Document 4aVQ8qx3R6gL2Ye600GG9ZL5j

FILE NAME Insurance Industry INS DATE 1953 DOC INS068 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Legal - Illinois Supreme Court Case Union Asbestos & Rubber Co. Inc. v Industrial Commission te occurence ocupational in any case ation is filed n within one disablement een paid or late of the , where any = such appli- ided further se results in plication for be filed with lain one year ot thereafter cifically pro- ensation must -ee but refers f payment his claim ic act . , compensation ission during when the ned after his made to his oi compensa- 1 his lifetime meaning of at the claim lays after the the adminis after the cmle therefore -ight to death -pendents and urisdiction to "cingno other the superior e affirmed ho became ill er's mine was Disability Act l to prove it edical evidence Commission in e silicon dioxide 11 a physician JAME 3020 Occupational Diseases Decisions " Report 2 Several physicians testified to the effect that the general public could develop broncliiectasis if the conditions were sufficient that the dust irritations caused the inflam- mation of the claimant's lungs that the inflammation itself was a disease to which bronchiectasis was incidental and that an operative removal of the diseased area was required to effectuate claimant's cure Subdivision a of section 6 of the Occupational Diseases Act defines an occupational disease as one arising out of and in the course of employment Subdivision b of the same section delineates the requisites necessary to establish a disease as occupational The employer in its brief urged a limitation of the scope and application of the Act to few diseases of an unusual na- ture which are natural incidents of particular employments and which are known to be usual and customary incidents of such em- ployments However the Act was not intended to be limited to a few specific discases The Act merely provides that where a diseased workman is employed in surroundings which are usual common and ordinary in all employments he cannot claim compensation simply because he became a victim of a disease while working for the employer But where his surroundings and conditions of employment possess inherent risks dangers and hazards which are not present in other employmenemptloysments and he cont tracts a disease due to such hazards which furnish the cause of the disease compensation is afforded The disease may be of a class or nature which the reneral publie may acquire under ordinary circumstances if the discase did not arise out of such ordinary circumstances but was in fact 41 result of being subjected to usks afforded by unusual conditions in dus work The question is not whether the disease is more or less common to the general public but whether the particular conditions of work were the cause of the disease Nothing in the Act requires or implies that the work conditions must subject all employees as a class to the same exposure Nor does the Act require a long period of exposure or that the disease be an expected one The evidence most favorable to the claimant though conflicting in some respects was of sufficient probity that the Board could conclude that the claimant suffered an oc- cupational disease as defined in section 6 and that there was a causal connection between the disease and the employment Award affiumed 4024 Union Asbestos and Rubber Co. Inc. v Industrial Commission Illinois Supreme Court No. 32588 May 20 1953 Death Benefits of Employee During Substitution of Administratrix for Abatement the administratrix of a claimant who dies pending an appeal of an award is entitled to be substituted in his place and to collect bin award his right to compensation does not abate with his death The widow and children of the decedent are then entitled to death benefits upon filing their clann within one year year after the death The employer may not defend a claim for death benefits thus Distituted by arguing that the claim is barred because the employee died more than one year after the date of disablement and because no compensation was paid to him during his lifetime The payment of the award to the administratrix is tantamount to a paginent to the claim- ant during his lifetime and forms a proper basis for an award of death benefits as provided by the statute Duity J. Digest of opinion The claim- and alleged that he had become disabled from asbestosis on May 2 1947. The Indus- trial Commission found that the claimant was permanently disabled as alleged and granted him an award therefor The employer thereupon instituted review proceedings and while these proceedings were pending the claimant died on January 2 1950 A motion was filed by the employer to set aside the award on the basis that the claimant's death abated his right tes compensation The claimant's widow as administratrix of his estate however filed a petition to substitute herself for the claimant in the proceedings This latter action was allowed by the lower court The employer then filed a petition for a writ of error to review the order of the lower court but when the petition was denied it paid the award to the administratrix Q 4074 Conurisht Conurisht 1042 Commerce Clearing House Inc. cn was entertain id sertelesee S~ emma alta Octagational Diseases Decisions 3021 Repor2t7 The denial occurred September the payment was made three On September 22 1950 th widow and minor child filed for death benefits The employer contending that the dependes right to death benefits becaus pensation had been paid to in his lifetime and because 1's occurred more than one year of disablement After a heariani cision that death benefits with employer prosecuted a writ of Supreme Court In connection with this app se. tra ployer contended again that tion of one administratrix for had been wrongful and that the original proceeding should The Supreme Court ruled that of the first petition for wont the effect of leaving the judgment it was entered by the trial therefor res judicata on the proceeding and the employer again relitigate