{ "id": 3164405, "name": "BRANDT TRUCK LINES, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Alan Slagell, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Brandt Truck Lines, Inc. v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1983-12-16", "docket_number": "No. 57903", "first_page": "233", "last_page": "237", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "99 Ill. 2d 233" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "352 Ill. 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5296153 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/352/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ill. 2d 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5489708 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "471" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/77/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 Ill. 2d 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3082762 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "520" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/88/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 Ill. 2d 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3097724 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/92/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3070468 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/79/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5475744 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "86" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/82/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 Ill. 2d 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5469061 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "99" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/86/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 Ill. 2d 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3103005 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/93/0030-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 407, "char_count": 6264, "ocr_confidence": 0.628, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08, "percentile": 0.5213406264226216 }, "sha256": "731a8f00dcb887e2a523e6357dfda36431614f87efb5c6885cf0ad40a0dc8ca5", "simhash": "1:6783878561c16183", "word_count": 1004 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:07.109630+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "BRANDT TRUCK LINES, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Alan Slagell, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SIMON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAlan Slagell filed a claim against his employer, Brandt Truck Lines, Inc., under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.). The arbitrator awarded 25V7 weeks of compensation for temporary total disability, 90 weeks\u2019 compensation for permanent partial disability caused by the 45% loss of use of the left leg, and $5,202.50 for necessary medical expenses. The arbitrator\u2019s award was approved by the Commission and confirmed by the circuit court of McLean County The employer raises two issues on appeal: Were Slagell\u2019s injuries causally related to the accident? Did the arbitrator err by basing her findings on a medical report which she had previously excluded from evidence?\nOn January 18, 1978, as claimant was getting out of the truck he had been driving for his employer, he fell six feet onto ice-covered asphalt. He immediately reported the accident to his supervisor. He was examined and Xrayed that night at a local hospital. According to hospital records, he complained of pain in the left knee and thigh. No prior history of left hip or shoulder pain was noted.\nClaimant\u2019s testimony conflicted with some of the other evidence. Claimant\u2019s family physician, Dr. Grant A. Zehr, testified that he examined claimant on February 9. Claimant mentioned prior hip pain but did not mention any recent injury to his hip. Because he suspected degenerative joint disease, Dr. Zehr referred claimant to an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Thomas A. Eskestrand. Dr. Eskestrand\u2019s report mentions a history of prior hip pain but no recent injuries to the hip. Dr. Eskestrand diagnosed premature degenerative arthritis of the left hip. On cross-examination, claimant testified that he had no history of hip pain .prior to the accident, and that if the doctors\u2019 reports stated that he had told them of prior hip pain, those reports were incorrect.\nIn February 1979 the claimant was examined and Xrayed by another orthopedic specialist, Dr. Mark B. Coventry at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Claimant returned to Mayo Clinic in May 1979. At that time, he was admitted to St. Elizabeth\u2019s Hospital, where Dr. Coventry. performed a surface replacement of the left femoral head (hip replacement).\nAt the hearing, the claimant offered the expert testimony of Dr. Gordon Shultz. In response to a hypothetical question, Dr. Shultz testified that the claimant\u2019s hip condition would not appear on an X ray for seven months after the injury was suffered. Dr. Shultz was then informed that he was looking at an X ray taken one day after Mr. Slagell\u2019s accident. Dr. Shultz responded affirmatively when asked whether a preexisting condition affecting the hip could have been aggravated by an accident such as the one the claimant suffered.\nThe employer argues that the various doctors\u2019 statements, and in particular Dr. Shultz\u2019 testimony, established that claimant\u2019s condition must have existed at least seven months prior to the accident, and that therefore the hip condition is not causally related to the accident and is not compensable. We do not agree. Although Dr. Shultz may have been inaccurate with regard to whether the accident was the original cause of the hip injury, he unequivocally stated that the accident could have been an aggravating factor. Nothing in the record contradicts this statement. The employer offered no expert to testify that the fall could not have aggravated preexisting conditions or that the surgery would have been required if claimant had not fallen. Work-related injuries which aggravate preexisting conditions are compensable in Illinois. O\u2019Neal Brothers Construction Co. v. Industrial Com. (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 30, 39.\nWhether compensable injuries are due to work-related aggravation of a preexisting condition is a question of fact for the Industrial Commission to decide. (Caradco Window & Door v. Industrial Com. (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 92, 99; Republic Steel Corp. v. Industrial Com. (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 76, 86; Ross v. Industrial Com. (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 258, 261.) The Industrial Commission is frequently confronted with inconsistent evidence. We will not overturn the Commission\u2019s findings of fact unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. (City of Streator v. Industrial Com. (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 353, 363; Odie v. Industrial Com. (1982), 88 Ill. 2d 514, 520.) The Commission, as trier of fact, considered all the evidence and decided how much weight to give it. It is the Commission\u2019s obligation to evaluate the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses. Claimant\u2019s testimony regarding his condition before and after the accident supports the inference that any preexisting condition was aggravated by the accident. (Cf. Pulliam Masonry v. Industrial Com. (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 469, 471.) The X rays taken after the accident, and Dr. Shultz\u2019 testimony, are medical evidence in support of the Commission\u2019s finding. Since this finding is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we will not disturb it.\nThe employer next suggests that the Commission erred by considering a rejected exhibit. At the hearing, claimant offered a medical report contained in a letter from Dr. Coventry to claimant\u2019s attorney, under Industrial Commission Rule 16. The arbitrator rejected the exhibit because it was not a hospital record. The letter referred to a fracture of the femoral head. In her findings of fact, the arbitrator listed a fracture of the femoral head.\nBecause there is ample evidence in the record to support the Commission\u2019s finding, any error in considering this evidence was harmless. \u201cFailure to observe the formal, technical rules of procedure or evidence which apply to trials in court is not fatal to an award which is just upon the merits.\u201d (Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Industrial Com. (1933), 352 Ill. 405, 410.) The award is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SIMON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Cohn, Lambert, Ryan & Schneider, Ltd., of Chicago (Howard S. Fleishman, of counsel), for appellant.", "Roger D. Lapan, of Bloomington, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 57903.\nBRANDT TRUCK LINES, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Alan Slagell, Appellee).\nOpinion filed December 16, 1983.\nCohn, Lambert, Ryan & Schneider, Ltd., of Chicago (Howard S. Fleishman, of counsel), for appellant.\nRoger D. Lapan, of Bloomington, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0233-01", "first_page_order": 245, "last_page_order": 249 }