Perkins Products Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 22 January 1942
• Docket Number: No. 26458.,26458.
• Citation: Perkins Products Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 379 Ill. 115, 39 N.E.2d 372 (Ill. 1942)
• Parties: PERKINS PRODUCTS CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

379 Ill. 115

39 N.E.2d 372

PERKINS PRODUCTS CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 26458.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 22, 1942.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; John J. Wallace, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Florence O'Hara, employee, opposed by the Perkins Products Company, employer.To review a judgment of the circuit court confirming a decision of the Industrial Commission awarding compensation, the employer brings error.

Affirmed.James A. Dooley, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Norman Peters, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

SMITH, Justice.

This case is here on writ of error granted by this court to review the judgment of the circuit court of Cook county.

Upon a hearing before an arbitrator of the Industrial Commission, an award was made in favor of defendant in error, Florence O'Hara, in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation act, Ill.Rev.Stat. c. 48, § 138 et seq.The arbitrator found that on February 22, 1940, defendant in error sustained an accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of her employment by plaintiff in error.He found that the injury sustained resulted in the permanent loss of five per cent of the use of her left arm.An award was made in accordance with the finding.

On appeal to the Industrial Commission, the decision of the arbitrator was affirmed, but the amount of the compensation was increased.The commission found that, as a result of the injury, defendant in error had sustained ten per cent loss of the use of the arm.On certiorari to the circuit court, an order was entered confirming the decision of the Industrial Commission.

Plaintiff in error, by this writ of error, seeks to have the decisions of the circuit court and the commission reversed on two grounds: First, that the proof shows ‘an occupational neurosis' and not ‘an accidental injury.’Second, it is claimed that the award is without substantial foundation in the evidence.

An award in favor of the employee having been entered by the Industrial Commission, the question presented by the record is whether such decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.Unless the finding of the commission is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, this court will not disturb such finding.Chicago Park District v. Industrial Comm., 372 Ill. 428, 24 N.E.2d 358;Thomson v. Industrial Comm., 372 Ill. 258, 23 N.E.2d 692;Rodriguez v. Industrial Comm., 371 Ill. 590, 21 N.E.2d 741;Board of Education v. Industrial Comm., 368 Ill. 564, 15 N.E.2d 288;Mt. Olive & Staunton Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm., 367 Ill. 574, 12 N.E.2d 664.

Where the facts are not in controversy, and the sole question is whether the employee received injuries which arose out of and in the course of the employment, the question is one of law.Ervin v. Industrial Comm., 364 Ill. 56, 4 N.E.2d 22.In such case, the decision of the Industrial Commission will not be reversed if there is any evidence fairly tending to support the decision.Halsted Co. v. Industrial Comm., 287 Ill. 509, 122 N.E. 822.If there is in the record, any competent evidence upon which the findings of the commission can be based, this court will not weigh the evidence or disturb the findings.Chicago Steel Foundry Co. v. Industrial Comm., 286 Ill. 544, 122 N.E. 150.

The words ‘accident’ and ‘accidental injury,’ as used in the Workmen's Compensation act were meant to include every injury, suffered in the course of employment, for which there was an existing right of action at the time the act was passed; also to extend the liability of the employer to make compensation for injuries for which he was not previously liable and to limit such compensation.If an injury can be traceable to a definite time, place and cause, and the injury occurs in the course of the employment, the injury is accidental within the meaning of the act.Fittro v. Industrial Comm., 377 Ill. 532, 37 N.E.2d 161;Baggot Co. v. Industrial Comm., 290 Ill. 530, 125 N.E. 254, 7 A.L.R. 1611.

Defendant in error testified that she was engaged in packing displays in cartons.Each package or display weighed about one and one-fourth ounces.They were packed forty to a carton.The cartons were approximately eight by sixteen inches.She handled about 600 cartons per day.The supply of displays was kept on a bench behind the worker; the cartons were packed on a table in front of the operator.In doing her work she would turn and reach back to the supply of displays on the bench behind her, pick up three displays at a time in her hand and bring the same around and place them in the cartons on the table in front.This movement of her body and arm was repeated in every operation.On the day in question, while working as above indicated, she felt a pain in her left wrist.As she expressed it, ‘something seemed to snap in my arm while I was turning my arm to one side.’There is nothing in the record tending to dispute this statement.She immediately told her forelady, who was her immediate superior, what had happened.This incident occurred on February 22, however, and she kept on working, but her arm continued to bother her in doing her work.

On February 27, 1940, the forelady sent her to Dr. Przypyszny, a physician selected by plaintiff in error, or its forelady.She was given heat treatments to the arm and the arm was bandaged by him; she then...