Fisher Body Division, General Motors Corp. v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 31 October 1960
• Docket Number: No. 35795,35795
• Citation: Fisher Body Division, General Motors Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 170 N.E.2d 108, 20 Ill.2d 538 (Ill. 1960)
• Parties: FISHER BODY DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Plaintiff in Error. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Hugh J. Roney, Defendant in Error.)
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 108

170 N.E.2d 108

20 Ill.2d 538

FISHER BODY DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Plaintiff in Error. v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Hugh J. Roney, Defendant in Error.)

No. 35795.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 31, 1960.

Pope, Ballard, Uriell, Kennedy, Shepard & Fowle, Chicago (Lewis J. West and Thomas D. Nyhan, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Norman J. Peters, Chicago (Sidney Z. Karasik and George W. Angerstein, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

KLINGBIEL, Justice.

Hugh J. Roney filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, c. 48, § 138.1 et seq., alleging an injury to his left shoulder in the course of his employment by Fisher Body Division of General Motors Corporation.An award for temporary total disability, 60 per cent loss of use of the left arm, and medical expenses was confirmed by the circuit court of Cook County.On petition by the employer we have allowed a writ of error for further review.The principal issue is whether there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain the finding of an accidental injury aggravating a pre-existing condition.

Roney was employed on the 'floor pan' assembly line, attending a conveyor belt, in plaintiff in error's Willow Springs plant.The conveyor belt carried parts known as 'four bars,' used in bracing floor pans of automobiles, and as the parts came up by Roney he would move them over to a platform near the shuttle.He testified that sometime in September, 1956, his left glove caught on some material and he was jerked against the edge of the table over the shuttle, striking his left shoulder and left side.

He testified that a fellow employee, William F. Hall, was working on his left, close enough so that they were touching elbows.It does not appear whether Hall saw the alleged accident, nor was he called as a corroborating witness.Roney further testified that he reported the incident to a foreman, whose name he did not know.He described the foreman as being about 6 feet 2 or 3 inches tall, black headed, heavy set and weighing about 190 pounds.Roney's foreman, Clifford Wilkie, testified he was on duty all during the month of September, 1956, that he first heard of the claim for injury about a year later when he was called into the office; that Roney never mentioned anything to him about getting injured; that he was the only foreman on this conveyor line during September and October, 1956; and that there was no foreman meeting the description given by Roney.The claimant further related that between September 28 and October 10he went to the medical department about ten or twelve times, and received heat treatments 'and some kind of therapy.'

The foreman, Wilkie, testified that in June, 1956, Roney had requested a change of jobs because it bothered his shoulder to raise his arm above the conveyor.Wilkie told him he could not be promoted, since he lacked enough seniority.Thereafter once or twice each week Roney complained of his shoulder and asked to be given another job.On October 5, because of his persistent complaints, Wilkie sent him to the plant medical department.

X-ray pictures of the arm and shoulder disclosed the presence of a small calcified body in the left shoulder, and Roney was advised to consult his own doctor.On October 12he was granted a sick leave.He went to his home in Union City, Tennessee, where he was hospitalized on three occasions for treatment and surgical removal of the calcified body.While in Tennessee he made application for and received nonindustrial surgical and hospital benefits under his employer's group Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan.To obtain these benefits he stated that the condition was not caused by his employment, and that workmen's compensation benefits were not available because it was 'not a plant injury.'While in Tennessee Roney made a further claim for nonindustrial benefits under a Metropolitan group sickness and accident policy.His statement of claim, completed December 12, 1956, contained the question 'Do you claim that this disability was caused by your work?'Roney answered 'No.'In answer to the question 'Do you claim that this disability was caused by an accident,' a zero was inserted.The claim also contained statements by the treating physician that the disability was a 'subdeltoid bursitis, sub-acute, recurrent' and that in his opinion it was not due to the claimant's occupation.On January 4, 1957, Roney again made claim for nonindustrial benefits under the group insurance plan.The application contained the following questions and answers: 'Do you claim this disability was caused by your work?'Answer: 'No.'Question: 'Do you claim this disability was caused by an accident?'The answer to this was also 'No.'

A total of $2,046.45 was received by Roney as insurance benefits on the basis of a noncompensable disability, the last payment being received some time between April 29 and May 11, 1957.The application for adjustment of claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, filed June 12, 1957, was based upon the same disability and alleged it was caused by a plant injury sustained on September 15, 1956.The only occurrence witness offered was Roney himself, whose testimony has been summarized above.Although the date of injury as alleged in the application was also given as...