Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Gertrude Habel v. State of Illinois

21 Ill. Ct. Cl. 101 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1959-10-05 No. 4439
Disposition: (No. 4439-Claimant awarded 13,301.91.) Award: $3,304.91 Agency: Chicago State Hospital, Department of Public Welfare
Cite as: Gertrude Habel v. State of Illinois, 21 Ill. Ct. Cl. 101 (1959)
Legacy General 21 awarded 1950s Gertrude Habel v. State of Illinois 21 Ill. Ct. Cl. 101 1959-10-05 (No. 4439-Claimant awarded 13,301.91.) /opinions/v21-p0129-1/

GERTRUDE HABEL, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for permanent injuries to her right arm from a slip and fall while working as an attendant at Chicago State Hospital. The court found a 662⁄3% loss of use of the right arm and awarded $3,304.91 after deducting an overpayment.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Statutes cited: Section 8 (e) (13) of the Workmen's Compensation Act; Ill. Rev. Stat., 1949, Chap. 127, Sec. 180

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 A c w w h e n an award will be made. Where claimant’s injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment by the State of Illinois, an award may be made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. ,

Claimant, Gertrude Habel, seeks to recover from respondent under the Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries to her right arm that resulted from an [*102] accident, which arose out of and in the course of her employment as an attendant at the Chicago State Hospital, operated by the Department of Public Welfare.

Just before midnight on December 9, 1950, claimant, who had just come on duty, was crossing the porch of the ward in which she was assigned to work. She slipped, fell, and struck her right side, especially her right elbow, causing a dislocated chipped fracture in the elbow joint.

No jurisdictional questions are. involved, and respondent has furnished all hospital and medical treatment required to cure and relieve claimant of the effects of her accident. , The injuries to her right arm are now concededly permanent, and the only question before us is the determination of the percentage of loss of use of her rig:ht arm claimant has sustained.

The doctor, who examined claimant for respondent, and claimant’s doctor, who testified, are in virtual agreement as to limitation of flexion and extension of her right arm, and pronation and supination of her forearm and wrist, the variations in their findings being only 5%. We are prone to follow the findings of claimant’s doctor in this regard, since he examined her both prior and subsequent to the last examihation by respondent’s doctor. At the time of this last examination, he found her limitations to be somewhat more severe than at his first examination.

Claimant has a 30 and 25y0 loss of flexion and extension, respectively, in her right arm. Pronation and supination show a 25y0loss. Abduction in the shoulder is lessened about 30%.

In addition, there was some atrophy of the right shoulder muscles, and a marked enlargement of the [*103] right elbow area. Bony changes in the olecranon process, and the fossae, which fit over the end of the humerus and the ulna, were noted. In addition, there was some osteosclerosis in the lower ends of the radius and the ulna, and one bone fragment was floating in the elbow region, never having attached to any bone since it was chipped off. Crepitation, rigidity, and spasticity of arm muscles were noted on manipulation, indicating traumatic arthritis.

The fall, claimant sustained, affected her wrist, forearm, elbow, and shoulder, and her arm will be carried in fixed flexion in the future. The joint space in her elbow is also permanently roughened. Any surgical . attempt to improve claimant’s right arm was deemed inadvisable.

From the foregoing, we conclude that claimant has sustained a 66?4y0loss of use of her right arm, and is entitled to an award under Section 8 (e) (13) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

On the date of her accident, claimant was 41 years of age, married, but had no children under 16 years of age dependent upon her for support. Her earnings in the year prior to her accident amounted to $2,316.00, and her rate of compensation is, therefore, $22.50 per week.

Claimant was temporarily and totally disabled from the date of her accident on December 9, 1950 through June 6, 1951. She returned to work on June 7, 1951. During the period of total temporary disability she was paid the sum of $645.45 as compensation, when she should have been paid only $575.36, leaving an overpayment of $70.09, which must be deducted from her award.

William J. Cleary & Co., Chicago, Illinois, was [*104] ,104 employed to take and transcribe the testimony at the hearing before Commissioner Anderson. Charges in the amount of $48.40 were incurred, which are reasonable and customary. An award is entered in favor of William J. Cleary & Co. in the sum of $48.40.

An award is entered in favor of claimant, Gertrude Habel, under Section 8 (e) (13) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for a 66%% loss of use of her right arm, or 150 weeks at $22.50 per week, or the sum (of $3,375.00 less overpayment above referred to of $70.09, leaving a net award of $3,304.91, payable as follows: $ 385.71, less overpayment of $70.09, or the sum of $315.62, which has accrued, and is payable forthwith; $2,989.29, payable in weekly installments of $22.50 per week commencing on October 12, 1951 for a period of 132 weeks, plus one final payment of $19.29.

This award is subject to the approval of the Governor. Ill. Rev. Stat., 1949, Chap. 127, See. 180.

Official volume 21 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: July 1, 1951–April 30, 1954)  ·  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.