Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 20 April 1927
• Docket Number: No. 17944.,17944.
• Citation: 325 Ill. 193,156 N.E. 344
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: DONK BROS. COAL & COKE CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

325 Ill. 193

156 N.E. 344

DONK BROS. COAL & COKE CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 17944.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 20, 1927.

Error to Circuit Court, Madison County; J. F. Gillham, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by John Roach, claimant, against the Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Company, employer. An award by the Industrial Commission was affirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error.

Affirmed.

Wheeler, Oehmke & McKnight, of East St. Louis, for plaintiff in error.

W. J. MacDonald, of Chicago (A. W. Kerr, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendants in error.

STONE, C. J.

Defendant in error, John Roach, was injured while in plaintiff in error's mine on the 6th day of February, 1919. He was driving a motor used for drawing coal cars when struck on the right side of the face by a cable. He was knocked off the motor, and the back of his head struck violently against an empty car. He suffered at that time a general paralysis of the right side of the face, including the right eye. Plaintiff in error furnished medical treatment. Roach remained at his work and lost no time. He filed application for compensation on October 16, 1919, alleging that he had an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment which caused partial loss of the sight of both eyes. He testified that he was 39 years of age and had never had any trouble whatever with his eyes previous to this injury; that about two months after the accident the vision in his right eye began to fail, and in four months after the injury the left eye began to fail. The hearing on the application was had in January, 1920, and on the 22d day of that month the arbitrator, by his decision, found that Roach had sustained accidental injuries on the 6th of February, 1919, arising out of and in the course of his employment, and further found that as a result of the injuries sustained the applicant did not suffer any loss of time for which compensation was payable nor any specific loss of use of his eye. The arbitrator also found that medical, surgical, and hospital services had been furnished by plaintiff in error. Defendant in error filed a petition for review on the ground that the compensation awarded was inadequate, and on July 2, 1920, the commission found, upon consideration of the record made before the arbitrator and additional evidence offered on review, that the findings and the award of the arbitrator were correct, and it was accordingly made the decision of the commission. The only evidence offered before the commission other than the transcript of the evidence before the arbitrator was that of defendant in error, who testified that his sight was not as good as it was at the time of the hearing before the arbitrator; that before the injury he could recognize an acquaintance at a distance of about 400 feet, but that at the time of the hearing before the commission he could distinguish an acquaintance at a distance of about 200 feet. His eyes had not improved but were getting worse. He did not wear and had not worn glasses. No review of the commission's findings was sought by either party.

On April 8, 1921, defendant in error filed a petition, under paragraph (h) of section 19 of the act (Laws 1913, p. 350), for review of the award of the Industrial Commission, alleging that the injury had subsequently increased and recurred. The hearing on this petition was had on October 21, 1924. On this hearing defendant in error testified that he was treated by Dr. Keller, of St. Louis, after the hearings before the arbitrator and the commission, and was advised by him to submit to an operation; that this treatment continued until in 1923, when he had an operation for a cataract on the left eye; that he lost the sight of the right eye and nearly all of the sight of the left eye. He testified that in December, 1920, he received a second injury to the left eye. In October, 1923, an operation was performed to remove the cataract on the left eye, and a second operation took place on the same eye for the same purpose in February, 1924. Dr. Jennings testified that he first examined defendant in error in September, 1923; that he had a cataract on both eyes; that his examination showed no kidney disease, and his opinion was that the cataracts were traumatic; that it was impossible for him to testify absolutely, but that he was not basing his opinion on conjecture; that it was possible to cause a cataract by an indirect injury to the eyeball resulting from a blow on the back of the head; that he did not see defendant in error until September, 1923, and could not tell from the appearance of the cataracts whether they were senile or traumatic; that senile cataracts, in forming, radiate from the center toward the periphery; that a traumatic cataract will appear within two or three months following an injury. Dr. Keller, also an eye specialist, testified that he first saw Roach on December 9, 1920. He then had a cataract in each eye. He pronounced them senile cataracts in their early stages and stated that while senile cataracts occur in men at the age of 40, such is not often the case.

The commission found that the disability of the applicant had increased subsequent to the award of the arbitrator; that he had suffered permanent and complete loss of the use of his right eye and permanent loss of 75 per cent. of the use of the left eye, and that he had incurred medical and surgical expense amounting to $273.70. It accordingly awarded petitioner $12 per week for 100 weeks for loss of the right eye, and $12 per week for 75 weeks for 75 per cent. loss of the use of the left eye, with the sum of $273.70 for medical services. The award was affirmed by the circuit court of Madison county Plainti...