Corn Products Co. v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 30 March 1972
• Docket Number: No. 44177,44177
• Citation: 282 N.E.2d 445,51 Ill.2d 338
• Parties: CORN PRODUCTS CO., Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Robert Bozarth, Appellee.)
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 445

282 N.E.2d 445

51 Ill.2d 338

CORN PRODUCTS CO., Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Robert Bozarth, Appellee.)

No. 44177.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 30, 1972.

John E. (Jack) Cassidy, Jr., of Cassidy & Cassidy, Peoria, for appellant.

W. H. Beckwith and Warren Danz, Peoria, for appellees.

RYAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County which confirmed the Industrial Commission's confirmation of the arbitrator's award of compensation to the employee under sections 8(c) (for disfigurement) and 8(e) (for 5% Loss of use of each arm) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 48, pars. 138.8(c) and (e).

The employee was injured while walking in a squatting position between some tanks to check a meter. As he did so his head struck a valve and he was knocked over on his back. He received a cut on his forehead and also claims to have suffered some loss of use of his arms.

In his first application for adjustment, the employee claimed that he injured his head. Six months later, one week after receiving a doctor's report showing some injury to his spine, an amended application for adjustment was filed, adding a claim that the employee had suffered injury to his neck and arms. The employer does not contest the right to amend the application for adjustment but contends that the additional claim for injury to the neck and arms, not being made until after a doctor's report indicated the presence of an injury to his spine, is suspect. The employer contends that this fact, coupled with the failure of the employee to manifest any subjective complaint of discomfort until after the doctor's report, contradicts any finding of disability to the employee's arms caused by the accident.

The employee testified that after striking his head he fell to the floor and struck his neck after which he felt pain in his neck. The medical report of the doctor, which is the only medical evidence in the record, shows objective limitation of motion in the cervical spine in all directions and objective limitations of the internal rotation of both arms. The report of the doctor found disability from the accident which caused an aggravation of a pre-existing arthritic condition. The report stated: 'In my opinion this patient had an injury to his head resulting in the scar described above which is permanent and also his cervical spine causing an aggravation of pain in his shoulders and arms and he will have a certain amount of permanent partial loss of use of both arms as a result thereof.'

An employee is entitled to recover for all the consequences attributable to an aggravation of a preexisting condition. (Acuff v. Industrial Com., 41 Ill.2d 293, 242 N.E.2d 265; Rittler v. Industrial Com., 351 Ill. 338, 184 N.E. 654.) The employer has offered no evidence to contradict that offered by the employee on this pint. Although the circumstances surrounding the making of the claim for this injury may warrant consideration by the trier of facts, we do not consider them to be so effective by way of impeachment as to destroy the probative value of the evidence offered by the employee. The Industrial Commission had for consideration not only the evidence offered by the employee but also the circumstances surrounding the making of this claim for loss of use of his arms. We are not concerned on review with the weighing of these circumstances against the employee's evidence. This has been accomplished by the Industrial Commission. We are now concerned with whether the finding of the Industrial Commission as to the loss of use of the arms is against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Proctor Community Hospital v. Industrial Com., 41 Ill.2d 537, 244 N.E.2d 155; Chicago Tribune v. Industrial Com., 42 Ill.2d 476, 248 N.E.2d 103.) We think it is not.

The employer contends that the award for disfigurement was excessive. The cut which the employee sustained on his head resulted in a scar three-fourths of an inch to one inch in length directly below the hairline. In addition the employee has another scar from his boyhood days which is three-fourths of an inch long and vertical, going from the corner of his eyebrow. Since he had a previous scar similar to the one sustained as a result of his employment and since there was no proof that the second scar affected his capacity to earn, the employer contends that the award for his disfigurement was excessive, relying on Superior Mining Co. v. Industrial Com., 309 Ill. 339, 141 N.E. 165. In the last cited case the employee received minor scars above the eye which could not be seen when the eyes were opened. This court there stated that it was not the intention of the Act to authorize compensation for every trifling mark that could be discovered by the closest inspection.

...