomas J. Douglas and Co. v. Industrial Com., 35 Ill.2d 100, 219 N.......
-
Peters v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., Docket Nos. 71928
...Ill. 401, 192 N.E. 345 (1934), Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 57 Ill.2d 257, 312 N.E.2d 280 (1974), Spetyla v. Industrial Comm., 50 Ill.2d 1, 319 N.E.2d 40 (1974), Hartman v. Cold Spring Granite Co., 243 Minn. 264, 67 N.W.2d 656 (1954), Moccia v. Eclipse Pioneer Div. of Bendix......
-
Veritone Co. v. Industrial Commission
...556, 563-64, 343 N.E.2d 913; City of Chicago v. Industrial Com. (1974), 59 Ill.2d 284, 287, 319 N.E.2d 749; Spetyla v. Industrial Com. (1974), 59 Ill.2d 1, 5, 319 N.E.2d 40; Hook v. Industrial Com. (1972), 53 Ill.2d 245, 248, 290 N.E.2d 890; South Import Motors, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (197......
-
Watts v. Industrial Commission
...disability from psychological causes. (Pathfinder Co. v. Industrial Com. (1976), 62 Ill.2d 556, 343 N.E.2d 913; Spetyla v. Industrial Com. (1974), 59 Ill.2d 1, 319 N.E.2d 40; City of Chicago v. Industrial Com. (1974), 59 Ill.2d 284, 319 N.E.2d 749; Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co. v. Indust......