Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Atteberry v. State of Illinois

8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 607 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1935-06-01 No. 2234
Disposition: (No. 2234-Claimant awarded $740.80.) Award: $740.80 Agency: Division of Highways
Cite as: Atteberry v. State of Illinois, 8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 607 (1935)
Legacy General 8 awarded 1930s Atteberry v. State of Illinois 8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 607 1935-06-01 (No. 2234-Claimant awarded $740.80.) /opinions/v08-p0597-1/

W. STUART ATTEBERRY, Claimant v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation for a foot injury sustained while working for the Division of Highways. The court awarded $740.80, consisting of $654.80 in compensation for temporary total incapacity and $86.00 for an unpaid doctor bill.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

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

Headnotes

  1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT-when award made. Where claimant sustains injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, while engaged in extra-hazardous employment, an award for compensation will be made under Act.

Claimant filed his complaint herein on August 16, 1933 and seeks to recover compensation for injuries sustained by him on August 27, 1931 while in the employ of the Division of Highways of the respondent. It appears that on the last mentioned date claimant was doing some work in connection with the building of a bridge about one and one-half miles south of Waverly, in Morgan County; that in the course of his work he stepped on a nail which punctured the sole of his shoe and penetrated the ball of his foot; that notice of the accident was given and claim for compensation made within the time required by law; that claimant was treated by several different physicians and remained under the care of some one of them from the time of the accident until the 1st day of January, A. D. 1933, on which date he was discharged by Dr. A. D. Wilson of Carrollton, Illinois, as ready to return to work.

During the time that he remained under the care of the doctors, two operations were performed on his foot. All [*608] medical and hospital bills have been paid by the respondent except a bill of Dr. Wilson in the sum of $86.00 which remains unpaid.

The evidence does not disclose the amount of the earnings of the claimant during the period of one year prior to the accident. His daily wages, however, were $4.00 and under Section 10-d of the Compensation Act, his average annual earnings must therefore be regarded as $1,200.00, being $23.08 per week.

Claimant admits that he worked three or four days after the accident and was paid therefor, and that he has received the total sum of $169.00 from the respondent, which included his pay for the three or four days which he worked and compensation for the injuries received. Deducting from said sum of $169.00 the sum of $16.00 for four days' work, leaves a balance of $153.00 which apparently was paid to him as compensation, and which should be deducted from any award of compensation made.

Under the evidence complainant is entitled to receive compensation for temporary total incapacity for seventy (70) weeks at $11.54 per week, to-wit: $807.80. Deducting therefrom the sum of $153.00 heretofore paid as aforesaid, leaves a balance of $654.80, which is the balance of compensation to which the claimant is entitled as aforesaid. In addition to such amount, claimant is also entitled to recover the sum of $86.00 for the doctor bill of Dr. A. D. Wilson as aforesaid, making a total of $740.80.

Award is therefore entered in favor of the claimant for the sum of Seven Hundred Forty Dollars and Eighty Cents ($740.80).

Official volume 8 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1933–June 30, 1935, and advisory Opinions furnished University of Illinois)  ·  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.