Groveland Coal Mining Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 20 June 1923
• Docket Number: No. 15300.,15300.
• Citation: Groveland Coal Mining Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 309 Ill. 73, 140 N.E. 29 (Ill. 1923)
• Parties: GROVELAND COAL MINING CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

309 Ill. 73

140 N.E. 29

GROVELAND COAL MINING CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.

No. 15300.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 20, 1923.

Error to Circuit Court, Peoria County; John M. Niehaus, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Joseph Getz, opposed by the Groveland Coal Mining Company.An award of the Industrial Commission was confirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.John E. Cassidy, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Kerr, Murphy & Londrigan, of Springfield, for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, J.

July 20, 1920, Joseph Getz was injured while employed as a driver and timberman in the mine of plaintiff in error.He was caught between a coal car and a timber in the mine, and two of his ribs were broken, and he was otherwise bruised about the chest and back.He was totally incapacitated for 27 days, and full compensation was paid for this period.He returned to work at the same mine August 16, and was still employed by the company when the award involved here was made, September 28, 1921.The sole question in controversy is the per cent. of loss of earning power, if any, sustained by Getz by reason of his injury.The arbitrator who heard the evidence found that there was no loss of earning power and denied compensation for partial incapacity.On review the Industrial Commission ordered compensation to be paid during a ‘period of 380 weeks at the rate of $2.50 per week, compensation payments to start April 1, 1921, for the reason that as a result of said accidental injury applicant has been partially incapacitated from his usual line of employment, $2.50 being 50 per cent. of the difference between what he was able to earn prior to the accidental injury and what he is now able to earn in the same employment.’The circuit court of Peoria county confirmed this decision on review, and by leave this writ of error is prosecuted to review the judgment of the circuit court.

An award of the Industrial Commission cannot be sustained unless it is supported by a preponderance of the competent evidence in the record.Inland Rubber Co. v. Industrial Com.(No. 15314), 140 N. E. 26.Before an award under paragraph (d) of section 8(Laws 1913, p. 342) is justified, the claimant must show, among other things, that the injury left him permanently partially incapacitated from pursuing his usual and customary line of employment, and that he is not earning, or is not able to earn, as much as he earned before he was injured.The amount the injured employee is able to earn, within the meaning of the language of the act, will never be less than he actually earns.Mt. Olive & Staunton Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 301 Ill. 521, 134 N. E. 16.If he is employed and is receiving compensation after the accident, it is easy to ascertainwhat he‘is earning.’If the employee is making an honest effort to work and the evidence shows that he is actually earning what he is able to earn but that it is less than he earned before his injury, then a fair award for the partial disability he has suffered would be the statutory percentage of the difference between the average amount he actually earned before his injury and the average amount he is actually earning since his injury.Where there has been a change in wage scale, that should be taken into consideration by the Commission in determining whether there has been a decrease in earning capacity.The object of this section of the statute is to compensate the injured employee for his reduced earning capacity, and if the injury does not reduce his earning capacity he is not entitled to compensation.There is no intent expressed in the statute to allow compensation for pain and suffering.The phrase, ‘or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business,’ was added to the section to prevent a person from loafing or refusing to work in order to collect compensation.Where the injured employee is not employed, then it becomes material to determine what he is able to earn at some suitable...