Arquin v. Indus. Comm'n, 21087.

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

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.

[349 Ill. 221]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-Hurd Rev. 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

[181 N.E. 614]

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 1 he was assigned to the contagious ward, and from [349 Ill. 222]then until December 6 he 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 6 he 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-Hurd Rev. 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...