The Appellate Court-1st District affirmed the
Commission’s decision awarding death benefits to claimant, who alleged
that her husband’s death was the result of extinguishing a fire four
days earlier at defendant’s plant. Evidence indicated that the fume
inhalation at work coupled with decedent’s past smoking and diabetes
weakened his pulmonary resistance to infection. (Ford Motor Co v.
Industrial Commission et al. (Warren Schussler),
(Ill.App.Ct-1stDist.), No. 1-00-1950 WC, March 15, 2001.)
Claimant, decedent’s widow, filed a claim for death
benefits arising out of an incident at work in which decedent was
exposed to smoke while attempting to extinguish an over fire at
defendant’s plant. Claimant testified that after the incident, decedent
was not feeling well and was having difficult breathing. Decedent was
admitted to the emergency room the next day with complaints of abdominal
discomfort, chest pain and back pain. He was released later that day,
but his condition deteriorated and he returned to the emergency room
three days later. He died later that day. Decedent was 44 years old at
the time of his death. The death certificate listed the cause of death
as cardiac arrest due to cardiogenic shock.
Claimant’s expert did not agree with the cause of death
as listed on the death certificate. He opined that decedent’s death was
a "direct outgrowth" of his fighting the fire at work. The doctor
testified that the fume inhalation at work coupled with decedent’s past
smoking and diabetes weakened his pulmonary resistance to infection. He
believed any cardiac manifestations were a consequence of decedent’s
severe lung problems and lowered oxygen.
Defendant’s expert testified that decedent’s course in
the hospital was typical for someone with a massive, fatal heart attack,
especially given his history of smoking, obesity and elevated blood
sugar. The expert opined decedent’s death was unrelated to any events
that occurred at defendant’s plant.
Both the arbitrator and Commission relied upon the
opinion of claimant’s expert in finding causal connection between
decedent’s work extinguishing the fire and his sudden death four days
later.
The Appellate Court-1st District affirmed, determining
there was ample evidence from which the Commission could find that
decedent died due to problems arising from fighting the fire at
defendant’s plant. The court found it significant that prior to the
firefighting episode, decedent generally was in good health, but shortly
after fighting the fire, he was observed to gasping, short of breath and
coughing up black phlegm. Also, the court noted that although decedent
did not directly complain of breathing problems upon his first admission
to hospital, the medical records revealed decedent was suffering from
bronchial problems. The court further noted that both the arbitrator and
Commission accepted the opinion of claimant’s expert given the chain of
events between decedent’s fighting the fire and his death. The court
could not say such a conclusion was unreasonable or against the manifest
weight of the evidence. Claimant was not required to negate every other
possible cause of death other than an injury arising out of the
employment as long as there was competent evidence, as here, upon which
to base a legitimate inference that death was from the work injury, the
court explained.
