Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

Farris v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2014 IL App (4th) 130767WC

Appellate Court 

Caption

DANNY FARRIS, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS WORKERS’ 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. (Phoenix Corp. of the Quad 

Cities, Appellee).

District & No. Fourth District

Docket No. 4-13-0767WC

Filed

Rehearing denied

October 28, 2014

November 26, 2014

Held

(Note: This syllabus 

constitutes no part of the 

opinion of the court but 

has been prepared by the 

Reporter of Decisions 

for the convenience of 

the reader.)

In the matter of a workers’ compensation claim for the injuries 

claimant suffered in an alleged unwitnessed accident that occurred 

while he was moving and placing large rip rap rocks along an 

embankment, the decision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation 

Commission that the claimant met his burden of proving that he 

sustained accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his 

employment was affirmed by the appellate court, the trial court’s 

decision that the Commission’s decision was against the manifest 

weight of the evidence was reversed and the cause was remanded for 

further proceedings, since, in the absence of a record containing the 

claimant’s testimony, the Commission would be presumed to have 

properly assessed the claimant’s credibility, and any doubts arising 

from the incomplete record would be resolved in favor of the 

Commission’s findings.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, No. 12-MR-21; 

the Hon. John P. Schmidt, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Circuit court reversed; Commission’s decision reinstated; cause 

remanded.
- 2 - 

Counsel on

Appeal

M. Michael Waters (argued), of Vonachen, Lawless, Trager & Slevin, 

of Peoria, for appellant.

Matthew J. Daley (argued), of Odelson & Sterk, Ltd., of Evergreen 

Park, for appellee.

Panel JUSTICE STEWART delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion. 

Presiding Justices Holdridge and Justices Hoffman, Hudson, and 

Harris concurred in the judgment and opinion.

 OPINION 

¶ 1 The claimant, Danny Farris, worked for the employer, Phoenix Corp. of the Quad Cities, as 

a union laborer. The claimant maintained that on April 26, 2005, he was involved in a 

workplace accident as he was moving and placing large rip rap rocks along an embankment. 

He filed a claim under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 

et seq. (West 2004)). No one witnessed the accident, and the employer disputed the claimant’s 

assertion that the accident occurred. In October 2005, the matter proceeded to an expedited 

hearing before the arbitrator pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/19(b) (West 

2004)). 

¶ 2 The contested issue of whether a compensable accident occurred has generated a 

significant amount of procedural history beginning with the October 2005 expedited hearing 

and leading up to the present appeal. At the conclusion of the expedited hearing in October 

2005, the arbitrator found that the claimant was not credible and did not sustain his burden of 

proving the accident. In April 2007, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission 

(Commission) affirmed and adopted the arbitrator’s decision. In January 2009, the circuit court 

reversed the Commission’s decision and remanded the claim for further proceedings. The 

circuit court reversed the Commission for two reasons: (1) the Commission improperly 

considered impeachment testimony as substantive evidence and (2) the Commission 

improperly denied the claimant’s request to reopen the proofs to submit a report of a CT 

myelogram that became available after the close of the proofs. Upon reversal, the Commission 

vacated the arbitrator’s decision and remanded the claim to the arbitrator for further hearings 

consistent with the circuit court’s directives.

¶ 3 On July 14, 2010, the arbitrator reconsidered the record in light of the new CT myelogram 

report and consistent with the circuit court’s directions concerning the impeachment evidence. 

The arbitrator again denied the claimant benefits, finding that the claimant was not credible 

and failed to prove that a workplace accident occurred. The claimant again appealed the 

arbitrator’s decision to the Commission. On June 27, 2011, the Commission reversed the 

arbitrator’s decision, finding that the claimant was credible and proved that he sustained a 

workplace accident. The Commission stated that the claimant “met his burden of proving he 
- 3 - 

sustained accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment with [the 

employer] on April 26, 2005.” The Commission’s decision was based on its assessment of the 

claimant’s testimony as well as his medical records and reports, including the newly admitted 

CT myelogram report. One commissioner dissented because she agreed with the arbitrator’s 

decision. 

