Precision Connecting Rod Service v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 29 May 1968
• Docket Number: No. 40867,40867
• Citation: 239 N.E.2d 823,40 Ill.2d 277
• Parties: PRECISION CONNECTING ROD SERVICE, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (James Camper, Appellee.)
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 823

239 N.E.2d 823

40 Ill.2d 277

PRECISION CONNECTING ROD SERVICE, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (James Camper, Appellee.)

No. 40867.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 29, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1968.

Angerstein & Angerstein, Chicago (Oscar P. Chiappori, George W. Angerstein, and Sidney Z. Karasik, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

George J. Murges, Chicago, for appellee.

WARD, Justice.

The employer, Precision Connecting Rod Service, appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Cook County which upheld a decision of the Industrial Commission awarding compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act to the claimant, James Camper.

Our decisions require that we affirm the holding of the Industrial Commission unless the holding is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (City of Collinsville v. Industrial Comm., 36 Ill.2d 425, 428, 223 N.E.2d 155.) The question appearing here is whether the holding that appendicitis, which necessitated surgery, was related causally to an injury the claimant sustained in his employment was contrary to such manifest weight of evidence.

On July 16, 1963, at about 2:00 P.M., the claimant, who was employed by the appellant as a drill-press operator, was directed to assist four other men in removing a box weighing about 500 pounds from a truck. As the men were lowering the box on planks from the truck platform, which was about four feet off the ground, the box slipped and the claimant caught and sought to hold the slipping box. As he did, he felt what he described as a sharp pain in his stomach. He continued, however, to assist in moving the box. Shortly thereafter, though, the claimant complained of stomach pains to one 'Kenny' who had directed him to aid in moving the box. Also, the claimant testified that although he continued to work after the incident for the remainder of the workday (about one hour), during this period the pain increased and he vomited. The claimant declared too that he had never experienced any similar distress prior to the incident described.

When he arrived home from work at about 5:00 P.M., the claimant immediately consulted a physician. The physician, Dr. Roy Roya, testified that the claimant told him that a heavy case had fallen on the right side of his abdomen and that he felt serve pain there. The doctor then placed the claimant in the hospital and after further examination and observation, Dr. Roya diagnosed the claimant's ailment as appendicitis. Some six days after the accident described, Dr. Roya performed an appendectomy on the claimant.

The appellant employer asserts that the decision of the Industrial Commission granting compensation to the claimant is manifestly against the weight of the evidence and should be reversed. The specific ground for reversal alleged by the appellant is that the Commission's finding, based on medical testimony, that there existed a causal connection between the claimant's accident on the job and his appendicitis attack is completely contrary to generally accepted medical knowledge and so is untenable. No cases have been cited by the appellant in support of this proposition.

Dr. Roy Roya, who, as stated, treated and performed the claimant's surgery, testified for him. The physician stated that in his opinion there could be and was a causal connection between the trauma involved in the claimant's described injury at work and his condition of appendicitis which required surgery.

On review before the Industrial Commission, Dr. Warren Clohisy testified on behalf of the employer. Dr. Clohisy stated that in his opinion there could be no causal relationship between the claimant's accident at work and his development of appendicitis. According to Dr. Clohisy, the appendix is not affected by external pressure, except a severe, crushing blow which would penetrate the abdominal wall and perforate the appendix. Such did not occur here

The testimony of the two medical witnesses was thus in direct conflict on the issue of causation. It is primarily the function of the Industrial Commission to resolve disputed questions of fact, including the matter of causal connection (American Rivet Co. v. Industrial Comm., 34 Ill.2d 69, 71, 213 N.E.2d 558), and to draw the inferences and determine which of two conflicting medical views merits greater weight. (34 Ill.2d at 71, 213 N.E.2d 558; Pillsbury Mills, Inc. v. Industrial Comm., 14 Ill.2d 23, 27, 150 N.E.2d 600.) This court on review will not substitute its judgment on these factual questions for that of the Commission. (Frenzel Construction Co. v. Industrial Comm., 31 Ill.2d 310, 312, 201 N.E.2d 450; Swift and Co. v. Industrial Comm., 37 Ill.2d 145, 147, 224 N.E.2d 863.) As stated, our role on review is...