{ "id": 2891312, "name": "Joseph Downey, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. - (J. I. Case Company, Appellant.); J. I. Case Company, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. - (Joseph Downey, Appellee.)", "name_abbreviation": "Downey v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1969-11-26", "docket_number": "Nos. 42071, 42072 cons.", "first_page": "28", "last_page": "31", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "44 Ill. 2d 28" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "411 Ill. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5312884 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "140-41" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/411/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Ill.2d 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2733167 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "538" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/21/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "363 Ill. 210", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2590272 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/363/0210-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 Ill. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2460322 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "274-75" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/399/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "409 Ill. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5311131, 5310311 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "219" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/409/0216-02", "/ill/409/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Ill.2d 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2714908 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "554" }, { "page": "554" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/8/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ill.2d 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2865818 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "449-50" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/37/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill.2d 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2882424 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "225" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 Ill. 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2459934 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "458" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/399/0456-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 341, "char_count": 5142, "ocr_confidence": 0.8, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.5278509971584086e-07, "percentile": 0.9238299221305952 }, "sha256": "00e40ca1e79f51d11a3469937fb14a9ff62a07f8cd5b0f782bfbb5e94aaddfad", "simhash": "1:f4bd838f6f4c9791", "word_count": 814 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:12.938767+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Joseph Downey, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (J. I. Case Company, Appellant.) J. I. Case Company, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (Joseph Downey, Appellee.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Underwood\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe two appeals consolidated here concern an award under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act to Joseph Downey for an employment-related injury. The arbitrator originally denied compensation; that decision was affirmed by the Industrial Commision and later reversed by the circuit court of Winnebago County as against the manifest weight of the evidence. Pursuant to a remanding order, the Commission then awarded compensation which was affirmed on appeal to the circuit court. Both actions of the circuit court are challenged here in separate appeals by J. I. Case Company, the employer.\nThe first appeal, from the circuit court order remanding the case to the Commission to fix an award, is improper and must be dismissed. The remanding order was interlocutory and is not in itself appealable. (Joyce Bros. Storage and Van Co. v. Industrial Com., 399 Ill. 456, 458; see Mayrath Co. v. Industrial Com., 33 Ill.2d 224, 225; see also Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago v. Industrial Com., 37 Ill.2d 447, 449-50; South Chicago Community Hospital v. Industrial Com., No. 41670.) However, the circuit court\u2019s final judgment confirming the Commission\u2019s award, made pursuant to the remand, is properly presented for appeal. The entire record is before this court in the present appeal, and the correctness of the circuit court\u2019s initial decision to reverse and remand may now be reviewed within the context of the court\u2019s final judgment. (ACF Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Com., 8 Ill.2d 552, 554; Northwestern University v. Industrial Com., 8 Ill.2d 552, 554; Northwestern University v. Industrial Com., 409 Ill. 216, 219; American Manganese Steel Co. v. Industrial Com., 399 Ill. 272, 274-75.) It is therefore proper for this court to review the evidence upon which the arbitrator and the Commission based the original decision to deny compensation, and we must determine whether the circuit court was correct in finding that decisi\u00f3n to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. Gray Knox Marble Co. v. Industrial Com., 363 Ill. 210.\nNo evidence was presented in this case subsequent to the arbitration hearing. A careful examination of that record indicates that the arbitrator\u2019s decision, affirmed by the Commission, was clearly not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Claimant testified that he had never had any trouble with his back prior to the accident at work. The testimony of the company nurse, however, supported by the records which she kept in her daily routine, clearly contradicted the claimant on this material fact. She recalled that 2^ months before the accident, claimant came to her with a complaint about his knee, which he had cut in a fall while hunting. When she asked if anything else was hurt, he said his back and hip were hurt in the fall and were painful. In addition to this evidence, from which the arbitrator could reasonably have concluded that claimant\u2019s ill-being stemmed from a prior non-work-related accident, there was evidence from which it might have been concluded that the ill-being arose from some later cause. In the year and one-half after the accident at work, claimant made only two visits to a doctor about his back \u2014 both times to Dr. Eugene T. Leonard, pursuant to the employer\u2019s directives. At the second examination, three months after the first and nearly five months after the accident, Dr. Leonard noted that claimant\u2019s subjective complaints had changed, and had become possibly indicative of an early herniated disc syndrome \u201ccompletely unrelated\u201d to the first examination. There were also conflicts in testimony relating to the circumstances of the accident, as well as a question whether claimant\u2019s failure to return to his job on subsequent days was due to a work-related disability or his choice to work elsewhere.\nIn short, it is clear to us that the original resolution of these disputes by the arbitrator and Commission was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the circuit court erred in initially remanding the case. (Me chanics Universal Joint Div., Borg-Warner Corp. v. Industrial Com., 21 Ill.2d 535, 538; Electro-Motive Div., General Motors Corp. v. Industrial Com., 411 Ill. 132, 140-41.) Hence, the Commission\u2019s subsequent award of compensation, made pursuant to the remanding order, should not have been made. The judgment affirming that award is therefore reversed, and this case is remanded to the circuit court of Winnebago County with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the original decision of the Industrial Commission to deny compensation.\nNo. 42071, appeal dismissed; No. 42072, reversed and remanded, with directions.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Underwood" } ], "attorneys": [ "Welsh, Welsh, Holmstrom & Hyzer, of Rockford, (Peter Alexander, of counsel,) for appellant.", "Gerald F. Tuite, of Rockford, (Charles Wolff, of counsel,) for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(Nos. 42071, 42072 cons.\nJoseph Downey, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (J. I. Case Company, Appellant.) J. I. Case Company, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (Joseph Downey, Appellee.)\nOpinion filed November 26, 1969.\nWelsh, Welsh, Holmstrom & Hyzer, of Rockford, (Peter Alexander, of counsel,) for appellant.\nGerald F. Tuite, of Rockford, (Charles Wolff, of counsel,) for appellee." }, "file_name": "0028-01", "first_page_order": 68, "last_page_order": 71 }