¶ 4 The employer appealed the Commission’s decision to the circuit court. On August 13, 

2013, the circuit court found that the Commission’s decision was against the manifest weight 

of the evidence and entered a judgment reversing the Commission’s decision. Specifically, the 

circuit court stated that it reviewed the record and the Commission’s decision and agreed with 

the dissenting commissioner. The court, therefore, concluded that the ruling of the arbitrator 

“is to stand.” This appeal ensued.

¶ 5 BACKGROUND

¶ 6 The central, disputed factual issue that the parties have litigated since October 2005 is 

whether the claimant was involved in a workplace accident. In the present appeal, the claimant 

argues that the Commission’s finding that a workplace accident occurred was not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, the circuit court improperly reversed its decision.

¶ 7 Our ability to review the merits of the Commission’s decision in the present case is 

hampered by an incomplete record. The record consists of six volumes. Volumes I and II 

contain the exhibits that were admitted at the first expedited section 19(b) hearing held in 

October 2005, but do not include transcripts of the testimony of any of the witnesses who 

testified at that hearing. Volumes III and IV consist of duplicate copies of the exhibits included 

in volumes I and II. Volumes V and VI contain a third copy of most of the exhibits contained in 

volumes I and II. Volume VI also includes a complete copy of the transcript of the second 

hearing before the arbitrator and the pleadings filed in the circuit court proceedings. 

¶ 8 As noted above, the Commission based its findings on its assessment of the claimant’s 

testimony in light of the medical records. The record before us, however, does not include any 

of the testimony that the Commission considered in making its findings. The initial expedited 

section 19(b) hearing that took place in October 2005 is the only hearing during which 

witnesses testified. However, the record on appeal does not include any transcripts of the 

witnesses’ testimony.

¶ 9 The claimant’s separate appendix that he filed with his brief on appeal purports to include a 

complete record of the October 25, 2005, expedited arbitration hearing, including the 

transcripts of the witnesses’ testimony. In their briefs, both parties have cited the transcripts 

contained in the claimant’s appendix in support of their respective arguments. The parties, 

however, have not filed a stipulation pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 329 to 

supplement the record with the transcripts or otherwise moved to supplement the record on 

appeal with the transcripts. Ill. S. Ct. R. 329 (eff. Jan. 1, 2006). During oral argument, this 

court gave the parties an opportunity to stipulate to the inclusion of the claimant’s appendix in 

the record on appeal, but the parties declined to do so. 

¶ 10 It is well settled that the record on appeal cannot be supplemented by attaching documents 

to a brief or including them in a separate appendix. In re Parentage of Melton, 321 Ill. App. 3d 

823, 826, 748 N.E.2d 291, 294 (2001); McGee v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 315 Ill. 

App. 3d 673, 679, 734 N.E.2d 144, 149-50 (2000); Pikovsky v. 8440-8460 North Skokie 
- 4 - 

Boulevard Condominium Ass’n, 2011 IL App (1st) 103742, ¶ 16, 964 N.E.2d 124 (“a 

reviewing court will not supplement the record on appeal with the documents attached to the 

appellant’s brief on appeal as an appendix, where there is no stipulation between the parties to 

supplement the record and there was no motion in the reviewing court to supplement the record 

with the material”).

¶ 11 The following background information is gleaned from the record on appeal without 

consideration of the transcripts contained within the claimant’s appendix.

¶ 12 The initial expedited section 19(b) hearing took place on October 12, 2005. After the close 

of the proofs and before the arbitrator rendered his decision, the claimant filed a motion to 

reopen the proofs in order to submit a CT myelogram report that was ordered by the 

employer’s independent medical examiner prior to the arbitration. The CT myelogram took 

place on October 4, 2005, and a report of the myelogram was prepared that same day. The 

report, however, was not made available to the claimant until after the close of the proofs. 

