Snyder v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 08 April 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13692.,13692.
• Citation: 297 Ill. 175,130 N.E. 517
• Parties: SNYDER et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

297 Ill. 175

130 N.E. 517

SNYDER et al.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 13692.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 15, 1921.

Rehearing Denied April 8, 1921.

Error to Circuit Court, Logan County; T. M. Harris, Judge.

Proceedings by Hallie Giertz, as administratrix, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to obtain compensation for the death of Albert H. Giertz, her husband, opposed by James I. Snyder and others, employers. An award of compensation was annulled by the circuit court, and applicant brings error.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and order of Commission confirmed.

McCormick & Murphy, of Lincoln, for plaintiff in error.

Harold F. Trapp and Evan Worth, both of Lincoln, for defendants in error.

DUNCAN, J.

On August 15, 1919, plaintiff in error, Hallie Giertz, as administratrix of the estate of Albert H. Giertz, deceased, filed her petition with the Industrial Commission for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1919, c. 48, §§ 126-152i) against James I. Snyder and J. E. Montgomery, copartners, and William T. Bowman, for the death of Giertz, her husband. The arbitrator awarded her as compensation $8.41 per week for a period of 416 weeks and $1,44 for one week, under paragraph (a) of section 7 of said act. The Industrial Commission on review sustained the award as to the defendants in error Snyder and Montgomery, but found that Bowman was not liable to plaintiff in error. The circuit court of Logan county heard the case upon a petition for writ of certiorari, quashed the record, and entered judgment for costs against plaintiff in error. This court granted her petition for writ of error to review the judgment.

Defendants in error James I. Snyder and J. E. Montgomery, partners, were engaged in business as building contractors at Middletown, Ill., and built and repaired buildings. On July 9, 1919, Albert H. Giertz, a carpenter by trade, was, and had been for two weeks prior thereto, employed by them in repairing a building upon premises owned by the wife of William T. Bowman. On that morning Giertz left his home in good health and physical condition. While at work in the basement of the house being repaired he stepped on a nail, which punctured the sole of his shoe and also his foot to the depth of about a quarter of an inch. At the noon hour of that day Giertz poured iodine on his injured foot, which had been procured for him by Snyder. Upon his arrival home that evening his wife examined his foot and found that it was red and slightly inflamed about the place where the nail had entered. Giertz bathed his foot in hot water and poured turpentineon the injured place and bandaged it with a rag. He repeated this treatment each morning and evening thereafter until Saturday, July 12, when he went to the office of Dr. Guttery and had the wound cleansed with carbolic acid, painted with iodine, and dressed with antiseptic dressing. There was no pus in it at that time. The doctor found it to be a dry wound. He advised Giertz to keep off his feet for a few days. Giertz replied that he could not very well afford to lay off, and he continued to work until the following Monday. On that morning he visited Dr. Guttery again and his wound was treated in the same manner as on Saturday. On Tuesday morning the doctor called at Giertz' home and dressed and treated the wound. On that afternoon the doctor noticed pronounced symptoms of tetanus, and that evening called in Dr. Butler, of Lincoln, for consultation. At 11 o'clock that night Giertz was given antitoxin serum subcutaneously, and this serum was thereafter administered to him at regular intervals in doses of about 5,000 units until his death. He died on Thursday morning, July 17, of lockjaw, which in the opinion of Dr. Guttery was caused from the injury. The deceased left the petitioner, his widow, and two children under the age of 16 years.

On the hearing before the arbitrator it was stipulated that the relation of employer and employee existed between the defendants in error and Giertz at the time he was injured and that demand and notice of the injury were in no way involved.

It is contended by the defendants in error that the record in this case fails to show that the Industrial Commission made a finding of the facts necessary to give it jurisdiction and to entitle plaintiff in error to the compensation awarded. It is pointed out by them that there is no finding that Giertz was in their employ July 9, 1919, or that he was working under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, or that he was injured, or that he died as a result of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, or that he is, in fact, dead. All of the jurisdictional facts and all of the ultimate facts necessary to entitle plaintiff in error to compensation ought to have been found by the Commission, but it has never been held by this court that it is necessary for the Commission to make a specific finding of all of such facts where the evidence in the record shows the jurisdiction of the parties and contains sufficient evidence to sustain the award. The findings of the Commission are faulty mainly for the reason that the word ‘petitioner’ is used by the Commission in its findings instead of the name of the deceased. The recital of the facts are therefore to the effect that the ‘petitioner’ and the ‘respondent’ were on the day in question operating under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act; that the ‘petitioner’ sustained accidental injuries which did arise out of and in the course of the employment; and ‘that the actual earnings of the petitioner’ were $875, etc. We do not think that the award should be set aside for the clerical errors aforesaid, or because the findings of the Commission upon all questions were not made, or that such findings are not as complete as they should be, if the Commission's award is sustained by the evidence in the record.

The evidence in the record, together with the stipulations, shows that the deceased, Albert H. Giertz, was employed by the defendants in error as recited in the above statement of facts; that he was injured as therein stated; that such injury arose out of and in the course of the employment; and that he died as a result of the injury. It is particularly contended by defendants in error that Giertz was not injured while engaged at his employment. The record is against this contention. It is specifically shown by the testimony of his widow, and also by the testimony of one of the employees who accompanied him to work that morning, that he was in good health before he began his work on that day. He made a statement at said buildingto one of his employers, Snyder, and also to a fellow employee, that after he had begun his work he injured his foot by stepping on a nail. He showed the wound to his employer and the employee and it was treated with iodine furnished by Snyder. There was no question at any time about his receiving the injury while at work. There is absolutely no question or dispute about the fact that his foot was punctured by a nail. Every witness who saw the wound, including his wife and his physician, testified that the wound had the...