Arquin v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 24 June 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21087.,21087.
• Citation: 349 Ill. 220,181 N.E. 613
• Parties: ARQUIN v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

349 Ill. 220

181 N.E. 613

ARQUIN

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 21087.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 24, 1932.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; H. Sterling Power, Judge.

Proceeding by Juliet Arquin to recover compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of Sergius F. Arquin, employee, opposed by Cook County, employer.A decision of the Industrial Commission denying compensation was set aside and compensation awarded by the circuit court on certiorari, and the County brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago (Herbert A. G. Wedel and James L. Henry, both of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Hyman Soboroff, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

ORR, J.

Dr. Sergius F. Arquin, while on duty as an interne in the contagious ward at the Cook County Hospital, contracted epidemic meningitis, which caused his death.An action was brought by his widow to recover compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act(Smith-HurdRev. St. 1927, c. 48, § 138 et seq.).After hearing the evidence, an arbitrator recommended an award of $3,750.On review the Industrial Commission set aside the award, with a finding that deceased did not receive an accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment.The court below, upon a writ of certiorari, set aside the decision of the Industrial Commission and entered an order finding that the earnings of deceased during the year next preceding the injury were $2,700; that the average weekly wage was $51.92; that deceased left surviving a widow, Juliet Arquin, whom he was under legal obligations to support, and who is entitled to receive from plaintiff in error an award of $3,750, payable $14 per week for a period of 267 weeks and one week at $12, as provided by paragraph (a) of section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act; and that there had accrued on the award the sum of $1,848 to the 19th day of June, 1931, the date of the order.The case is here on writ of error.

It is not disputed that the deceased and plaintiff in error were subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.There is also no dispute concerning the evidence.Arquin had served as an interne from January 1, 1928, to December 8, 1928, the date of his death.On December 1he was assigned to the contagious ward, and from then until December 6he treated contagious diseases, particularly epidemic meningitis cases.On each day of the period he made spinal punctures in treating patients suffering from epidemic meningitis, and attended one especially virulent case of that disease.On December 6he complained of a sore throat, and the next day was seized with chills.Three attending physicians diagnosed his case as epidemic meningitis.He died during the afternoon of December 8.

It was stipulated by counsel for both parties before the Industrial Commission that the earnings of the deceased should be based upon $50 a month and room and board, making $90 a month, or $1,080 a year.In view of this stipulation, it is not necessary for us to consider whether the evidence supports the award entered by the circuit court.The finding of the circuit court that deceased earned $2,700 during the year next preceding the injury was erroneous, in view of the stipulation above referred to.But the result is the same, because, under the law in force at the time of the injury (Smith-HurdRev. St. 1927, c. 48, § 144 (a), p. 1334), the widow would be entitled to ‘a sum equal to four times the average annual earnings of the employee, but not less in any event than one thousand six hundred and fifty dollars and not more in any event than three thousand, seven hundred and fifty dollars,’ etc.It will therefore be seen that, if the widow is entitled to any compensation, the stipulated annual earnings of her husband entitled her to the maximum award of $3,750.

The contention is made that epidemic meningitis contracted by Arquin was not an accidental injury for which compensation may be allowed.The evidence is undisputed that epidemic meningitis is highly contagious, and that Arquin was continuously engaged in the treatment of patients suffering from that disease, every day from December 1 until December 6, when he contracted the disease himself.It seems clear that the origin of his illness and death arose while he was performing his duties in the regular course of his employment.The infection constituted his injury, and it occurred some time between the 1st and the 6th days of December, One of the staff physicians at the hospital testified that Arquin made spinal punctures on patients suffering from epidemic meningitis each day between December 1 and December 6, and that it was thought that he contracted the disease from attending one especially virulent case then under his care.The specific time when the meningitis germ entered the body of the deceased is, of course, unascertainable, but, since he was in constant contact with this dread disease for six days until be himself was stricken, the evidence seems reasonably sufficient to support a finding that he died as a result of an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.Christ v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co., 312 Ill. 525, 144 N. E. 161, 35 A. L. R. 730;Hood & Sons v. Maryland Casualty Co., 206 Mass. 223, 92 N. E. 329,30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1192, 138 Am. St. Rep. 379;Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Board, 284 Ill. 378, 120 N. E. 249.Here the proof clearly shows that Arquin's death was the proximate result of the accidental injury; i. e., his infection with meningitis a few days earlier.This case is therefore to be distinguished from those cases where the connection between the death and accidental injury is remote and difficult to trace as to time and place of origin.

[3] Since it is not denied that Arquin contracted epidemic meningitis while employed by plaintiff in error, the only remaining question is whether in this case it was an ‘accidental injury’ within the proper meaning of that term.The words ‘accident’ and ‘accidental injury’ as used in the Compensation Act are not technical, legal terms.Things which happen in the course of the employment unexpectedly and without...