Quality Wood Products Corp. v. Industrial Com'n

• Decision Date: 23 September 1983
• Docket Number: No. 57729,57729
• Citation: 97 Ill.2d 417,454 N.E.2d 668,73 Ill.Dec. 571
• Parties: , 73 Ill.Dec. 571 QUALITY WOOD PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Oliver P. Morrison, Appellee).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 668

454 N.E.2d 668

97 Ill.2d 417, 73 Ill.Dec. 571

QUALITY WOOD PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Oliver P. Morrison, Appellee).

No. 57729.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 23, 1983.

Richard C. Hayden and Michael K. Lulich, of Craig & Craig, Mattoon, for petitioner-appellant, Quality Wood Products Corp.

Scheele, Serkland & Boyle, Ltd., Chicago, for appellee; Stephen M. Cornelius, Chicago, of counsel.

UNDERWOOD, Justice:

Claimant, Oliver P. Morrison, suffered a compression fracture of the L-1 vertebra on January 9, 1980, and a compression fracture of the L-3 vertebra on September 6, 1980, while at work as a factory foreman for respondent, Quality Wood Products Corporation. After a hearing held pursuant to an application for adjustment of claim in relation to the first injury, an arbitrator awarded claimant 16 1/7 weeks of compensation for temporary total disability and 30 weeks of compensation for permanent loss of use of 15% of his left leg under section 8(e) of the Workers' Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 48, par. 138.8(e)). Respondent was also ordered to pay $8,401.39 for necessary first aid, medical, surgical and hospital services. In connection with the second fracture, the arbitrator, after finding that claimant's condition was temporary and not yet permanent in nature, awarded compensation for a period of 21 5/7 weeks, as well as necessary first aid, medical, surgical and hospital expenses. Both parties sought review and the Commission, after consolidating the claims for consideration, increased the arbitrator's award of 30 weeks of compensation in connection with the first injury to 60 weeks of compensation under section 8(d)(2) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 48, par. 138.8(d)(2)). The Commission also increased claimant's compensation for the second injury to 38 2/7 weeks and ordered respondent to pay interest to claimant under section 19(n) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 48, par. 138.19(n)). In all other respects the arbitrator's award was affirmed. On review by writ of certiorari, the circuit court of Shelby County confirmed the Commission's decision and respondent appealed to this court pursuant to Rule 302(a) (73 Ill.2d R. 302(a)).

According to claimant's undisputed testimony, the first fracture occurred when he attempted to assist a fellow employee in carrying a generator owned by respondent which weighed between 450 and 500 pounds. The second fracture occurred nine months later when claimant was sliding a 25-pound sack of dog food used in feeding respondent's guard dogs from the trunk lid of his car onto a cart on respondent's premises. Claimant had recently been advised by his orthopedist that he could begin increasing his lifting activities beyond an earlier-imposed 20-pound limit, but when claimant attempted to hold the full weight of the sack while turning to set it down, he felt two snaps and immediate pain in his back.

Respondent first contends that the Commission's award of compensation is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because claimant's physical condition had deteriorated to the point where even normal exertion would produce injury. In support of that argument, respondent relies on the deposition of Dr. James McKechnie, claimant's orthopedic surgeon, who testified that claimant suffered from osteoporosis, a condition which weakens bone structures and makes them more susceptible to compression fractures. Dr. Barry Samson, an orthopedist who examined claimant at respondent's request after his second injury, also noted in his report that claimant suffered from osteoporosis. Pointing to the fact that claimant's second injury resulted from a relatively minor lifting effort within a relatively short time after the first injury, respondent argues that claimant's condition was such that he could have sustained the same injury in the everyday course of events and that it was merely coincidental that he happened to be engaged in work-related activities when he suffered the fractures.

It is, of course, elementary that a claimant under the Workers' Compensation Act must prove that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. (See, e.g., Jones v. Industrial Com. (1983), 93 Ill.2d 524, 526, 67 Ill.Dec. 829, 445 N.E.2d 309; Rogers v. Industrial Com. (1980), 83 Ill.2d 221, 223, 46 Ill.Dec. 691, 414 N.E.2d 744; Eagle Discount Supermarket v. Industrial Com. (1980), 82 Ill.2d 331, 337, 45 Ill.Dec. 141, 412 N.E.2d 492.) An employer takes his employees as he finds them (Doyle v. Industrial Com. (1981), 86 Ill.2d 544, 549, 56 Ill.Dec. 677, 427 N.E.2d 1223), and the fact that a preexisting condition contributed to the injury does not bar compensation if the employment was also a causative factor. (Williams v. Industrial Com. (1981), 85 Ill.2d 117, 122, 51 Ill.Dec. 685, 421 N.E.2d 193; County of Cook v. Industrial Com. (1977), 69 Ill.2d 10, 18, 12 Ill.Dec. 716, 370 N.E.2d 520; Cossident v. Industrial Com. (1974), 57 Ill.2d 33, 37, 309 N.E.2d 569; Okaw Homes, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1968), 40 Ill.2d 81, 84, 237 N.E.2d 510.) "The sole limitation to the above general rule is that where it is shown that the employee's health has so deteriorated that any normal daily activity is overexertion, or where it is shown that the activity engaged in presented risks no greater than those to which the general public is exposed, compensation will be denied." County of Cook v. Industrial Com. (1977), 69 Ill.2d 10, 18, 12 Ill.Dec. 716, 370 N.E.2d 520. See Doyle v. Industrial Com. (1981), 86 Ill.2d 544, 550, 56 Ill.Dec. 677, 427 N.E.2d 1223.

Resolution of these questions involves factual determinations by the Commission, and its decision will not be overturned unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Portec, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1983), 95 Ill.2d 303, 310, 69 Ill.Dec. 378, 447 N.E.2d 813; Doyle v. Industrial Com. (1981), 86 Ill.2d 544, 551, 56 Ill.Dec. 677, 427 N.E.2d 1223; Williams v. Industrial Com. (1981), 85 Ill.2d 117, 122, 51 Ill.Dec. 685, 421 N.E.2d 193.) Although Dr. McKechnie testified that claimant's osteoporosis was more advanced than in most men of his age, he also stated that he thought it probable that attempting to carry the generator and the 25-pound sack of dog food caused claimant's fractures. Furthermore, there was no indication in the medical evidence that claimant's condition had deteriorated to the point where any activity would present a risk of fracture. Obviously, lifting the generator and maneuvering the sack onto a cart were duties of claimant's employment, and it seems clear that the Commission's conclusion that claimant's injuries were employment related must remain undisturbed.

Respondent...