{ "id": 2969330, "name": "THOMAS SEAY, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.-(Andy Nyquist Construction Company et al., Appellees.)", "name_abbreviation": "Seay v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1976-01-26", "docket_number": "No. 46997", "first_page": "241", "last_page": "244", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "62 Ill. 2d 241" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "33 Ill.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2884089 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ill.2d 590", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 12132902 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/2/0590-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill.2d 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2958660 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "288" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/59/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Ill.2d 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5414398 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/60/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ill.2d 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2932024 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "400" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/54/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ill.2d 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2937111 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "300" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/55/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Ill.2d 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5414034 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "260" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/60/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 Ill.2d 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2965713 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84-85" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/61/0078-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 354, "char_count": 5191, "ocr_confidence": 0.903, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.607239343846123e-07, "percentile": 0.820077155077381 }, "sha256": "e8d1b5eb4ee8a10ede59753d3fa1f2d0c08ada490e3e08c9e94b4176ced50fd5", "simhash": "1:b917c9869039511c", "word_count": 830 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:51.705881+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THOMAS SEAY, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.\u2014(Andy Nyquist Construction Company et al., Appellees.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAn arbitrator for the Industrial Commission found that petitioner, Thomas Seay, suffered accidental injuries while employed by respondent, Andy Nyquist Construction Company, and awarded him compensation for the permanent loss of 40% of the use of his left leg and temporary total compensation for 64 weeks. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 48, par. 138.8(e).) Petitioner petitioned for review of the decision of the arbitrator. The Industrial Commission, following the taking of additional evidence, affirmed the award of the arbitrator and in addition awarded petitioner compensation for the permanent loss of 10% of the use of his right leg. Petitioner sought certiorari, the circuit court of Cook County confirmed the award, and petitioner appealed under Rule 302(a).\nIt is petitioner\u2019s contention that the evidence shows that by reason of the injury he had become \u201cpartially incapacitated from pursuing his usual and customary line of employment\u201d and that the Industrial Commission was required to award him compensation under the provisions of section 8(d) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act (ch. 48, par. 138.8(d)). He argues that the award for specific losses of use of his legs under section 8(e) is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues further that the record shows \u201cthe difference between the average amount which he earned before the accident and the average amount which he is earning or is able to earn\u201d after the accident, and that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded to the Industrial Commission with directions to enter an award under section 8(d).\nPetitioner testified that since the accident he had experienced virtually continuous numbness and pain in his legs, the pain in the left leg being more severe than in the right. He has been unable to bend, and cannot lift heavy objects. His employment since the accident has been sporadic, and at hourly rates of pay substantially lower than he had earned prior to being injured.\nThe medical evidence consists of the reports of two physicians. Dr. Irwin T. Barnett, petitioner\u2019s physician, was of the opinion that petitioner was \u201csuffering from the residuals of a herniated disc\u201d and should avoid \u201cheavy physical labor.\u201d Dr. Carlo Scuderi, respondent\u2019s physician, stated that the X-ray films show \u201cpersistent finding of a narrowing of lumbosacral disc space.\u201d He, too, was of the opinion that petitioner should not engage in work \u201crequiring heavy stooping and lifting.\u201d Dr. Scuderi did not think that exploratory surgery was warranted and stated that a condition diagnosed as acne or dermatitis precluded surgery at the time of his examinations. It appears from the reports that petitioner\u2019s condition will not improve without surgery, and that surgery will not completely correct his condition, but neither physician expressed an opinion concerning the extent of improvement to be anticipated if and when surgery were to be performed. Dr. Barnett stated an opinion that plaintiff had suffered partial loss of use of both legs.\nIn Chicago Transit Authority v. Industrial Commission, 61 Ill.2d 78, 84-85, we said: \u201cThe factual determination of the Industrial Commission as to the extent of disability will not be set aside unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Interlake Steel Corp. v. Industrial Com., 60 Ill.2d 255, 260; Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Industrial Com., 55 Ill.2d 293, 300; Scandroli Construction Co. v. Industrial Com., 54 Ill.2d 395, 400.) It is for the Industrial Commission to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and its resolution in this regard will not be overturned merely because a court may have drawn opposite inferences. (City of Chicago v. Industrial Com., 60 Ill.2d 283, 286.) Consideration of the various medical reports and claimant\u2019s testimony relating to his disabilities indicate that the evidence is conflicting and gives rise to reasonable inferences in support of the differing positions. Under such circumstances the Commission\u2019s determination will not be set aside. See City of Chicago v. Industrial Com., 59 Ill.2d 284, 288.\u201d From our review of the record we conclude that the findings of the Industrial Commission are not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.\nWe have examined the authorities cited by petitioner in support of his argument that compensation should be awarded under section 8(d) (Shell Oil Co. v. Industrial Com., 2 Ill.2d 590; Sampson v. Industrial Com., 33 Ill.2d 301) and find them inapposite. The losses of use found by the Industrial Commission are covered by the specific schedule set forth in section 8(e) and therefore fall within the exclusion provided in section 8(d). The circuit court did not err in confirming the decision of the Industrial Commission, and the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Joseph M. Tobias, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Burgeson, Laughlin, Cunningham & Smith, of Chicago (John E. Hayes, of counsel), for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 46997.\nTHOMAS SEAY, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.\u2014(Andy Nyquist Construction Company et al., Appellees.)\nOpinion filed January 26, 1976.\nJoseph M. Tobias, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBurgeson, Laughlin, Cunningham & Smith, of Chicago (John E. Hayes, of counsel), for appellees." }, "file_name": "0241-01", "first_page_order": 255, "last_page_order": 258 }