delivered the opinion of the court:
Andrew S. Oros, a restaurant employee, filed application for benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. After hearing еvidence the arbitrator granted an award but the Industrial Commission set it aside on the ground that the claimant had failed to provе he sustained an accidental injury. On review the circuit court of Lake County reinstated the award, finding that uncontested evidenсe established he did sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The employer, Randall Cram, d/b/а Randy’s House of Steele, appeals directly to this court as authorized in these cases by Rule 302.
Claimant was employed as a kitchen helper. His compensation included room and board, the small house he occupied being at the rеar of the premises. His duties included dish-washing, peeling potatoes, carrots and so on. He also carried out the garbаge. The incident upon which the claim is based occurred on August 27, 1964, at about 10:3o P.M. At that time the claimant rolled a can of wеt garbage weighing some 145 pounds over to the door, carried it down some steps and dragged it to a garbage disposal bin. Thеre he lifted it up and emptied the contents into the bin. According to the claimant’s testimony the fellow employee who wоrked with him was sick that night, and claimant had no help from him.
After carrying the empty can back inside, the claimant went home, took a shower and went to bed. He noticed nothing unusual about himself until he awakened some time during the night with a pain in the lower part of his back. He was late in getting to work the next day, and the chef noticed he came in limping and bent over. At the chef’s directions hе went back and lay down. He was given something to eat later in the day, and a doctor was called. The chef took him to the doctor’s office, where an examination was made, and a few days later he was taken to a hospital. A diagnosis wаs made of paralysis of the lower extremity and urinary retention. A spinal tap was made, and a myelogram disclosed a blоck in the spinal column indicating either a ruptured disc or a cord tumor. Exploratory surgery was undertaken and an operation performed in which a ruptured disc and part of the spinal column were removed. Upon his discharge from the hospitаl the claimant returned to his room at respondent’s establishment. He bent down to pick up a small roll of rug and complained of sharp pain, whereupon he was rehospitalized for some two weeks or more.
The treating physician, to whom thе claimant was taken by his employer, supervised the medical and surgical care. The doctor testified that when claimаnt was first brought in he related that he was lifting a can of wet garbage the day before, and while he was lifting it he experienced acute back pain. The witness expressed the opinion that a causal relation existed between the described inсident and the claimant’s condition, and that the loss of deep tendon reflexes and the sensory changes were permanent.
The only witnesses testifying were the claimant, the chef and the doctor, all on behalf of the claimant. No witnesses werе called by or testified on behalf of the employer, nor was any evidence at all heard by the Commission itself. The matter was merely submitted on the record, with a request for oral argument.
To reverse the circuit court the employer argues that an accident arises by some definite event, of which the time, place, and cause can be fixed with certainty, and that thе claimant failed to prove an accidental injury from lifting the can of garbage because he felt no pain until later. Also relied upon is impeachment of the doctor, who admitted on cross-examination that his original notes which he madе when he first saw the claimant did not indicate any history of an accident.
We think that on this record the circuit court did not err in finding the dеcision of the Commission to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. The claimant proved a back injury, of a kind which mаkes it difficult to pinpoint the exact time of damage. He testified to having performed a task which involves heavy physicаl strain. And he showed that only a few hours later he felt the first painful symptoms of what proved to be a very serious condition. No testimony or other kind of evidence was offered by the employer to deny or explain away what would be the natural inferеnce, and there is nothing in the record to indicate a different cause of the disability. No history appears of some оther accident or illness prior to the onset of pain and disability, nor is it necessary for the claimant to negate every other possible inference which may be drawn from the evidence. See Urban v. Industrial Com.
We recognize, as the respondent points out, that the question whether an injury arose out of the employment is usually one of fact for the Industrial Commission to dеcide and that its finding will not ordinarily be disturbed on judicial review. But the court nevertheless will weigh and consider the evidence to detеrmine whether the decision is against its manifest weight. If such proves to be the case the reviewing court has the duty to set the decision aside. (Johnson & Johnson v. Industrial Com.,
The judgment of the circuit court of Lake County was correct and is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.