Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Gray v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 404 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1930-05-28 No. 1554
Disposition: (No. 1554-Claimant awarded $600.00.) Award: $500.00
Cite as: Gray v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 404 (1930)
Legacy General 6 awarded 1930s Gray v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 404 1930-05-28 (No. 1554-Claimant awarded $600.00.) /opinions/v06-p0425-1/

FRANK GRAY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, a state workman, injured his left index finger while working on a bridge and required amputation. The court awarded him $500.00 under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the loss of the finger.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Statutes cited: Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. PERSONAL INJURY-when award will be made-Workmen's Compensa-

Claimant was in the employment of the State as a common workman and was paid sixty cents per hour. His average weekly wage while working for the State was about thirty dollars. On April 24, 1929, while engaged in work on a bridge of State Route No. 42 near Zion City, he suffered an injury to his left hand which necessitated the amputation of the left index finger. The injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and, under the provisions of the [*405] Workmen's Compensation Act, he is entitled to compensation from the State. The State paid his hospital and surgical bills and kept him on the payroll during the time he was unable to work. Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides an employee shall receive fifty per cent of his average weekly wage for the loss of an index finger during forty weeks. Claimant is therefore entitled to $500.00 and that sum is awarded him.

Official volume 6 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1927–June 30, 1931)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.