JOHN J. BRADECICH, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant contracted typhoid fever while employed at Manteno State Hospital and was given disinfectant instead of medicine, causing throat injury. The court found no compensable loss under the Workmen's Compensation Act because claimant returned to work at equal or higher pay, and denied the award.
Statutes cited: Section 8(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act
Cases cited: Ade vs. State, No. 3429, decided at the September, 1943 term
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Samz-no specafic provasion therein for anjury t o throat and voice. The Workmen’s Compensation Act contains no specific provision for compensation for injury to throat and voice, resulting from accidental injuries sustained by employee, within t h e protection thereof, and i n the absence of such provision no award for compenkation for such injury can be made under ‘Act.
- S a m - c l a i m for compensatzon for permanent partaal dasabahtyclaainant ea?Tung as much an stittable employment at tame of heurang as at tznze of anyury-no award can be made for. No award i s justified for permanent partial disability where the evidence clearly shows t h a t claimant therefor is able to, and is earning a s much i n suitable employment a t the time of the hearing on said claim, as h e did a t the time of the accident upon which claim is based. -
I
The claimant, John J. Bradecich, contracted typhoid fever on August 13, 1939, while in the employ of the respondent as an attendant at the Manteno State Hospital. He had worked for respondent continuously for more than -one year prior to his illness at a salary of $87.00 per month.
Claimant was hospitalized at the institution. During his illness, through an error of an employee of the hospital, he was given West Pine Disinfectant instead of West Pine Cough Medicine. As a result, claimant’s left - larnyx is sealed, there are adhesions and scar tissue in the throat, and he is able to speak only in a whisper.
Claim is made that, as a result of his illness, claimant also suffered a partial loss of use of his left leg.
Claimant was totally disabled from August 13, 1939, to March 22, 1940, during which period of time he was paid compensation in the amount of $460.58. He was subsequently disabled from April 9, 1940, to June 12, 1940, during which time he was paid compensation in the amount of $132.30, making total payments on account of temporary disability in the amount of $592.88. Upon [*58] his return to work, claimant received the same salary which he had received prior to his illness. He is now working at the Elwood Ordnance Plant at a salary of $52.00 per week.
No claim is made €or temporary total disability, and there is no proof of any medical, surgical or hospital services rendered claimant other than those furnished by the respondent. Claimant seeks an award for $5,000.00 and pension for life.
At the time of his illness, claimant and respondent were operating under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of this State, and notice of the illness and claim for compensation were made within the time provided by the Act. Claimant had no children under sixteen years of age. It is stipulated that a typhoid fever epidemic existed at the Manteno State Hospital from July 10, 1939, to December 10, 1939. The typhoid fever contracted by the claimant was accidental, arose out of and in the course of his employment as an attendant at the Manteno State Hospital, and any injury arising therefrom is compensable under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. ( A d e vs. lqtate, No. 3429, decided at the September, 1943, term,of this court.)
The claim for a partial loss of use of claimant’s left leg, however, is not sustained by the evidence. Proof as to that portion of the claim is wholly inadequate. Claimant has sustained an injury to his throat and voice, but the Workmen’s Compensation Act contaJns no specific provision for compensation of that type of injury. The only applicable provision of the Act is Section 8(d), which provides that an employee partially incapacitated from pursuing his usual and customary ‘line of employment may receive compensation, subject to certain limitations, equal to fifty per cent of the difference between the \ [*59]
. I
average amount which he earned before the accident and I
I
the average amount which he is earning or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the acci- I dent. The proof in this case shows that the claimant immediately subsequent to his 'illness was employed with no change in salary, and that claimant more recently was employed at a salary in excess of that which lie earned at the time of his illness. He is therefore not entitled to an award.
Award denied.