{
  "id": 2827311,
  "name": "Raymond Bruce, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bruce v. State",
  "decision_date": "1945-01-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 3828",
  "first_page": "80",
  "last_page": "84",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 Ill. Ct. Cl. 80"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 378,
    "char_count": 5869,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "sha256": "68a68938ffccc5134f3f1dd1314174c47e0e94f3494bc98597e5e9e86d71adc2",
    "simhash": "1:57310e7389a21f51",
    "word_count": 1034
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:07.148418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Raymond Bruce, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Fisher, J.\nClaimant alleges that while employed as an attendant at the Dixon State Hospital, on June 2,1943, while in the performance of his duties, he was assaulted by a mentally disturbed patient, causing claimant to suffer numerous scratches and bites about his face, body, right hand and thumb. That as a result of said injuries claimant\u2019s right hand and thumb became infected, resulting in the permanent loss of the use of his right hand.\nThis case consists of Statement of Claim, Departmental Report, Transcript of Evidence, and Statement, Brief and Argument of Claimant and Respondent.\nThe substantial facts are not denied, and the only question to be determined here is the extent of the injury suffered by the claimant. It is definitely established that claimant has suffered the complete and permanent loss of the use of the thumb on his right hand and that he has suffered considerable impairment to all the fingers of his right hand. Dr. Zolt\u00e1n Glatter, staff physician at the Dixon State Hospital, testifying as to the injury said, in part:\n\u201cQ. How long since you examined Raymond Bruce\u2019s hand?\nA. I didn\u2019t examine the hand for the last several months.\nQ. Look at it now and tell me the condition which it is in. The whole hand.\nA. He cannot bend the fingers on the hand. There is a marked atrophy of the bone and tissues of the thumb since I have seen him several months ago. But there is no sign of further infection. He cannot flex the thumb toward the palm.\nQ. Will claimant at any time be able to use that thumb?\nA. He never will be able to use his thumb much better than right now.\nQ. Will the condition of his hand improve by exercise?\nA. It may improve to a certain extent, but due to atrophy of the bones, it will\" take years and years.\nQ. In examining his hand, will you describe just how much he can flex these fingers with reference to the palm of his hand?\nA. He cannot close entirely the fingers to the palm.\nQ. Will you say he can half close his hand?\nA. He can close it a little over half way.\nQ. Can that hand be used for manual labor?\nA. It cannot be used for manual labor.\nQ. Can his hand, doctor, be used for office work and in writing or work of that nature.\nA. To a certain extent it may be used, but it will be awful slow because he cannot adopt the thumb to the rest of the fingers to hold a pen. * * * He will never be able to do much office work. He can do some.\u201d\nThere is much more testimony as to the condition of the hand, and from all the evidence, it appears that claimant has suffered a complete loss of the use of his thumb and a 50% loss of the use of his first, second, third and fourth fingers. Claimant is, therefore, entitled under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, to have and receive from respondent 50% of his salary for 130 weeks.\nClaimant\u2019s salary at the time of the injury was $15.10 per week. His rate of compensation is, therefore, $7.55 per week, to be increased 10% (Sec: 8, Par. L), or $8.30 per week. 130 weeks at $8.30 per week amounts to the sum of $1,079.00.\nAn award is therefore entered in favor of claimant, Raymond Bruce, in the sum of $1,079.00, payable as follows :\n$697.20, which is accrued and payable forthwith;\n$381.80, payable $8.30 per week, commencing January 17, 1945.\nThis award is subject to the approval of the Governor as provided in Section 3 of \u201cAn Act concerning the payment of compensation awards to State employees. \u2019 \u2019",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Fisher, J."
      },
      {
        "text": "OPINION ON PETITION FOE REHEARING\nFisher, J.\nAt the January, 1945, term of this Court an award was made to claimant in the sum of One Thousand Seventy-nine Dollars ($1,079.00) under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, for personal injuries sustained by claimant in the performance of his duties as an employee of respondent.\nClaimant now seeks a rehearing on his claim, and, in a petition filed February 1, 1945, for such rehearing, states that he did not base his claim for compensation under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, but on the basis of \u201cequity and good conscience.\u201d To support his contention claimant refers to the case of Charles Simmons vs. State, 5 C. C. R. 417, Emily Haslan vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 62, and Hines vs. State, 5 C. C. R. 61.\nSub-paragraph 6 of Section 6 of the Court of Claims Act gives this Court power \u201cto hear and determine the liability of the State for accidental injuries or death suffered in the course of employment by an employee of * the State, such determination to be made in accordance with the rules prescribed in the Act commonly called the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, the Industrial Commission being hereby relieved of any duties relative thereto. \u2019 \u2019 Under this section, the award was made to claimant in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nClaimant contends that his. claim should be con^ sidered under said Section 6, Paragraph 4, which is hear and determine all claims and demands, legal and equitable, liquidated and unliquidated, ex contractu and ex delicto, which the State as a sovereign commonwealth, should, in equity and good conscience, discharge and pay.\u201d\nSub-paragraph 4 of Section 6 has no application here. It is true that for a short time prior to the year 1933 awards were made under paragraph 4, but in a comprehensive and exhaustive review in the case of Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207, it was concluded that sub-section 4 \u201cmerely defines the jurisdiction of the Court and does not create a new liability against the State, nor increase or enlarge any existing liability * *\u2019 *.\u201d To this interpretation and conclusion we have consistently adhered.\nThe petition for rehearing is, therefore, denied.",
        "type": "rehearing",
        "author": "Fisher, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. W. Harris, for claimant.",
      "George F. Barrett, Attorney General; William L. Morgan, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 3828\nRaymond Bruce, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed January 9, 1945.\nRehearing denied March 14, 1945.\nE. W. Harris, for claimant.\nGeorge F. Barrett, Attorney General; William L. Morgan, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0080-01",
  "first_page_order": 100,
  "last_page_order": 104
}