{ "id": 2891014, "name": "Marion Lewandowski, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. - (United States Steel Corporation, Appellant.)", "name_abbreviation": "Lewandowski v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1969-12-19", "docket_number": "No. 42086", "first_page": "204", "last_page": "207", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "44 Ill. 2d 204" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "19 Ill.2d 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2742380 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "49" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/19/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill.2d 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2884270 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ill.2d 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2838463 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "320" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/32/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ill.2d 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2866122 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "571" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/37/0568-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 344, "char_count": 5214, "ocr_confidence": 0.826, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.805474082242913e-07, "percentile": 0.8976310974114707 }, "sha256": "423121a963933340ca716576f8ccb628397be48744e3ce4a6f799efdef29498f", "simhash": "1:02c423e74fdd8d10", "word_count": 870 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:12.938767+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Marion Lewandowski, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (United States Steel Corporation, Appellant.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe Industrial Commission reversed the decision of an arbitrator and denied the claimant, Marion Lewandowski, compensation for the permanent partial loss of use of his right arm caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent, United States Steel Corporation. The circuit court of Cook County reversed the- decision of the Commission and reinstated the award of the arbitrator, and the respondent has appealed.\nThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a carpenter. On October 26, 1964, while removing a wooden form from inside a steel furnace, he fell backward onto a wooden scaffold. His right side landed on a four-by-four piece of wood which was on the scaffold, and the form that he was removing, which weighed three to five hundred pounds, fell on his chest. After he was pulled from the furnace, a doctor on the premises took five X rays and told him to return to work. He did light work for the next two days and was then sent to the hospital where more X rays were taken and it was determined that he had fractured two ribs. He was off work for a total of six and two-sevenths weeks for which temporary compensation was paid. Subsequently he was examined by Dr. Herbert Kahn on August 17, 1965, and by Dr. H. Chwatal for the company on June 7, 1966.\n\u2022 The record shows that the claimant\u2019s testimony before the arbitrator was marked by a pronounced difficulty with the English language. He testified that he has had pain in his right side and arm since the accident, and that his right hand sometimes felt \u201csleepy\u201d and was weaker than it was before the accident. He also offered in evidence the report of Dr. Kahn which stated that X rays showed \u201cfracture and fracture changes at the eighth and ninth lateral right ribs,\u201d and that a physical examination showed \u201cspasm and tenderness at the eighth and ninth anterolateral ribs on palpation and on motion of the right arm, especially in extremes of abduction.\u201d The respondent offered in evidence the report of Dr. Chwatal which stated that an \u201cX-ray taken of the right ribs reveals changes through the anterior portion of the 7th and 8th ribs consistent with well healed fractures.\u201d Dr. Chwatal\u2019s examination showed \u201cfull range of motion in all the joints of both upper extremities,\u201d and that \u201creflexes in-the upper extremities are normal.\u201d\nOn the issue of permanent disability of the right arm, the arbitrator determined that the claimant should receive $52 per week for 23^2 weeks because \u201cthe injuries sustained caused the complete and permanent loss of use of the right arm to the extent of 10% thereof.\u201d The Commission reversed, holding that the claimant \u201cfailed in the burden of proof to establish that he sustained any permanent disability as a result of the aforesaid accidental injuries.\u201d The circuit court reversed the Commission and reinstated the award of the arbitrator.\nWe have often held that questions of fact are primarily for the Commission to decide and that its findings will only be disturbed on judicial review if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Oros v. Industrial Com. (1967), 37 Ill.2d 568, 571; Johnson & Johnson v. Industrial Com. (1965), 32 Ill.2d 316, 320.) The question presented in this case is whether the decision of the Commission was against the manifest weight of the evidence so that the circuit court was correct in reversing that decision and reinstating the award of the arbitrator. We think that it was.\nIn addition to his own testimony as to the pain and loss of strength in his arm, the claimant introduced the report of Dr. Kahn which stated that two ribs on the right side had been fractured and that \u201cmotion of the right arm, especially in extremes of abduction\u201d caused spasm and tenderness at those ribs. The employer introduced no evidence that contradicted the claimant\u2019s. Dr. Chwatal\u2019s report agreed that two ribs had been fractured although it disputed which ribs those were. Although it stated that the range of motion and reflexes in the upper extremities were normal, the report made no statement that pain and loss of strength would be inconsistent with normal motion and reflexes. (Cooper v. Industrial Com. (1965), 33 Ill.2d 477.) Moreover, in view of the claimant\u2019s language difficulty, the arbitrator was in a better position to evaluate his testimony than was the Commission. The arbitrator\u2019s decision is not without legal effect and can be relied upon by the circuit court in entering a judgment when the decision of the Commission is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Hendren v. Industrial Com. (1960), 19 Ill.2d 44, 49.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nmJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer" } ], "attorneys": [ "Hackbert, Rooks, Pitts, Fullagar and Poust, of Chicago, (Douglas F. Stevenson, Daniel P. Socha, and Stephen E. Sward, of counsel,) for appellant.", "Kleiman, Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, (Alton Sharpe, Jason Gesmer, and Raymond Whitney, of counsel,) for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 42086.\nMarion Lewandowski, Appellee, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (United States Steel Corporation, Appellant.)\nOpinion filed Dec. 19, 1969.\nRehearing denied Jan. 26, 1970.\nHackbert, Rooks, Pitts, Fullagar and Poust, of Chicago, (Douglas F. Stevenson, Daniel P. Socha, and Stephen E. Sward, of counsel,) for appellant.\nKleiman, Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, (Alton Sharpe, Jason Gesmer, and Raymond Whitney, of counsel,) for appellee." }, "file_name": "0204-01", "first_page_order": 244, "last_page_order": 247 }