{
  "id": 5426892,
  "name": "ROBERT SOPHER, Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Staley Chemical Company, Appellant.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sopher v. Industrial Commission",
  "decision_date": "1976-05-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 47749",
  "first_page": "379",
  "last_page": "382",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 379"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "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": 280,
    "char_count": 4159,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.884,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3937478594311869
    },
    "sha256": "7ae49023bef0818c757b4c728727c04d352e4fccc6d465b9e01efd5ee932dab6",
    "simhash": "1:81d2afb3d928430a",
    "word_count": 646
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:47:11.975359+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT SOPHER, Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Staley Chemical Company, Appellant.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAn arbitrator for the Industrial Commission found that petitioner, Robert Sopher, suffered accidental injuries while employed by respondent, Staley Chemical Company, and awarded him compensation for the permanent loss of 15% of the use of his right arm and the sum of $79 for necessary first aid and medical services. Respondent petitioned for review, and the case was submitted to the Industrial Commission on the transcript of the hearing before the arbitrator. The Industrial Commission set aside the arbitrator\u2019s decision and awarded petitioner compensation for the permanent loss of 5% of the use of his right arm and $79 for medical expenses. Petitioner sought certiorari, and the circuit court of Cook County set aside the decision of the Industrial Commission and ordered that \u201cthe Decision of [the] Arbitrator *** is substituted in its stead.\u201d Respondent appealed. Rule 302(a).\nAlthough respondent contended before the arbitrator that petitioner had not suffered an accidental injury, the only question in this appeal is the extent of petitioner\u2019s injury. Respondent argues that the circuit court erred in setting aside the decision of the Industrial Commission, and petitioner responds that the Commission\u2019s findings and decision were against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nPetitioner testified that his right arm ached, was stiff and swollen and that his grip was weakened. He stated that he had first noticed pain in his elbow while moving a heavy steel plate and that it had persisted since that time.\nThere was no medical testimony. Petitioner introduced the report of Dr. Robert C. Busch, who had examined him approximately 16 months after the accident. Dr. Busch reviewed petitioner\u2019s complaints and stated that upon examination he found tenderness and spasm in the right elbow area. He made a diagnosis of \u201cEpicondylitis lateral epicondyle, swelling of right elbow, impaired motility right elbow, weakness, stiffness, tendinitis, synovitis.\u201d\nRespondent introduced into evidence a report in which Dr. Ben C. Camacho, Jr., advised respondent\u2019s insurance carrier that petitioner \u201chad a lateral epicondylitis of the right elbow ***,\u201d that the examination showed \u201csatisfactory recovery from such and no further definitive treatment or disability is indicated.\u201d This report bears the same date as that of Dr. Busch.\nIn Chicago Transit Authority v. Industrial Com., 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 m 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 were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and the circuit court erred in failing to confirm the award. The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed, and the award of the Industrial Commission is reinstated.\nJudgment reversed; award reinstated.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Raymond J. Kelly and Mark A. Leis II, of Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "J. Michael Madda, of Chicago (John E. Flavin, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 47749.\nROBERT SOPHER, Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Staley Chemical Company, Appellant.)\nOpinion filed May 28, 1976.\nRaymond J. Kelly and Mark A. Leis II, of Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, of Chicago, for appellant.\nJ. Michael Madda, of Chicago (John E. Flavin, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0379-01",
  "first_page_order": 391,
  "last_page_order": 394
}