{
  "id": 5411333,
  "name": "John J. Struple, Appellee, v. Frank P. Bishop, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Struple v. Bishop",
  "decision_date": "1916-12-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,944",
  "first_page": "349",
  "last_page": "350",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 349"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3252,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "sha256": "66283f252b32558b80d467784278c9b9416b21d252a3df488547216db374ca86",
    "simhash": "1:35737e55a86fe377",
    "word_count": 561
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John J. Struple, Appellee, v. Frank P. Bishop, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McG-oorty\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McG-oorty"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John A. Bloomingston, for appellant.",
      "J. W. Darcy and M. Levy, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John J. Struple, Appellee, v. Frank P. Bishop, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,944.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. David P. Matchett, Judge, presiding. Heard in the. Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 30, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nProceeding by John J. Strnple, applicant, against Frank P. Bishop, respondent, for compensation under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. From a judgment of the Circuit Court quashing a writ of certiorari sued out by respondent and dismissing his petition, respondent appeals.\nOn July 21, 1913, John J. Strnple, while in the employ of defendant, and in the course of his employment, received injuries as a result of a fall from a ladder. Strnple claimed that as a result of said accident he lost the sight of his left eye. Defendant contended that Struple\u2019s eye was injured long prior to said accident and was practically in the same condition as it had been for a great many years. There was evidence introduced before the Committee on Arbitration and again before the Industrial Board by the parties, tending to support their respective contentions, and the Industrial Board found, inter alia, that the condition of Struple\u2019s eye was the result of said injury, and that under the terms of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act he had totally lost the use thereof, and awarded him as compensation therefor $10.80 per week for a period\u2019 of one hundred weeks.\nJohn A. Bloomingston, for appellant.\nJ. W. Darcy and M. Levy, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 13 \u2014when decision of Industrial Accident Board may not he reviewed. It is not within the province of the court on certiorari to review a decision of the Industrial Accident Board, or to pass upon the weight or sufficiency of evidence, hut it must be determined whether there is any competent or legal evidence to support the decision of such board.\n2. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 13*\u2014what is effect of decision of Industrial Board. A decision of the Industrial Board in absence of fraud, if it acts within its powers, is conclusive upon the court.\n3. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 12*\u2014when evidence tends to show causal connection hettoeen accident and loss of eye. In a proceeding for compensation by an employee for the loss of an eye under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, evidence held to tend to show causal connection between the accident and the blindness of the eye where there was evidence tending to show that the vision in such eye was good before the accident; that in falling from a ladder from a height of fourteen or fifteen feet his head came in contact with the roof of a shed before descending to the ground; that the second day thereafter he experienced intense pain above the left eye and the left side of his head, and ten or fifteen days thereafter lost the sight of his left eye; that he had had no trouble \u25a0with such eye prior to the injury in question, and expert evidence tended to show that there could be a loss of sight of the eye from such an accident.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0349-01",
  "first_page_order": 375,
  "last_page_order": 376
}