{ "id": 3112305, "name": "ANTONINA DIACZENKO, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Lincoln Manufacturing Company, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Diaczenko v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1983-03-25", "docket_number": "No. 57108", "first_page": "289", "last_page": "293", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "95 Ill. 2d 289" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "81 Ill. 2d 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5480009 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/81/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 Ill. 2d 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3083515 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/88/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5464372 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "241" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/66/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5456813 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "18" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/69/0010-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 357, "char_count": 6097, "ocr_confidence": 0.743, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08843623701613491 }, "sha256": "b633d5586e24d4adce42de72cb034633cb1b72f1d0c883a0c0c43024246d58bd", "simhash": "1:a947c18b0a1261fb", "word_count": 994 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:06:26.298041+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ANTONINA DIACZENKO, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Lincoln Manufacturing Company, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE CLARK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn June 30, 1975, the petitioner, Antonina Diaczenko, a 60-year-old woman who had been employed by the respondent, Lincoln Manufacturing Company, for 20 years, was working as a drill press operator when her hair was caught in the drill. Petitioner filed a claim with the Industrial Commission for the injuries she sustained in that incident. Hearings were held before an arbitrator of the Industrial Commission on December 18, 1979, and May 6, 1980. Petitioner contended that as a result of her accident on June 30, 1975, she was temporarily totally disabled from June 30, 1975, until September 8, 1975, a period of 10 weeks. She also contended that as a further result of her accident she became permanently and totally disabled as of February 17, 1976, and was entitled to compensation for medical bills in the amount of $1,638.40 which had not been paid by the respondent.\nOn June 9, 1980, the arbitrator filed his decision awarding petitioner 10 weeks of temporary total compensation at $100.90 per week. He also awarded 231/2 weeks of compensation at $80.90 per week for 5% loss of use of each arm. The arbitrator did not award compensation for the unpaid medical expenses.\nPetitioner filed a petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision. The Industrial Commission affirmed the arbitrator\u2019s decision on July 22, 1981, finding that petitioner\u2019s permanent disability, if any, in excess of 5% loss of the use of each arm was not a result of the accident on June 30,1975.\nPetitioner also sought review of the Industrial Commission\u2019s decision in the circuit court of Cook County. On June 28, 1982, the circuit court confirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission. It is from this judgment that the petitioner appeals.\nThe sole issue that is before this court is whether the Industrial Commission\u2019s finding that petitioner\u2019s accident did not cause a permanent disability in excess of 5% loss of the use of each arm is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We hold that it is not.\nIt is not disputed that petitioner was injured on June 30, 1975, when her hair was caught in the drill press she was operating. What is in dispute is the extent of her injuries. After the accident petitioner remained off work until September 8, 1975. During that time she was treated by her physician Dr. Walter Brodech. Dr. Brodech treated the petitioner with analgesics, muscle relaxants, a cervical collar, and moist warm compresses to the back of the neck. The petitioner complained to Dr. Brodech about dizziness and syncopal episodes or blackouts during this period.\nOn September 3, 1975, Dr. Brodech signed a release for petitioner to return to work. At that time, Dr. Brodech described the petitioner as \u201casymptomatic,\u201d without symptoms. Petitioner returned to her regular job as a drill press operator on September 8, 1975, working eight hours a day during the week and periodically five hours\u2019 overtime on Saturdays. Dr. Brodech saw the petitioner on September 13, 1975, but the record does not indicate for what reason. He also saw her on September 30, 1975, for a cold. On October 30, 1975, petitioner also saw Dr. Brodech with complaints of pain in the back of her head and neck.\nThe next time Dr. Brodech saw the petitioner was February 17, 1976. On that date Dr. Brodech prescribed blood pressure medication. The petitioner was complaining of a fainting episode. Petitioner testified at the hearing before the arbitrator that she had suffered other such fainting episodes from September of 1975 until February of 1976. However, there was no note in Dr. Brodech\u2019s records of such an episode and no one testified to having witnessed the petitioner suffering such an episode.\nOn February 18, 1976, petitioner was admitted to Illinois Masonic Hospital by Dr. Brodech. After various tests and examinations, petitioner was found to have a cerebral vascular insufficiency. Dr. Brodech testified on petitioner\u2019s behalf at the hearing before the arbitrator. Dr. Oscar Sugar, a consulting physician at Illinois Masonic Hospital, also testified in her behalf on review. Respondent did not offer any new evidence on review.\nDr. Brodech was of the opinion that the petition\u2019s vascular insufficiency was causally related to the incident of June 30,1975.\nDr. Sugar also testified that \u201cthere might or could be a causal connection between her condition of ill-being and the accident.\u201d\nDr. William Brice Buckingham, the respondent\u2019s expert, however, was of the opposite opinion. He was of the opinion that the incident of June 30, 1975, did not cause the petitioner\u2019s vascular insufficiency. Dr. Buckingham stated, \u201cThe episode on the previous June of the previous year in my opinion could not be a precipitating, aggravating or contributing factor to the development of the symptomatology in February of the following year.\u201d\nThis court has consistently held that where medical evidence is conflicting as to causation, it is within the purview of the Industrial Commission to determine which testimony is to be accepted. (E.g., County of Cook v. Industrial Com. (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 10, 18; Illinois Valley Irrigation, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 234, 241.) Even if this 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. White v. Industrial Com. (1982), 88 Ill. 2d 523, 526; Pazara v. Industrial Com. (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 76, 80.\nThe Commission could have reasonably inferred that the petitioner\u2019s present condition was not caused by the incident on June 30,1975.\nFor the reasons given, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE CLARK" } ], "attorneys": [ "W. Joseph Hetherington, of Lewis & Davidson, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.", "Wiedner & McAuliffe, Ltd., of Chicago (John P. McAuliffe and Richard J. Leamy, Jr., of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 57108.\nANTONINA DIACZENKO, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Lincoln Manufacturing Company, Appellee).\nOpinion filed March 25, 1983.\nW. Joseph Hetherington, of Lewis & Davidson, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.\nWiedner & McAuliffe, Ltd., of Chicago (John P. McAuliffe and Richard J. Leamy, Jr., of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0289-01", "first_page_order": 313, "last_page_order": 317 }