O. L. CAMPBELL, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, a veterinarian employed by the Department of Agriculture, sought compensation for injuries sustained while testing cattle for tuberculosis on a farm. The court denied the claim, holding that the work was farm work excluded from the Workmen's Compensation Act under the proviso in Section 3(8).
Cases cited: Grover Ewing vs. State, No. 2286 (1935)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT-farm work excepted from provisions of. All farm work and all work done which in its nature a part of farming, and which is done on a farm or country place is excepted from the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
- SAME-licensed veterinarian employed by State Department in testing cattle on farm is doing farm work and if injured while so doing, claim for compensation will be denied. Where claimant, a licensed veterinarian, employed by State Department is injured while making tuberculin tests of cattle on farm, by reason of being attacked by animal, claim for compensation under Workmen's Compensation must be denied, as injured employee was engaged in farm work and is not within the provisions of said Act. Ewing vs. State, No. 2286, ante, followed.
Prior to and on the 4th day of March, A. D. 1933, claimant, Dr. O. L. Campbell, was licensed veterinarian in the employ of the Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal Industry, and was engaged in the testing of cattle for tuberculosis. On the last mentioned date, claimant was working on the farm of John Stoll in Walker Township, Hancock County, and while attempting to tag an animal, showing that it had been tested for tuberculosis, was attacked by the animal and thrown against the fence or corral wall, and sustained injuries to his right hand, arm and shoulder, for which he claims compensation under the terms and provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Respondent maintains that the work being done by claimant at the time of the accident was in its nature farm work and that the claimant therefore comes within the terms of the proviso contained in Paragraph eight (8) of Section three (3) of the Compensation Act which is as follows: "Provided nothing contained herein shall be construed to apply to any work, employment or operations done, had or conducted by farmers and others engaged in farming, tillage of the soil or stock raising, or to those who rent, demise or lease land for any such purposes, or to anyone in their employ, or to any work done on a farm or country place, no matter what kind of work or service is being done or rendered." [*48]
The question here involved was considered by this court in the case of Grover Ewing vs. State, No. 2286, decided at the January, 1935 term of this court, in which the facts were practically identical with the facts in this case, and the same contentions were made by claimant and respondent.
In that case the court after fully considering the question, held that the claimant, at the time of the accident in question, was employed in "work done on a farm" within the meaning of those words as used in the aforementioned proviso, and therefore the injuries so sustained by him were not compensable.
We see no reason for departing from the rule laid down in the Ewing case and must therefore deny the claim. Award denied.