R.G. Le Tourneau, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 19 March 1947
• Docket Number: No. 29682.,29682.
• Citation: 72 N.E.2d 183,396 Ill. 435
• Parties: R. G. LE TOURNEAU, Inc., v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

396 Ill. 435

72 N.E.2d 183

R. G. LE TOURNEAU, Inc.,

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 29682.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 19, 1947.

Error to Circuit Court, Peoria County; Henry J. Ingram, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Peter Kipfer, employee, opposed by R. G. Le Tourneau, Inc., employer. To review a judgment of the Circuit Court confirming a finding of the Industrial Commission awarding compensation, employer brings error.

Reversed and award set aside.

Miller, Westervelt, Johnson & Thomason, of Peoria (David A. Nicoll, of Peoria, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Louis F. Knoblock, of Peoria, for defendant in error.

FULTON, Justice.

This cause arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act. After a hearing the arbitrator entered a decision on August 29, 1944, finding that the claimant-employee had failed to establish any causal connection between a claimed loss of vision of the right eye and an accidental injury alleged to have occurred on October 14, 1943. Compensation was denied. The Industrial Commission on review of the proceedings before the arbitrator awarded compensation to the claimant and on certiorari the circuit court of Peoria county entered a judgment confirming the decision of the Industrial Commission.

The essential facts are these. The defendant in error, Peter Kipfer, had been an employee of the plaintiff in error, R. G. Le Tourneau, Inc., for a year prior to October, 1943. His work consisted of dipping metal parts into a paint tank and then hanging them upon a rack to dry. During the course of his eight-hour work day he would handle up to 1,000 pieces of castings ranging in weight from one-half a pound to about fifty-five pounds, or a total weight on some days of from 4,000 to 6,000 pounds. He stated at the hearing that he was normal and did not notice anything unusual about his eyesight when he reported for work on October 14, 1943. From 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock on October 14, 1943, he dipped 132 two-pound castings and some 51 one-pound castings. The hooks on the racks on which he hung these castings after dipping were about as high as his nose and about 2 1/2 feet in front of him and he testified that the heavier castings were apt to slip off the hook and drop down and that he was required to assert some force to keep them from falling back into the paint tank. At 9 o'clock on the morning in question, he went to a shop meeting and while looking over his cards, in some way or another he covered up his left eye and discovered he could see nothing out of his right eye. Previous to that time he had not noticed anything wrong with his right eye and had not had any trouble with it. After the meeting he reported to his supervisor and was sent to first aid after which he was under the care of several doctors.

The medical evidence for the defendant in error included a deposition of Dr. Gailey and the testimony of Dr. Ward. Dr. Gailey examined the employee on October 22 and November 19 and found a detachment of the retina of the right eye with a resulting ‘industrial blindness' which he defined as vision of 20/100ths or more. Dr. Gailey further stated that a detached retina can be caused by pre-existing disease, particularly true in old people, or can be the result of either strain or injury. This particular case looked to him like a traumatic one. He concluded by stating that the etiology of Kipfer's detachment was undetermined, that it could be caused by a blow or heavy lifting but that he could not state specifically the cause.

Dr. Ward enumerated the cause of detachment as being the debilitating diseases found in older people, trauma, injury, a blow or strain. He further stated that it was impossible for him to determine what was the cause of this injury but that it was his opinion the detachment was due to some type of injury.

On review before the Industrial Commission, Kipfer again testified in his own behalf and at this time emphasized occasions of strain on the morning in question.

It is well settled under our Workmen's Compensation Act that a claimant under the act must prove by direct and positive evidence, or by evidence from which the inference can be fairly and reasonably drawn, that the accidental injury or death of which complaint is made arose out of and in the course of the injured or deceased person's employment. Jolly v. Industrial Commission, 341 Ill. 46, 173 N.E. 131;Standard Oil Co. v. Industrial Commission, 339 Ill. 252, 171 N.E. 165. In considering the question of the...