{ "id": 3083515, "name": "CALAHAN WHITE, Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Keystone Steel & Wire Company, Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "White v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1982-01-21", "docket_number": "No. 54532", "first_page": "523", "last_page": "526", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "88 Ill. 2d 523" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "84 Ill. 2d 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3045373 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/84/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3071050 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/79/0249-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 369, "char_count": 5875, "ocr_confidence": 0.846, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.790043383226743e-07, "percentile": 0.7148656157173642 }, "sha256": "9fb92420833c2a09005c09d8fa69844bbc6c6dde26475c30c70209888192623d", "simhash": "1:aea5a9af2e23619d", "word_count": 980 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:50:18.625696+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CALAHAN WHITE, Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Keystone Steel & Wire Company, Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE WARD\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nCalahan White filed a claim under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977 and 1978 Supp., ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.) for injuries allegedly arising out of and in the course of his employment with Keystone Steel & Wire Company (Keystone) in Peoria. After hearing, an arbitrator awarded him compensation for temporary total incapacity, for partial permanent loss of the use of his legs, and for necessary medical, surgical, and hospital services. The Industrial Commission, after taking further evidence, found that the claimant failed to prove that he sustained accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment and set aside the award of the arbitrator. The circuit court of Peoria County held that the Commission\u2019s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and reinstated the award. The respondent brought a direct appeal to this court under Rule 302(a). 73 Ill. 2d R. 302(a).\nThe claimant testified that on June 27, 1978, a wire coil which he was pulling fell from a conveyor, causing him to slip. He said that his side and back \u201cpopped.\u201d He felt a tingling sensation at the time, and his back and legs have since pained him. The claimant stated that he completed his shift and worked the next three days, although he could neither sit down nor sleep. On July 5, 1978, he was hospitalized for a week and was in traction for three days of his hospital stay. He returned to work on July 24, 1978, but had to return to the hospital three days later. A lumbar laminectomy was performed on his lower back, and he resumed work on November 9, 1978. He testified that he continues to experience pain in his back and left leg.\nThe claimant\u2019s foreman, Charles Duffield, testified that he could not remember whether White reported an injury to him on June 27, 1978. He testified, however, that he always notifies the company\u2019s first-aid station and summons an ambulance whenever an injury is reported. Keystone\u2019s head nurse, Martha Thompson, testified that Keystone\u2019s medical records did not show a report of injury of the claimant on June 27, 1978. There was a nonoccupational injury notation to the effect that on July 27, 1978, White called Keystone\u2019s medical center and stated that he had been hospitalized with a pinched nerve. Another medical entry, dated July 19, 1978, indicated that White was examined by a company physician before being allowed to return to work on July 24.\nOn the review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision, Dr. Robert Martin, Keystone\u2019s medical director, testified before the Industrial Commission that no surgeon\u2019s report had been prepared concerning the claimant and that there would have been a report if White had reported a work-related injury.\nA medical report dated July 5, 1978, by White\u2019s personal physician, Dr. Ralph E. Seward, stated that pain in White\u2019s left leg had become more severe over the preceding three weeks and that \u201cthere was no sharp episode or onset related to any injury that he knows of, no falls or no slips.\u201d This of course indicated that the claimant\u2019s physical complaints antedated June 27, 1978, the date of the alleged accident and that in fact there had not been an accident. Another report, dated July 7, 1978, made by a consulting neurologist, stated that White had suffered a sudden onset of pain three weeks earlier, indicating, too, that White\u2019s complaints existed prior to the claimed accident.\nKeystone contends here that the Commission\u2019s finding that there was no injury arising out of and in the course of employment was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and should have been confirmed; that in any event White failed to give proper notice of the accident and that therefore his claim is barred; and that if the circuit court was correct in reversing the Commission\u2019s decision, it should have remanded the cause to the Commission to review the arbitrator\u2019s award as to the nature and extent of White\u2019s disability.\nWe will assume, arguendo, that Keystone was given proper notice of accident so that we may address Keystone\u2019s first contention.\nThe burden is on a claimant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. It is axiomatic that it is the function of the Industrial Commission to decide questions of fact and causation, to judge the credibility of witnesses, and to resolve conflicts in medical evidence. (O\u2019Dette v. Industrial Com. (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 249.) Even if a court might have drawn different inferences from the evidence, an Industrial Commission finding will not be set aside unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Azzarelli Construction Co. v. Industrial Com. (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 262.) The claimant\u2019s contention that his injury was work related was based only on his testimony before the arbitrator. Medical reports, including one prepared by the claimant\u2019s own physician, indicate that the injury was not work related and that the claimant\u2019s complaints existed prior to the claimed accident. In light of the evidence in the record, the finding of the Industrial Commission was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and we hold that the circuit court erred in setting the finding aside and reinstating the arbitrator\u2019s award.\nIn view of this holding, we need not consider the second and third contentions of Keystone.\nFor the reasons given, the judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is reversed and the finding of the Commission is reinstated.\nJudgment reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE WARD" } ], "attorneys": [ "Swain, Johnson & Card, of Peoria (Timothy W. Swain and Robert W. Scott, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.", "james E. Bowles, of Goldfine & Bowles, P.C., of Peoria, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 54532.\nCALAHAN WHITE, Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Keystone Steel & Wire Company, Appellant).\nOpinion filed January 21, 1982.\nSwain, Johnson & Card, of Peoria (Timothy W. Swain and Robert W. Scott, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.\njames E. Bowles, of Goldfine & Bowles, P.C., of Peoria, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0523-01", "first_page_order": 533, "last_page_order": 536 }