its claims that the employee's right to compensation abated 2: and that the superior court 14 authority to substitute the a Insofar as those questions are we must hold that the conditions conditions within six 6 months after the occurrence of the disablement from the ocupational disease provided further that in any case unless application for compensation is filed with the Industrial Commission within one 1 year after the date of the disablement where no compcusation has been paid or within one ) year after the date of the last payment of compensation where any has been paid the right to file such application shall be barred Provided further that if the occupational disease results in death within said year application for compensation for death may be filed with the Industrial Commission within one year after the date of death but not thereafter * * * The statute does not specifically pro- vide that the payment of compensation must have been masle to the employee but refers only to the element of time of payment the employee filed his claim within the period fixed by the act 2. the employer's liability for compensation was determined by the commission during the claimant's lifetime and . confirmed . when the award was judicially confirmed after his death and payment thereof made to his administratrix it was payment of compensa- tion which was due to him in his lifetime and was payment within the meaning of section 24. * * * to the right of the dependents claim for death benefits have best This brings us to the remanno remano remanno ques- tion which is raised in this pro tion 24 of the Occupational Isas 7 which pertains to notice of dis limitation of commencement of + contains the following provis provided no proceedings for under this Act shall be mainta claim for compensation has 12201 The facts here show that the claim was filed within a few days after the . . , payment of compensation to the adminis- tratrix and within one year after the em- ployee's death We conclude therefore for the reason stated that a right to death benefits had vested in the dependents and that the commission had jurisdiction to entertain their claim There being no other objections the judgment of the superior cout of Cook County will be affirmed 14025 Resurrection Mining Co. v Roberts N Colorado Supreme Court Silicosis Testimony of silicosis and whose only exposure entitled to an award against b's The miner's burden of having : the ordinary sense and not tresolved by the Commission was such a case is the trier of facts 17120. June 15 1953 Burden of Proof miner who became ill exposure to silicon dioxide was at his employer's mine was employer under the Occupational Disease Disability Act establish his case meant only that he had to prove it peradventure of doubt Conflicting medical evidence subject to review by the court The Commission in KNAUSS J. Digest of opinion Jul 1011 . sk 17 tener 1051 dioxide From mines ant was employed in where silicon dioxide was present Inf March 1951 a physician 3020 Occupational Diseases Decisions Several physicians testified to the effect that the general public could develop bronchiectasis if the conditions were sufficient that the dust irritations caused the inflam- mation of the claimant's lungs that the inflammation itself was a disease to which bronchiectasis was incidental and that an operative removal of the diseased area was required to effectuate claimant's cure Subdivision a of section 6 of the Occupational Diseases Act defines an occupational disease as one arising out of and in the course of employment Subdivision b of the same section delineates the requisites necessary to establish a disease as occupa- tional The employer in its brief urged a limitation of the scope and application of the Act to a few diseases of an unusual na- ture which are natural incidents of particular employments and which are known to be usual and customary incidents of such en- in- ployments However the Act was not tended to be limited to -- few specific diseases The Act merely provides that where a diseased workman is employed in surroundings which are usual common and ordinary in all employments he cannot claim compensation simply because he became a victim of a disease while working for the employer But where his surroundings and conditions of e risks dangers present in othe tracts a disease furnish the cau tion is afforded class or nature may acquire un if the disease ordinary circun result of being by unusual cor question is not or less contnici whether the pa were the cause the Act require conditions must class to the sai Act require a | that the disease The evidence ant though conf of sufficient pro conclude that t cupational disea and that there + tween the disc Award affirmed 4024 Union Asbestos and Rubber Co. Inc. v Industr Illinois Supreme Court No. 32588. May 20 1953 Death Benefits of Employee During Litigation trix for Abatement administratrix o ing an appeal of an award is entitled to be substituted in h award his right to compensation does not abate with his dead of the decedent are then entitled to death benefits upon filing after the death The employer may may not defend a claim for de by arguing that the claim is barred because the employee die the date of disablement and because no compensation was paid The pastuent of the award to the administratrix is tantamount ant during his lifetime and forms a proper basis for an award o by the statute DAILY J. Digest Digest of opinion The claim- and alleged that he had become disabled from asbestosis on May 2 1947. The Industrial Commission found that the claimant was permanently disabled as alleged and granted him an award therefor The employer thereupon instituted review proceedings and white these proceedings were pending the claimaist died on January 2 1950 A motion was filed by the employer to set aside the award on the basis that the claimant's death pensation pensation The ministratrix of a petition to claimant in the action was all The employer th of error to revi court but when it paid the awa