{
  "id": 2839301,
  "name": "Central Waxed Paper Co. et al., Appellants, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.-(John Kotulia a/k/a John Kotulla, Appellee.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Central Waxed Paper Co. v. Industrial Commission",
  "decision_date": "1965-01-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 38823",
  "first_page": "154",
  "last_page": "156",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. 2d 154"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "411 Ill. 593",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5313026
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/411/0593-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "398 Ill. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2460787
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/398/0361-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 225,
    "char_count": 2935,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.865,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.161564862667632e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42898389056659286
    },
    "sha256": "ff6b780d1f912309432ed3e50b447d403cff56c7e247f9f8040d2fdbfe890efd",
    "simhash": "1:2e490d77fd1f8ae8",
    "word_count": 489
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:39.109813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Central Waxed Paper Co. et al., Appellants, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.\u2014(John Kotulia a/k/a John Kotulla, Appellee.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nJohn Kotulla, herein called petitioner, was injured in the course of his employment at the shipping room and loading dock of Central Waxed Paper Co., where his duties included the operation of a hydraulic fork lift truck. He also sometimes drove company vehicles on the public streets. The arbitrator\u2019s award of permanent total disability was confirmed by the Commission and the decision of the Commission was affirmed by the circuit court. The respondent employer appeals.\nThe evidence warranted the conclusion that as a result of the accident the petitioner\u2019s left eye was turned inward, the sight of that eye was destroyed and the sixth cranial nerve was so damaged that the ability to turn his right eye laterally to the right was lost. There was testimony that the right eye was also slightly turned in. He suffered a fracture of the jaw and a fracture of the base of the frontal area of the skull. An electroencephalogram showed \u201cminimal focal slow activity in the left temporal and anterior temporal region.\u201d His hearing was impaired and he suffered from headaches for which a vasodilator had been prescribed.\nThe employer\u2019s contentions seem to be that the award is against the manifest weight of the evidence (1) because there was evidence that there had been chorioretinitis in the petitioner\u2019s left eye prior to the accident, and (2) because there was not a total loss of the visual field of the right eye. As to the first point, there is no evidence that the vision in petitioner\u2019s left eye was seriously impaired prior to the accident, and as to the second, total loss of all vision is not required to support a conclusion of industrial blindness. Friel v. Industrial Com. 398 Ill. 361; see also Lambert v. Industrial Com. 411 Ill. 593.\nWhen the case was heard before the arbitrator, the petitioner had been examined by at least ten doctors at the instance of the employer. At that hearing the employer called only one of these doctors. One of them was called by petitioner, and the petitioner also offered the testimony of four other doctors. After the arbitrator had made his award, the petitioner was examined by two additional doctors at the instance of the employer, who called these two doctors as witnesses at the hearing on review by the Commission. The Commission was entitled to draw appropriate inferences from the unexplained and unusual selectivity of the employer in its presentation of medical testimony. Wig-more on Evidence, 3rd ed., secs. 285, 290.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Francis M. Discipio, Richard H. Williams, and Gerard A. Facchini, all of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "Thomas L. Ruth, Jr., of Barrington, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 38823.\nCentral Waxed Paper Co. et al., Appellants, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.\u2014(John Kotulia a/k/a John Kotulla, Appellee.)\nOpinion filed January 21, 1965.\nFrancis M. Discipio, Richard H. Williams, and Gerard A. Facchini, all of Chicago, for appellants.\nThomas L. Ruth, Jr., of Barrington, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0154-01",
  "first_page_order": 154,
  "last_page_order": 156
}