{
  "id": 2884270,
  "name": "Roy Cooper, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. - ( Parrish-Alford Fence and Machine Company, Appellant.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cooper v. Industrial Commission",
  "decision_date": "1965-11-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 39226",
  "first_page": "477",
  "last_page": "480",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "33 Ill. 2d 477"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill.2d 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2838463
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/32/0316-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 400,
    "char_count": 6864,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.818,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5201426801330888
    },
    "sha256": "dab873e4859a3995a369208e4b53ac37d03cdb14985cb9a4bbdc53f2a7dfe4c2",
    "simhash": "1:81b3aa999e3fe79e",
    "word_count": 1116
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:16.085089+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Roy Cooper, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 ( Parrish-Alford Fence and Machine Company, Appellant.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Underwood\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal stems from conflicting conclusions reached below on the question of whether the claimant, Roy Cooper, sustained permanent injury in an industrial accident. Contrary to the finding of an arbitrator, the Industrial Commission held that claimant had failed in his burden of proving such injury, and set aside an award. The circuit court of Whiteside County, however, reversed the decision of the Commission as being against the manifest weight of the evidence and reinstated the award of the arbitrator. The employer, Parrish-Alford Fence and Machine Company, has appealed.\nOn May 24, 1962, claimant was injured when a metal bar became entangled in a machine he was operating and struck him between the legs in an upward motion. He experienced pain, was taken to a hospital for X rays, was given pain pills, and was off work for 14 days, during which time he saw a doctor every third day. Since returning to the same job claimant has missed no time and has had no further medical treatment. His work requires him to stand at a machine, and he testified that, since the accident, he experiences some pain in his back whether standing or sitting and that his legs hurt after standing for extended periods of time. Claimant also testified he had not injured his back or legs prior to this accident and had experienced no leg pains previously.\nDr. Samuel R. Rubert examined claimant on November 12, 1962, and testified on claimant\u2019s behalf that he had found tightness and spasm in the low back area, restriction in the motion of the left leg and hip, and irritability of the lumbosacral musculature. X rays of the spine taken at the time were interpreted as showing a flattening of the lordotic curve and a narrowing of the lumbosacral disc space interval, and it was the doctor\u2019s opinion that such structural changes had caused nerve root irritability which was radiating pain into claimant\u2019s leg along the sciatic nerve. He diagnosed these as \u201ccontusion injury changes\u201d and stated that the condition could have been caused by trauma, and was of the opinion it was permanent. On cross-examination he conceded that the conditions he found could also be caused by infection or disease, that he found no atrophy or impairment of the reflexes or sensation, that the narrowing of the disc space was not \u201ctoo profound,\u201d and that the position of the patient when the pictures were taken could cause the appearance of the structural changes in the spine he deduced from the X rays. On redirect examination, however, he expressed the opinion that the structural changes were actually present in this instance, since \u201c[t]he film was taken in a neutral position.\u201d\nThe medical witness for the employer was Dr. F. L. Rubright, who had examined claimant on November 10, 1962, and it was his testimony that he found no swelling, no induration, no limitation of motion in the hips, legs or thighs, no limitation of flexion or extension in the spine, and no objective evidence of any underlying pathology. He admitted he took no X rays, and when shown those taken by Dr. Rubert he testified that \u201cthe portion of the 5th lumbar on the 1st sacral vertebra\u201d was \u201cnot in the normal position;\u201d that the margin of the sacral vertebra appeared to impinge \u201con the margin of the 5th lumbar so that it narrows the space\u201d between them. When asked if the pictures showed a flattening of the lordotic curve, the witness responded: \u201cThere may be some. It may be due to the position,\u201d and added that such flattening is oftentimes normal. He did not testify regarding the effect of the pathology indicated by the X rays nor as to the permanence of any disability which might thereby be caused.\nIt was stipulated that the only issues in this case concerned the nature and extent of the injury.\nThe sole question for our consideration is whether the finding of the Commission that claimant\u2019s proof failed to establish any permanent disability, and its action in setting aside the arbitrator\u2019s award given for a 5% permanent loss of use of the left leg, are against the manifest weight of the evidence. If not, such action will not be disturbed on judicial review where the evidence is conflicting or susceptible of different reasonable inferences. Johnson & Johnson v. Industrial Com. 32 Ill.2d 316.\nWe agree that the circuit court properly vacated the Industrial Commission\u2019s order as to permanent injury and reinstated the award of the arbitrator. It does not appear to us that any real conflict exists; claimant\u2019s physician testified as to his pathological findings and positively stated his opinion that such abnormalities as were revealed by the X rays were actually present and not due to the positioning of claimant\u2019s body under the X-ray equipment. His diagnosis was that there were \u201ccontusion injury changes\u201d of, in his opinion, a permanent nature. The employer\u2019s medical witness, who had made no X-ray examination, first testified that his examination revealed no objective evidence of underlying pathology. However, when shown claimant\u2019s X rays he substantially agreed with Dr. Rubert as to the pathological indications thereon, qualifying his agreement only by indicating portions thereof could be due to positioning of the body. He did not testify as to the effect of such pathology upon the patient nor as to the permanency of any difficulties attributable thereto, thus leaving Dr. Hubert\u2019s testimony thereon virtually unchallenged. Considering that Dr. Rubert performed the X-ray examination and positively testified that claimant\u2019s body was neutrally positioned when the films were taken, the speculation by Dr. Rubright that the lordotic curve pathology might be due to positioning can scarcely be said to create a conflict. Nor does his testimony that such curve pathology is oftentimes seen in normal conditions raise any substantial question, since he agreed the lumbosacral pathology was also present and did not indicate any possibility it was positional or occurred in a normal condition.\nIn our judgment there existed no substantial conflict in the medical testimony, and the finding of the Commission that claimant\u2019s proof was insufficient to establish permanent disability was rather clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nThe circuit court of Whiteside County properly vacated the Commission\u2019s action and reinstated the arbitrator\u2019s award. Its judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Underwood"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stevenson, Conaghan, Hackbert, Rooks and Pitts, of Chicago, (Douglas F. Stevenson and Paul Noland, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Kleiman, Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, (Bernard Kleiman, Jason Gesmer, and Alton Sharpe, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 39226.\nRoy Cooper, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 ( Parrish-Alford Fence and Machine Company, Appellant.)\nOpinion filed November 19, 1965.\nStevenson, Conaghan, Hackbert, Rooks and Pitts, of Chicago, (Douglas F. Stevenson and Paul Noland, of counsel,) for appellant.\nKleiman, Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, (Bernard Kleiman, Jason Gesmer, and Alton Sharpe, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0477-01",
  "first_page_order": 481,
  "last_page_order": 484
}
