American Glyco Metal Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 21 February 1923
• Docket Number: No. 14821.,14821.
• Citation: 306 Ill. 421,138 N.E. 176
• Parties: AMERICAN GLYCO METAL CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

306 Ill. 421

138 N.E. 176

AMERICAN GLYCO METAL CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 14821.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1923.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Frank Johnston, Jr., Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by George Senkowski, to recover compensation for injuries, opposed by the American Glyco Metal Company, employer. An award of compensation by the Industrial Commission was confirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error.

Reversed.H. L. Howard, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Augustine J. Bowe and William J. Bowe, both of Chicago, for defendant in error.

DUNCAN, J.

An award was made on December 7, 1920, to George Senkowski, defendant in error, by an arbitrator, under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1921, c. 48, §§ 126-152i), against the American Glyco Metal Company, plaintiff in error and employer, for the sum of $14 per week for a period of 100 weeks, as provided in paragraph (e) of section 8 of said act, for permanent loss of sight of the left eye. This award was reviewed without further evidence, and was affirmed by the Industrial Commission. Upon a writ of certiorari, sued out by plaintiff in error in the circuit court of Cook county, the decision of the commission was confirmed. A writ of error was allowed by this court for a review of the record.

The points raised by plaintiff in error are, first, that there was no accident on January 6, 1920, shown by competent evidence to have caused the loss of the eye; second, that no notice was given that a piece of brass or any other particle had entered and injured the eye of plaintiff in error; third, there was no claim for compensation made for the alleged accident within 6 months after it happened.

Two witnesses were examined, defendant in error and Dr. Sidney Walker; the former testifying, in substance, as follows: He was employed in the machine shop of plaintiff in error as a lathe hand for 2 years, and was working there in January, 1920, at smoothing and cutting automobile bearings. On January 6, 1920, while at this work, a piece of brass ‘jumped’ into his left eye. He examined his eye with his looking glass, but could see nothing. He then went to the foreman, Kraft, who told him to go to the inspector of plaintiff in error and get him to look in his eye. He went to the inspector's room on the third floor of the building. He found there a young man whose name he did not know, who looked into his eye and found and removed a little bit of dirt. Defendant in error then went back to work, his eye being a little bit better, and continued to work steadily until the 24th of the following April. On the secondday of his return to work his eye was red and paining him a bit, but not much. As he continued to work his eye remained sore, and it appeared to him like it was shaking. He saw Dr. Fisher six or seven times after he quit work on the 24th of April, and about the latter date a piece of steel ‘jumped’ into his eye. Dr. Fisher was not able to find anything in his eye. In the first week of July following he went to work for the Rumerford Machine Company, and was working there at the time of the hearing before the arbitrator. Before January, 1920, his eye was good, and he never wore glasses. He worked for the Western Electric 5 years, where he had to be passed by the doctor.

Dr. Walker, an eye specialist, examined Senkowski's eye in September, 1920, and found that his left eye showed light perception. He was not able to discern objects of any form, and was simply able to tell when it was light and when it was dark by the left eye. The iris was tremulous. He had practically no vision, and the uveal tissues of the eye were inflamed. The doctor was not able to determine the cause of the infection, but testified the eye had the appearance of being injured; that he had never seen an eye with a tremulous iris and a severe inflammation that was put in that condition by disease; that a particle of brass getting in the eye, a blow on it, or any severe injury, would cause the character of inflammation in his eye. In answer to a hypothetical question, based on the fact proved, he testified that the condition of Senkowski's eye could have resulted from a particle of brass getting into his eye; that the condition of the eye as he found it is permanent; that from his examination of the eye it was his opinion that it had been less than a year in getting into that condition.

All other facts necessary to a recovery by defendant in error were...