{
  "id": 2770587,
  "name": "Amos R. Eaton, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eaton v. State",
  "decision_date": "1952-01-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 4382",
  "first_page": "155",
  "last_page": "157",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 Ill. Ct. Cl. 155"
    }
  ],
  "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": 301,
    "char_count": 4197,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.596,
    "sha256": "5dc3432b37cb91d0c0577cb562caa1651952db445d981fdcc58c1c2938f664e5",
    "simhash": "1:010c2a04000a2791",
    "word_count": 701
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:47:05.247333+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Amos R. Eaton, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lansden, J.\nClaimant, Amos R. Eaton, seeks to recover from respondent under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act for injuries to his right wrist and arm, which resulted from an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment as a farm hand at the Illinois Soldiers\u2019 and Sailors\u2019 Children\u2019s Home, Normal, Illinois, operated by the Department of Public Welfare.\nPreviously an opinion was hied in this case on April 10, 1951, which overruled respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss, and held that claimant was entitled to the benefits of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, because each and every employee of respondent without exception is under the Act. Miller vs. State, 16 C.C.R. 194.\nOn May 18, 1950, claimant attempted to start the engine of a tractor by cranking, but the engine \u201ckicked\u201d, causing the crank to reverse its direction suddenly and with extreme force, so that claimant sustained a chip fracture of his right wrist, and traumatic aggravation from his fingers to his shoulder.\nNo jurisdictional questions are involved, and the sole question in this case is the nature and extent of claimant\u2019s disability.\nClaimant lost no time from his employment from May 18, 1950 until August 15, 1950, when he took a leave of absence from his job with respondent. However, he was bothered all the time by pain and stiffness in his right arm and wrist. Claimant resigned from State employment on November 20, 1950.\nAlthough claimant maintains he should be awarded compensation either for total permanent disability or permanent partial disability, the record wholly fails to support such contention.\nBut, claimant is entitled to an award for the specific loss of partial use of his right arm under Section 8 (e) (13) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nOn the date of the hearing before Commissioner Wise, claimant\u2019s injury to his right arm had reached its maximum recovery. His wrist was swollen, and X-Rays showed calcification of the vessels of the wrist. There was evidence of traumatic arthritis in his right shoulder, and his grip in his right hand was lessened. There was limitation of flexion, extension and rotation in his right arm, and a 50% loss of abduction of the arm. A comparison of claimant\u2019s left arm with his right disclosed that such uninjured arm was also limited somewhat in its function, because claimant was 75 years of age on the date of his accident.\nWe conclude that claimant has sustained a 20% loss of his right arm.\nRespondent did not furnish claimant with all medical services required to cure and relieve him of the effects of his accident. Claimant paid $12.50 for X-Rays, and $36.00 for osteopathic treatments. Claimant still owes Dr. Ross Elvidge, Normal, Illinois, $65.00 for hydro-therapy treatments and inter-muscular injections. Respondent is liable for these bills.\nOn the date of his accident, claimant was 75 years of age, married, but had no children dependent upon him for support. His earnings in the year prior to his accident amounted to $2,217.06, and his rate of compensation is, therefore, $22.50 per week.\nPaul E. Kelly, official court reporter, Bloomington, Illinois, was employed to take and transcribe the testimony at the hearing before Commissioner Wise. His charges amount to $76.00, which are reasonable and customary, and an award is entered in favor of Paul E. Kelly for $76.00.\nAwards are entered in favor of claimant, Amos R. Eaton, under Sections 8 (a) (e) (13) for medical bills, and a 20% loss of use of his right arm, respectively, payable as follows:\n(1) To claimant for medical bills the sum of $48.50, payable forthwith.\n(2) To claimant for the use of Dr. Ross Elvidge for professional services the sum of $65.00, payable forthwith.\n(3) To claimant for a 20% loss of use of his right arm, 45 weeks at $22.50 per week, or the sum of $1,012.50, all of which has accrued, and is payable forthwith.\nThese awards are subject to the approval of the Governor. Ill. Rev. Stat., 1951, Chap. 127, See. 180.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lansden, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dunn and Dunn, Attorneys for Claimant.",
      "Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 4382\nAmos R. Eaton, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed January 8, 1952.\nDunn and Dunn, Attorneys for Claimant.\nIvan A. Elliott, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0155-01",
  "first_page_order": 187,
  "last_page_order": 189
}