Byrd v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 28 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 38820,38820 |
| Citation | 210 N.E.2d 535,33 Ill.2d 115 |
| Parties | Davis BYRD, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (United States Steel Corporation, Appellee.) |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Fleiman, Cornfield & Feldman, Chicago (Bernard Kleiman, Jason Gesmer and Alton sharpe, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Stevenson, Gonaghan, Hackbert, Rooks & Pitts, Chicago (Douglas F. Stevenson and Paul Noland, Chicago, of counsel, for appellee.
An arbitrator found that Davis Byrd had contracted silicosis while employed by the United States Steel Corporation and awarded him benefits under the Workmen's Occupational Diseases Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 48, par. 172.36 et seq.) However, the Industrial Commission, after hearing additional evidence, found that claimant had failed to prove exposure to an industrial disease and set aside the award. The decision of the Commission was affirmed by the circuit court of Cook County, and claimant has prosecuted a direct appeal to this court, the principal issue being whether the Commission's finding that claimant's employment did not expose him to the hazards of silicosis is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Claimant was first employed by United States Steel in 1946, and for the next twelve years worked in the blast furnace area of a plant in Chicago, first as a coke man, then as a sinter snapper, and finally as a first helper. His duties included removing molten steel and slag from the blast furnace, lining troughs with sand after each pouring operation, packing the slag hole with ground coal and coke, and hauling coke to the pouring area. These duties, he stated, constantly subjected him to dust, graphite, and smoke and vapors emanating from the molten steel and blast furnace. Prior to his employment with the steel company, claimant had worked for several years in the moulding department of a foundry, but he testified his health had been good when he left that work.
During a routine X-ray examination in 1955 a lung abnormality was noted, and claimant thereafter visited a municipal tuberculosis clinic as an out-patient on a month-to-month basis. He continued working until January 25, 1958, at which time he became ill and sought further medical attention. Except for a two-month period in 1960, claimant performed no further work, and, during such time, consulted various doctors and received extensive examinations and tests in a hospital.
In contending that the proof establishes his exposure to an occupational disease, claimant relies upon three segments of evidence. First, the testimony of a doctor that claimant was suffering from silicosis and that there was a causal connection between the disease and the conditions of his employment; second, proof establishing the presence of silica in some of the materials his work required him to handle; and third, testimony that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sperling v. Industrial Com'n
...Comm'n (1973), 54 Ill.2d 79, 295 N.E.2d 465; Lewis v. Industrial Comm'n (1967), 38 Ill.2d 461, 231 N.E.2d 593; Byrd v. Industrial Comm'n (1965), 33 Ill.2d 115, 210 N.E.2d 535; City of Chicago v. Industrial Comm'n (1949), 403 Ill. 105, 85 N.E.2d 665), we observe that the direct proof approac......
-
Weekley v. Industrial Com'n, 2-92-0691WC
...(Rockford Transit Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n (1967), 38 Ill.2d 111, 114-15, 230 N.E.2d 264, 265; Byrd v. Industrial Comm'n (1965), 33 Ill.2d 115, 117, 210 N.E.2d 535, 537.) The Commission concluded claimant failed to carry her burden. We cannot find otherwise. A mere possibility that claima......
-
Sperling v. Industrial Com'n
...Comm'n (1973), 54 Ill.2d 79, 295 N.E.2d 465; Lewis v. Industrial Comm'n (1967), 38 Ill.2d 461, 231 N.E.2d 593; Byrd v. Industrial Comm'n (1965), 33 Ill.2d 115, 210 N.E.2d 535; City of Chicago v. Industrial Comm'n (1949), 403 Ill. 105, 85 N.E.2d 665) we observe that the direct proof approach......
-
General Steel Industries v. Industrial Commission
...of the disabling disease but also a causal connection between the disease and the condition of his employment. (Byrd v. Industrial Comm., 33 Ill.2d 115, 210 N.E.2d 535.) The employer contends that the claimant has not sustained this burden. The only direct evidence on the nature of the clai......