Corn Products Ref. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 19 January 1949
• Docket Number: No. 30670.,30670.
• Citation: 83 N.E.2d 732,402 Ill. 250
• Parties: CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

402 Ill. 250

83 N.E.2d 732

CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 30670.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 19, 1949.

Error to Circuit Court, Tazewell County; Henry J. Ingram, judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the claim of George Fischer, employee, against Corn Products Refining Company, employer, for compensation for temporary total disability and medical expense. To review the judgment of the circuit court, confirming the decision of the Industrial Commission which sustained an award to employee, employer brings error.

Affirmed.Cassidy, Sloan & Crutcher, of Peoria, for plaintiff in error.

William H. Beckwith, of Peoria, for defendant in error.

CRAMPTON, Justice.

Plaintiff in error was granted a writ of error from the Circuit Court of Tazewell County to review the judgment of that court confirming the decision of the Industrial Commission which sustained and affirmed the award by the arbitrator of the claim of respondent, George Fischer, under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

On March 1, 1944, claimant filed an application for adjustment of claim dated February 24, 1944, for the loss of a testicle under section 8(e) of the act together with compensation for temporary total disability and medical expense. The questions in dispute are those of temporary total disability; whether claimant sustained an accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment; the medical and hospital bills; and whether due and proper notice of the injury and claim for compensation was given the employer.

Claimant, George Fischer, age 49, testified as follows: That he had six children living under the age of sixteen on July 30, 1943, the date of the alleged injury; while employed in the company's factory he was moving a heavy piece of gluten weighing several hundred pounds; the company foreman was pushing on the same piece of gluten and in order to get it through the doorway, it was necessary for him to lift it alone over a sill while the foreman pushed; while so lifting he felt a sharp pain in his right groin and became sick, which he immediately reported to Sweitzer who told him to go to the locker room ‘and lay down for a little while;’ he did so and vomited twice, then drank some black coffee to settle his stomach; thereafter he was told not to lift anything and later did a little sweeping; his right groin was swollen that evening; he tried to go to work the next day, but became sick on the bus and felt like vomiting again; reporting that day, he immediately returned home; several days after the accident he had a conversation with Mr. Velde, the personnel man, and told him about an ‘awful sharp pain’ and stated he did not believe he would be able to work for several days or maybe a week or two; Velde told him he could go to a doctor, who gave him some pills for a run-down condition; he told the latter about the pain in his groin, but the company doctor paid no attention to it; later claimant went to another doctor in Pekin and was given a shot in the arm and different kinds of medicine and was under his care until the middle of January, making 16 or 18 trips, at least, between the first part of September and the middle of January, and returned to work about the first of November for guard duty; he saw a company doctor, pursuant to a notice given him and the doctor looked at him and gave him a report to take to the company which he returned to Mr. Velde; remaining on guard duty one night, Velde told him he was in no condition to go back; he returned a month or six weeks later to try light work and worked three days and the pain in his groin was getting worse and his right testicle was swollen then. He again returned for three days on December 7, 8, and 9, 1943, and again on Christmas day and worked until January 10 on guard duty, walking beats; during this time the pain became sharper and the swelling increased. As the attending physician had gone to California, he saw another doctor who recommended an operation immediately. He then went to Dr. Burroughs of the Hanna Clinic in Peoria. On January 24, 1944, he went to the hospital for an operation, prior to which he had a conversation with Mr. Velde and Mr. Gillen of the company and Velde sympathized with him, but told him they could not pay the hospital and doctor bills, nor compensation. On January 25 he was operated on at St. Francis Hospital and the right testicle removed; he remained at the hospital eight days and was under Dr. Burrough's care until between the middle of May and June 1; he had no trouble or swelling in his groin or right testicle prior to July 30, 1943; but had continual pain from the time of the lifting and first noticedthe swelling in the testicle itself about September or October; at times he could not stand; and working at guard duty and light work, requiring walking, made the pain and swelling worse. He has worked for others since the operation as a laborer.

Dr. Burroughs testified he first examined claimant January 22, 1944, and the examination revealed an enlarged right scrotum and he removed the right testicle; there was a hydrocele, which is a collection of fluid, in the membrane about the testicle called the tunica vaginalis and this membrane when stimulated increases an excessive amount of fluid which is not absorbed; thus, a so-called hydrocele develops and this can be caused by a tension or strain upon the abdominal muscles, such as lifting a heavy object in a stooping position which would extend that strain down into the scrotum and into the testicle; that nature has to supply the muscles that go about the cord and because of the anatomical structure that area is more subject ot strain than any other part of the abdomen; that the condition he found followed and was due to the injury described in a history by the patient and could be caused even if the swelling in the scrotum or testicle did not occur from one to three months after the strain; that such was both a possibility and a probability and that infection and tumor could cause a similar condition; there was no evidence of hernia; that the patient had a pathological report showing a tubercular epididymitis. The doctor further testified that in his opinion this tubercular condition in and of itself could produce a stimulation necessary to cause a hydrocele to form, but in his opinion the trauma caused the hydrocele.

The claimant and Dr. Burroughs were the only witnesses to testify on behalf of ...