Branch v. Industrial Com'n
| Decision Date | 25 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 56803,56803 |
| Citation | 69 Ill.Dec. 393,447 N.E.2d 828,95 Ill.2d 268 |
| Parties | , 69 Ill.Dec. 393 Harold BRANCH, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (General Telephone Company, Appellee). |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Scheele, Serkland & Boyle, Ltd., Chicago, for appellant; Deborah H. Collander, Chicago, of counsel.
Henry D. Noetzel & Associates, Ltd., Peoria, for appellee; Henry D. Noetzel, Steven J. Hohmann, Peoria, of counsel.
On December 28, 1978, petitioner, Harold Branch, who was 44 years of age, was employed by respondent, General Telephone Company. On this date he unlocked and pulled open his employer's heavy metal door and removed his coat. He testified at the arbitration hearing on November 28, 1979, that a "hot poker" type pain hit him as he removed his coat. He also testified that he had a sharp pain which took his breath away as he opened the door, but he never had any pain like that when he removed his coat.
In a deposition filed in the arbitration proceeding, Dr. Limcaco, the treating physician, related the history given to him by petitioner as to the events of December 28, 1978. He indicated that petitioner told him that, "while taking his coat off after arriving at work, he [the petitioner] suddenly felt a hot poker in his back."
The arbitrator found that on the date of injury the relationship of employee and employer existed between the petitioner and respondent; that on that date the petitioner sustained accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment; and that notice of said accident was given to the respondent within the time required under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He awarded the sum of $175.53 per week for a period of 36 weeks for temporary total disability and $175.53 per week for a further period of 166 2/3 weeks for the partial disability of petitioner to the extent of 33 1/3% thereof.
On review, a statement from petitioner's examining physician, Dr. Menguy, quoted the petitioner as relating on March 7, 1980, that he had injured his back at work on December 28, 1978, and later, while removing his coat, his back became worse.
The Industrial Commission reversed the arbitrator's decision, finding that the petitioner had failed to prove that he sustained accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment and the circuit court of Edgar County confirmed the Commission's decision. Petitioner brings this appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(a) (73 Ill.2d R. 302(a)).
The issue on appeal is whether the decision of the Industrial Commission is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Both petitioner and respondent agree that the decision of the Industrial Commission is unclear as to the true basis of its decision. The Industrial Commission decision never specified whether the petitioner failed to prove he sustained an accidental injury, or whether he had proved that an accidental injury had occurred but failed to prove that the accidental injury arose out of his employment or in the course of his employment, or both.
The petitioner argues that he clearly sustained an accidental injury and, therefore, the Industrial Commission's contrary decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. The employee testified on arbitration that he felt a sharp pain in his lower back when he opened a door at work. However, in the written report of Dr. Limcaco, the treating physician, is the history "while taking his coat off after arriving at work, he suddenly felt a 'hot poker' in his back." The report is silent as to any other onset. In his deposition, Dr. Limcaco made a similar statement, and on cross-examination the doctor testified that there was nothing in his report regarding any incident of twisting or opening the door.
It is a function of the Industrial Commission to judge the credibility of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Com'n
...38, 109 Ill.Dec. 166, 509 N.E.2d 1005 (claimant's automobile lurched forward, injuring claimant); Branch v. Industrial Comm'n (1983), 95 Ill.2d 268, 69 Ill.Dec. 393, 447 N.E.2d 828 (claimant injured while removing his coat after arriving at work); Greene v. Industrial Comm'n (1981), 87 Ill.......
-
Indus. Comm'n Div. Sisbro, 4
...not an everyday occurrence to which the general public is routinely exposed like taking off one's coat (see Branch v. Industrial Comm'n, 95 Ill. 2d 268, 447 N.E.2d 828 (1983), twisting in a chair (see Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v. Industrial Comm'n, 44 Ill. 2d 207, 254 N.E.......
-
Interlake, Inc. v. Industrial Com'n
...817, 405 N.E.2d 796; Board of Trustees v. Industrial Com. (1969), 44 Ill.2d 207, 254 N.E.2d 522; Branch v. Industrial Com. (1983), 95 Ill.2d 268, 69 Ill.Dec. 393, 447 N.E.2d 828; and Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Com. (1980), 83 Ill.2d 213, 46 Ill.Dec. 687, 414 N.E.2d In Caterpillar......
-
Orsini v. Industrial Com'n
...to a risk inherent in the claimant's work or workplace, such injuries are not compensable. (See e.g., Branch v. Industrial Com. (1983), 95 Ill.2d 268, 69 Ill.Dec. 393, 447 N.E.2d 828 (claimant suffered back injuries while removing his coat); Rogers v. Industrial Com. (1980), 83 Ill.2d 221, ......