{ "id": 3075018, "name": "PAGE ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Kenneth Hamm, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Page Enterprises, Inc. v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1980-01-23", "docket_number": "No. 51956", "first_page": "287", "last_page": "291", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "78 Ill. 2d 287" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "51 Ill. 2d 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5390838 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/51/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2856849 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "552" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/40/0548-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 353, "char_count": 5475, "ocr_confidence": 0.851, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6944111049845903e-07, "percentile": 0.6997923431057177 }, "sha256": "749679e16c492801f6e95ea45f65f3f6fbe8eaf22561192b73ba1c766a91fff6", "simhash": "1:9434af43c1df4c97", "word_count": 873 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:42.081030+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "PAGE ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Kenneth Hamm, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPursuant to section 8(e) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 138.8(e)), an arbitrator for the Industrial Commission awarded petitioner, Kenneth Hamm, compensation for the complete and permanent loss of use of his right leg to the extent of 65% thereof. On review, without taking additional evidence, the Industrial Commission affirmed the arbitrator\u2019s decision. On certiorari the circuit court of Lake County confirmed the ruling and respondent appealed. 73 Ill. 2d R. 302(a).\nThe testimony shows that petitioner, while employed as a carpenter by respondent, Page Enterprises, Inc., sustained an injury to his back and legs. While working on the second story of a house being constructed by respondent, petitioner attempted to lift a beam being raised by fellow workers. He experienced pain in his back and legs. He advised his foreman of the occurrence and continued to work the remainder of that day. He did not work the next two days. Several weeks thereafter he underwent back surgery. The pain in his back and legs persisted, and at the request of respondent\u2019s insurer, he was examined by another physician, who told petitioner that nothing further could be done for him. Petitioner obtained an opinion from yet another physician and again underwent surgery. He recovered well and with his physician\u2019s approval returned to work for respondent. Petitioner received temporary total disability payments, which were terminated upon his return to work. Thereafter he continued to experience intermittent pain in his back and legs and, pursuant to orders from his physician, requested \u201clight work.\u201d He continued to perform these tasks until he was assigned some \u201crough\u201d work and his pain increased dramatically. Following examination, surgery was again performed. Petitioner has not returned to work.\nThe testimony showed that prior to the accident for which compensation was claimed, petitioner had sustained a back injury while working for another employer. Following three surgical procedures, a settlement agreement was negotiated providing compensation for a \u201cback\u201d injury. It is undisputed that these surgical procedures had enabled petitioner to work without pain, and that, on the date of the occurrence out of which the present claim arose, he was able to perform his work in a normal manner.\nRespondent contends that petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving the nature and extent of his injury and that it was permanent. Additionally, respondent contends that it was entitled to credit for the prior approved settlement.\nRespondent argues that the only relevant medical evidence presented is the letter report received from Dr. William J. Kane, who performed a laminectomy on petitioner, and that it contained no statement which supports the finding of permanency. We do not agree. The record contains the record of Northwestern Hospital covering petitioner\u2019s period of confinement, and supplies ample proof as to the nature of the injury and the surgery performed. It is not necessary in all cases that a medical expert make the categorical statement that the disability is permanent (Gould v. Industrial Com. (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 548, 552), and as we have said repeatedly, it is the province of the Industrial Commission to determine the facts and draw reasonable inferences from the record. Petitioner\u2019s testimony, corroborated by the medical records of the hospital and the report of the operating surgeon, sufficiently support the award.\nRespondent argues that there is no evidence of objective conditions or symptoms of the petitioner\u2019s injury as was formerly required by section 8(b)(7) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 138.8(b)(7)). As was stated in Martin Young Enterprises, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 149, 153-54:\n\u201cIt was the injury which had to be proved by competent evidence, including objective conditions or symptoms. The Act does not require an objective finding of disability or of the effect of the injury upon the employee. Such finding can only be a conclusion based upon a proper evaluation of objective conditions or symptoms. [Citation.] There was ample objective proof of the petitioner\u2019s injury and condition.\u201d\nWe consider respondent\u2019s contention that under the provisions of section 8(e)(17) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 138.8(e)(17)) it is entitled to credit on this award for the payment made under the settlement contract approved by the Industrial Commission with respect to an injury suffered approximately 12 years before the injury in question. So far as can be determined from the record, the settlement contract in question involved an injury to petitioner\u2019s back. Implicit in the Industrial Commission\u2019s denial of credit in computing the award is its finding that it did not involve the same \u201cmember,\u201d as is required for credit under the provisions of section 8(e)(17). This finding is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gordon, Schaefer 8c Gordon, Ltd., of Chicago (Gilbert W. Gordon, of counsel), for appellant.", "Klohr, Braun, Lynch & Smith, Ltd., of Chicago (Mark A. Braun, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 51956.\nPAGE ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Kenneth Hamm, Appellee).\nOpinion filed January 23, 1980.\nGordon, Schaefer 8c Gordon, Ltd., of Chicago (Gilbert W. Gordon, of counsel), for appellant.\nKlohr, Braun, Lynch & Smith, Ltd., of Chicago (Mark A. Braun, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0287-01", "first_page_order": 321, "last_page_order": 325 }