{ "id": 3073291, "name": "SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Jeanette Stock, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1979-11-21", "docket_number": "No. 51831", "first_page": "231", "last_page": "235", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "78 Ill. 2d 231" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "72 Ill. 2d 120", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5442686 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "124" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/72/0120-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 Ill. 2d 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2990840 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "457" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/75/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5456813 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "19" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/69/0010-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ill. 2d 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2984054 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "551" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/76/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5436133 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/65/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ill. 2d 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5404985 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "275" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/56/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ill. 2d 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5408137 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "43" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/57/0038-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 366, "char_count": 5527, "ocr_confidence": 0.853, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.238265856169576e-07, "percentile": 0.779829248732262 }, "sha256": "ed497b5f2920897af6aaf4888a9b237271f60d77ea7f1d219b457a68c592e7ab", "simhash": "1:a59532ff89939c52", "word_count": 898 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:42.081030+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Jeanette Stock, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAn arbitrator for the Industrial Commission found that Joseph S. Stock, deceased, husband of the petitioner, Jeanette Stock, died as the result of accidental injuries which arose out of and in the course of his employment by respondent, Sears, Roebuck & Company, and awarded workmen\u2019s compensation under the provisions of section 7 of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 48, pars. 138.7(a), (f).) On review, without taking additional evidence, the Industrial Commission affirmed the arbitrator\u2019s decision. On certiorari the circuit court of Cook County confirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission and respondent appealed. 58 Ill. 2d R. 302(a).\nThe testimony shows that on November 26, 1975, the decedent was 53 years of age and was employed by respondent as an \u201corder picker\u201d who gathered merchandise to fill customer orders. Shortly after 1 p.m. he was found lying on the floor several feet away from a parked forklift truck which held 10 ladders which the decedent had apparently \u201cpicked\u201d in the course of his work. The truck was not equipped with a \u201cdead man\u2019s brake.\u201d The deceased was lying to the left of the forklift truck, and it is undisputed that the driver normally alights from such a truck from the left. It is also undisputed that he had suffered a fracture of the skull, which caused his death.\nRespondent contends that \u201cthe Industrial Commission\u2019s determination that the injury incurred by the decedent due to an unexplained idiopathic fall on a level, smooth floor arose out of his employment is legally erroneous.\u201d It argues that \u201cthere is no evidence that the forklift truck played any role in the injury suffered by the employee\u201d and that at the time of the fall the deceased may have been doing nothing, or something unrelated to his work. It argues that the facts on which the decision of the Industrial Commission was based are not in dispute and the question for this court is therefore one of law. We do not agree. Apposite here is our statement that \u201cWe may not disregard the decision of the Commission merely because the facts here are undisputed. It is well within the province of the Commission to draw inferences from undisputed facts to determine whether injury resulted from conduct which unreasonably or unnecessarily increased the risks of injury which attend such employment. (Jewel Companies, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 38, 43; Union Starch v. Industrial Com. (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 272, 275.) When the Commission\u2019s decision is based upon such permissible inferences, we will disturb it only if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Maleo, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 426, 430-31.\u201d (Yost v. Industrial Com. (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 548, 551.) The decision of the Commission that decedent\u2019s death resulted from an accident which occurred in the course of his employment is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nRespondent contends that the decedent\u2019s injuries did not arise out of his employment, but resulted from physical problems caused by his being ill, and argues that the arbitrator erroneously excluded testimony that on the day of his death the decedent \u201clooked sick,\u201d \u201cdidn\u2019t look like he was feeling too good,\u201d \u201cdidn\u2019t look too good,\u201d and \u201chad a cold.\u201d It argues that this testimony, when considered with the testimony of the petitioner that the decedent had suffered from a cold for a period of approximately two weeks, \u201cclearly gives rise to the inference that the decedent\u2019s fall was caused by his condition of ill being.\u201d As the court said in County of Cook v. Industrial Com. (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 10, 19, \u201cThe Commission is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from both direct and circumstantial evidence. This court will not disregard those permissible inferences merely because other inferences might be drawn.\u201d The testimony of the petitioner that the deceased had been suffering with a cold was a circumstance presumably considered by the Industrial Commission in reaching its decision. If the arbitrator erred in excluding the nebulous conclusional testimony which respondent attempted to elicit, the error was harmless.\nFinally, respondent contends that section 14 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 127, par. 1014) is applicable to decisions of the Industrial Commission, and that \u201cthe failure of the Illinois Industrial Commission to make findings of fact by which a court can make an intelligent review requires reversal and remand of the Commission\u2019s decision.\u201d We need not and do not decide whether the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act is applicable to proceedings before the Industrial Commission for the reason that the record fails to show that respondent requested specific findings of fact pursuant to section 19(e) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.19(e)) or that it presented to the Commission the contention advanced here. Lunt v. Industrial Com. (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 455, 457; Berry v. Industrial Com. (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 120, 124.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Rooks, Pitts, Fullagar & Poust, of Chicago (Daniel P. Socha and Ian M. Sherman, of counsel), for appellant.", "Eugene P. Meegan, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 51831.\nSEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Jeanette Stock, Appellee).\nOpinion filed November 21, 1979.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied February 1, 1980.\nRooks, Pitts, Fullagar & Poust, of Chicago (Daniel P. Socha and Ian M. Sherman, of counsel), for appellant.\nEugene P. Meegan, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0231-01", "first_page_order": 265, "last_page_order": 269 }