Poray, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

44 N.E.2d 847, 381 Ill. 251
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided November 17, 1942·No. No. 26734. Reversed and remanded.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Fulton

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes to this court on writ of error granted to review the judgment of the superior court of Cook county. This was a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. On December 18, 1940, Robert Coller, the injured employee, lost part of the fingers of his left hand while operating a punch press. The employer stipulated that the injuries were compensable, and the parties agreed on all questions except on the nature and extent of the specific loss of use. There was no conflict in the evidence. Only two witnesses testified. Coller and a doctor called in his behalf described the injuries. The employer called no witnesses and introduced no evidence. The second, third and fourth fingers of the left hand were amputated at the middle interphalangeal joint. The left index finger was amputated at the distal phalangeal joint. There were no scars or marks of injury on the palm or back of the hand or on the thumb, except a scar present before the accident. Coller testified that he found that the hand was clumsy to use, lacking in strength, soft and tender. At the hearing before the arbitrator, Coller was requested to, and did, pick up various objects including ash trays and telephone directories with his left hand. He testified that he played indoor baseball, playing any position and grasping the bat with both hands; that when a ball comes in contact with the stumps of his fingers it causes pain.

The arbitrator awarded compensation for the specific loss for a period of 100 weeks, finding that the injuries resulted in the complete and permanent loss of the use of 50 per cent of the first finger; 100 per cent loss of the second, third and fourth fingers. On review by the Industrial Commission, the case was submitted on the record without further evidence, and the Industrial Commission found that: “petitioner sustained the loss by amputation of the index finger, middle, ring and little fingers of the left hand, constituting 80 per cent disability of the left hand.” The commission awarded compensation for a period of 136 weeks based on a permanent and complete loss of 80 per cent of the left hand. The superior court affirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission. The plaintiff in error insists that the superior court erred in awarding compensation on the basis of loss of use of the left hand, in the face of evidence showing only loss of fingers or parts thereof with no involvement of the hand. The statute involved (Workmen’s Compensation Act, sec. 8; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1941, chap. 48, par. 145) is as follows:

“(e) For injuries in the following schedule, the employee shall receive compensation for the period of temporary total incapacity for work resulting from such injury, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, for a period not to exceed sixty-four weeks, and shall receive in addition thereto compensation for a further period subject to limitations as to amounts as in this section provided, ^ * but shall not receive any compensation for such injuries under any other provision of this Act.
“1. For the loss,of a thumb, or the permanent and complete loss of its use, fifty percentum of the average weekly wage during seventy weeks.
“2. For the loss of a first finger, commonly called the index •finger, or the permanent and complete loss of its use, fifty percentum of the average weekly wage during forty weeks.
“3. For the loss of a second finger, or the permanent and complete loss of its use, fifty percentum of the average weekly wage during thirty-five weeks.
"4. For the loss of a third finger, or the permanent and complete loss of its use, fifty percentum of the average weekly wage during twenty-five weeks.
“5. For the loss of a fourth finger, commonly called the little finger, or the permanent and complete loss of its use, fifty percentum of the average weekly wage during twenty weeks.
“6. The loss of the first phalange of the thumb or of any finger, shall be considered to be equal to the loss of one-half of such thumb or finger and compensation shall be one-half the amount above specified.
“7. The loss of more than one phalange shall be considered as the loss of the entire finger or thumb; provided, however, that in no case shall the amount received for more than one finger exceed the amount provided in this schedule for the loss of a hand.
* * *
“12. For the loss of a hand, or the permanent and complete loss of its use, fifty percentum of the average weekly wage during one hundred and seventy weeks'.”

The finding of the Industrial Commission is partially in error because of the statement in the award that the petitioner sustained the loss by amputation of the index, middle, ring and little fingers of the left hand. There is no dispute about the actual fact and the testimony conclusively shows that the amputation of the index finger was the loss of one phalanx of the fingér. The Workmen’s Compensation Act provides that the loss of one phalanx of a finger shall constitute 50 per cent loss of that finger, while the loss of two phalanges of a finger shall constitute 100 per cent loss of that finger. The proof definitely shows that in the present case one phalanx of the index finger and two phalanges of each of the second, third and fourth fingers were amputated. The thumb and two phalanges of the index finger remained. The only medical testimony concerning any impairment to the hand shows that the tissues of the palmar surface of the left hand were more pliable than those of the other hand and that the injured hand was softer than the other hand.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Poray, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 44 N.E.2d 847, 381 Ill. 251 (Ill. 1942).

44 N.E.2d 847 (Poray, Inc. v. Industrial Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Friedland v. Allis Chalmers Co. of Canada
511 N.E.2d 1199 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1987)
A. O. Smith Corp. v. Industrial Commission
357 N.E.2d 539 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1976)
Meade v. Industrial Commission
269 N.E.2d 288 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1971)