Juergens Bros. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 17 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 12882.,12882.
• Citation: 290 Ill. 420,125 N.E. 337
• Parties: JUERGENS BROS. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

290 Ill. 420

125 N.E. 337

JUERGENS BROS. CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 12882.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1919.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Oscar M. Torrison, Judge.

Claim by Fred Kaage for compensation for personal injuries under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the Juergens Bros. Company, employer. An order of the Industrial Commission approving an award of the arbitrator was on certiorari confirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

F. J. Canty and J. C. M. Clow, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Melville R. Thomson, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

STONE, J.

The circuit court of Cook county confirmed the award of the Industrial Commission. The record shows that the plaintiff in error and Fred Kaage, defendant in error, were on May 15, 1917, at the time of the accident, working under and subject to the provisions of the Workmen's CompensationAct as it existed at that time, and that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of Kaage. The average weekly wage of Kaage at the time of the accident was $21. There is no claim for medical, surgical, or hospital services, and all payments for the period of temporary total incapacity have been paid.

On the date of the accident defendant in error, Kaage, while setting knives on a beveling machine, was struck in the eye by a small piece of steel. At first the injury caused him but little pain and he paid little attention to it. Several weeks afterward he noticed that the sight of the injured eye was failing. He then secured glasses, which gave him but temporary relief. By agreement between the plaintiff in error and Kaage the services of a surgeon were secured for the purpose of performing an operation to remove a cataract, apparently caused by the injury. In order to remove the cataract it was necessary to penetrate the cornea and iris and remove the lens from the eye. The piece of steel was removed from the eye by the same operation. The medical testimony taken before the arbitrator and Industrial Commission on review showed that it was impossible to bring the vision of the injured eye to harmonize with the other eye, the vision of which was normal; that lenses can be secured whereby defendant in error may see distinctly at the fixed focal distance of such lenses, but in order to see objects at a different focal distance with the injured eye it will be necessary to use a different lens with the required focal capacity; in other words, the sight of the injured eye is impaired to the extent that the defendant in error has lost the power of accommodation. Normal vision at certain distances may be had with glasses proper for such distances. The record contains testimony tending to show an estimated loss of three-fourths of a normal eye with such lenses. Kaage, since the recovery from temporary disability, has been able to and has earned wages equal to his earnings prior to the accident by use of his normal eye.

The arbitrator made a finding in which he awarded Kaage $10.50 for a period of 100 weeks under the specific schedule of the Compensation Act for the loss of sight of his right eye. On a hearing the Industrial Commission ordered that the award of the arbitrator be approved and confirmed, and that it stand as the decision of the commission. The circuit court confirmed the order of the Industrial Commission and entered judgment against the plaintiff in error for the sum then due, to wit, $735, and ordered execution to issue therefor and for future installments as they severally come due.

Paragraph ‘e’ of section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended in 1915 (Laws 1915, p. 403), provides:

‘In addition to compensation during the period of temporary total incapacity for work resulting from such injury, * * * for the loss of the sight of an eye, fifty per centum of the average weekly wage during 100 weeks.’

It is contended by plaintiff in error that Kaage has not suffered a total loss of vision, but has only lost the power of accommodation, which by the use of glasses he may regain. The evidence shows that with the use of correcting glasses or lenses the applicant can see clearly with the injured eye at a fixed distance. Such distance depends upon the character of the lenses or correcting glasses used; in other words, while with certain correcting glasses he can see clearly at 15 feet, yet to see clearly at 10 feet or at 20 feet he would require other lenses. The evidence also tends to show that as a result of the accident Kaage cannot use both eyes in conjunction; that is, he has no practical use of the injured eye so long as he uses the normal eye, but may have use of the injured member by the use of correcting lenses at fixed...