{ "id": 2856220, "name": "American Distilling Company, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.-(Roland Juchems, Appellee.)", "name_abbreviation": "American Distilling Co. v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1968-06-21", "docket_number": "No. 40987", "first_page": "350", "last_page": "354", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 350" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "415 Ill. 294", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2683670 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/415/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ill.2d 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2708069 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/6/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ill.2d 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5378637 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "426" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/36/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ill.2d 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2858028 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "183-84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/39/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 Ill. 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4957836 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/288/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 Ill. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5235018 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/337/0454-01" ] }, { "cite": "402 Ill. 250", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2615560 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/402/0250-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 382, "char_count": 5605, "ocr_confidence": 0.804, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.512986447411313e-08, "percentile": 0.5241108651508254 }, "sha256": "c96e5fa340c28a8809703ae39f8f71135eabfcb23b7c9a43649c373cfbd3205f", "simhash": "1:5eb99bbf071aeaf0", "word_count": 902 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:25:19.955276+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "American Distilling Company, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.\u2014(Roland Juchems, Appellee. )" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe Industrial Commission awarded Roland Juchems, the claimant, $55 per week for a period of 64 weeks for temporary total incapacity, and $55 per week for a further period of 150 weeks for the permanent loss of use of the right leg to the extent of 75% thereof, caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the American Distilling Company, the respondent. Reimbursement for certain hospital, medical and surgical services was included in the award. The circuit court of Peoria County affirmed the award, and the respondent has appealed to this court.\nThe respondent argues that the claimant failed to establish that an accident occurred or that respondent was notified of the alleged accident within 45 days after its occurrence, as required by section 6(c) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap. 48, par. 138.6(c).) The respondent also contends that because the claimant made his own arrangements for medical treatment through his family physician, it is not liable for his medical and hospital expenses. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap. 48, par. 138.8(a).\nThe claimant testified that on September 4, 1963, a steel beam which he and another of respondent\u2019s employees were holding above their heads fell on claimant\u2019s back, causing pain in his back and down into his legs. He stated that immediately after the accident and on numerous days thereafter he complained of pain to a nurse on duty in respondent\u2019s first aid station, and requested medical aid. While the respondent called a witness to refute claimant\u2019s version of a certain telephone conversation, it did not produce the nurse as a witness.\nOn oral argument respondent\u2019s counsel admitted that there was sufficient evidence for the arbitrator to conclude that the respondent had notice of the accident, and we agree. It follows also that the notice which the claimant gave the respondent of the accident \u201cenabled it to declare its willingness to provide the necessary medical services. (Cf. Corn Products Refining Co. v. Industrial Com., 402 Ill. 250; Simpson Co. v. Industrial Com., 337 Ill. 454; and Hammond Co. v. Industrial Com., 288 Ill. 262.).\u201d Jewel Tea Co. v. Industrial Com., 39 Ill.2d 180, 183-84; see also City of Collinsville v. Industrial Com., 36 Ill.2d 425, 426.\nThe respondent next argues that the finding that the claimant\u2019s disability arose from the fall of the steel beam is not supported by the evidence. Following the accident, the claimant was hospitalized on six different occasions. To establish a causal relationship between the accident, the subsequent hospitalizations and his disabilities, the claimant relies on his own testimony and that of Dr. Harold F. Diller.\nDr. Diller examined him twice, once prior to his third hospitalization and once after all the hospitalizations. Dr. Diller\u2019s diagnosis after the first examination was a \u201cback injury involving the lumbrosacral disc\u201d which \u201ccould have been caused by trauma.\u201d On his second examination, he found that the claimant had \u201cpractically no lateral or backward bending,\u201d and a \u201cdraining sinus on the right thigh.\u201d In the interim between the two examinations a laminectomy and several operations on claimant\u2019s leg had been performed. Dr. Diller testified that the limitation of flexion \u201ccould be due to adhesions following the laminectomy * * *\u201d, and the draining sinus which was found \u201cafter his laminectomy and after the surgery on his back, * * * could very well come from a low grade infection burrowing down between the muscle sheats, or \u2014 between the muscles of the thigh and coming to the surface on the lateral aspect.\u201d\nTo discredit this testimony, the respondent directs our attention to the fact that Dr. Diller\u2019s findings with respect to the claimant included spondylolisthesis and deformity of the coccyx, both of which are probably of congenital origin, and that the diagnosis of Dr. Neal Crawford, who attended the claimant during his first hospitalization, was \u201crenal colic right with probable pyelitis.\u201d Dr. Crawford admitted, however, that at the time of the first hospitalization, \u201cthe claimant did have this complaint of pain down his leg.\u201d Dr. Crawford also testified that he had an orthopedic surgeon examine the claimant \u201cbecause of the paresthesia which means tingling, and pain, which indicates there was originally \u2014 that it was probably due to some nerve root irritation from the spine.\u201d To the extent that Dr. Crawford\u2019s testimony differed from that of Dr. Diller, it was for the Commission to decide which of the two expert witnesses it would believe. See e.g., Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Industrial Com., 6 Ill.2d 290; Railway Express Agency v. Industrial Com., 415 Ill. 294.\nThe respondent also alludes to an earlier back injury which the claimant suffered in 1962 while lifting a steel tank, and implies that the claimant\u2019s present difficulties may be the result of that occurrence. But the claimant never missed work as a result of the 1962 incident, and the arbitrator and the Commission could reasonably conclude that his disabilities were caused by the fall of the steel beam.\nThe Commission\u2019s findings are not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer" } ], "attorneys": [ "Cassidy, Cassidy, Quinn & Lindholm, of Peoria, for appellant.", "Kenneth Ott, of Peoria, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 40987.\nAmerican Distilling Company, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.\u2014(Roland Juchems, Appellee. )\nOpinion filed June 21, 1968.\nRehearing denied Sept. 24, 1968.\nCassidy, Cassidy, Quinn & Lindholm, of Peoria, for appellant.\nKenneth Ott, of Peoria, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0350-01", "first_page_order": 366, "last_page_order": 370 }