Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

William G. Vak Gilder v. Illtnois

16 Ill. Ct. Cl. 310 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1947-06-05 No. 4005
Disposition: (No. 4005-Claimant awarded $672.00.) Award: $672.00
Cite as: William G. Vak Gilder v. Illtnois, 16 Ill. Ct. Cl. 310 (1947)
Legacy General 16 awarded 1940s William G. Vak Gilder v. Illtnois 16 Ill. Ct. Cl. 310 1947-06-05 (No. 4005-Claimant awarded $672.00.) /opinions/v16-p0329-1/

WILLIAM G. VAK GILDER, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLTNOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, a state employee, sought workers' compensation for a finger injury sustained while adjusting a truck fan belt during work duties. The court found the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and awarded $672.00 under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

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. GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General, and C. ARTHUR NEBEL, Assistant Attorney General, f o r regpondent.
  2. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION Am-when award may be made f o r loss of finger- under. Where an employee of the State sustains accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in the loss of his left second finger, an award may be made therefor, ’ under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, upon compliance by the employee, with the terms thereof and proper proof of claim f o r same.

Claimant, William G. Van Gilder, filed his claim on January 27, 1947 ’for compensation under the provisions ‘ of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the loss of his left middle or second finger.

On November 13, 1946 ;claimant and his assistants were assigned to take a truck load of cement from Paris to Champaign, Illinois. About 7:30 A. M. and approximately two miles west of Paris on S.B.I. Route No. 133, claimant stopped his truck to determine what was causing the truck motor to heat. Lifting the truck hood he noticed , that the fan belt was not moving. He touched the belt to see if the tension was sufficient. At the moment be touched the belt, it began to move and crushed his left middle finger between the belt and the generator pulley.

Claimant was taken to the Paris Hospital where Dr.

H. D. Junkin rendered first aid and amputated the left middle finger through the distal end of the middle phalanx. He was released from the Paris Hospital on November 15, 1946 and returned to work on November 28, 1946.

He was paid full salary for the two weeks lost time, and the hospital and medical bills were paid by respondent.

At the time of the aocident, claimant and respondent kere operating under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of this State, and notice of the accident , and claim for compensation were made within the time . provided by the Act. The accident arose out of and in the . course of employment.

Claimant ‘was married and had two children under , [*312] the age of 16 years dependent upon him for support. His earnings for the year preceding his injury totaled $2,- 040.00. The aclcident having occurred after July 1945, the compensation rate would be $19.20 per week. He is entitled to receive compensation for the loss of his left second finger, which would be computed on the basis of 35 weeks at $19.20 per week, or $672.00.

An award is therefore entered in favor of claimant, William G. Van Gilder, in the amount of $672.00, payable as follows: < $556.80, which has accrued and. is payable forthwith: $115.20, payable in weekly installments of $19.20, beginning on the 11th day of June, 1947, for a period of sir weeks.

This award is subject to the approval of the Governor as provided in Section 3 of “An Act concerning the payment of compensation awards to State employees. ”

Official volume 16 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: July 1, 1946–June 30, 1947)  ·  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.