¶ 13 On November 29, 2005, the arbitrator denied the claimant’s motion to reopen the proofs 

and rendered his decision finding that the claimant failed to prove that he sustained an 

accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. 

¶ 14 With respect to the central issue of whether the claimant was involved with a workplace 

accident, the arbitrator stated that he considered the claimant’s testimony as well as the 

testimony of the claimant’s cousin, George Farris, who was working with the claimant on the 

day of the alleged accident. The arbitrator also stated that he considered all of the medical 

records and reports submitted by the parties.

¶ 15 The arbitrator’s decision states that on the day of the incident, the claimant was laying rip 

rap rocks on 45-degree slopes underneath a bridge overpass. The rocks weighed as little as 20 

pounds and as much as 300 pounds. The arbitrator noted that the claimant maintained that he 

fell while pulling and moving the rip rap rocks, but no one saw the fall. According to the 

arbitrator, the claimant testified that he landed on his right hip, knee, and shoulder, injuring his 

low back. The arbitrator wrote that the claimant testified that he did not land on his back, but 

admitted that he told an agent of the employer that he landed on his back.

¶ 16 According to the arbitrator, the claimant testified that he crawled up the slope in pain and 

called out for help. After reporting the incident to his foreman, he left work and drove his 

cousin home approximately 35 miles from the jobsite. The claimant’s girlfriend took him to the 

hospital later that evening where he received injections and was sent home. The records from 

the hospital visit are included in the record on appeal. The records state that the claimant 

“threw a rock, lost his footing, twisted & fell.” X-rays of the claimant’s back did not reveal any 

abnormalities.

¶ 17 In discussing the emergency room records, the arbitrator noted that although the claimant 

testified that he fell on the rocky slope, the records from the hospital visit do not note any 

contusion, abrasion, laceration, bruising, or swelling. According to the arbitrator, there was 

“no evidence of any traumatic injury, anywhere on [the claimant’s] body.” The arbitrator 

found that the lack of evidence of any traumatic injury was “unlikely for a person who claims 

to have fallen several feet down a 45-degree slope, landing on his back, hip, knee and shoulder 

on rocky terrain.”

¶ 18 The claimant’s medical records contained within the record on appeal show that he saw his 

family doctor, Dr. Shaina Schiwitz, the following day on April 27, 2005. The arbitrator 
- 5 - 

highlighted Dr. Schiwitz’s handwritten notes of this examination in which the doctor wrote, 

“Severe sudden onset pain & spasm [after] lifting heavy rocks.” The arbitrator found that this 

history was inconsistent with the claimant’s testimony because his testimony at the hearing 

was that his fall precipitated his pain, not lifting the rocks. 

¶ 19 The medical records contained in the record on appeal show that in June 2005 the claimant 

saw a neurologist, Dr. Joshua Warach, who conducted EMG/NCV testing. Again, the 

arbitrator focused on that portion of Dr. Warach’s report in which he described the claimant’s 

history and compared Dr. Warach’s history with the claimant’s testimony. Dr. Warach’s report 

stated that the claimant “was hit by a rolling rock on his right shin, abruptly twisted and fell 

onto the ground, landing on his low back” and that “he has experienced acute onset of severe 

sharp pain in the low back at the time of this injury.” The arbitrator found that this history was 

inconsistent with the claimant’s testimony because the claimant did not testify that he landed 

on his low back. 

¶ 20 The claimant treated with a chiropractor, Dr. Douglas Reese, beginning in June 2005. Dr. 

Reese’s medical records include a history of rip rap rocks rolling down an embankment, hitting 

the claimant’s ankles, and knocking his legs out from under him. The claimant attempted to 

twist to the right so that he could catch himself, and he fell four feet. The arbitrator again found 

that this history was inconsistent with the claimant’s testimony because, at the hearing, the 

claimant testified that he twisted to the left, not the right. 

¶ 21 On September 22, 2005, at the request of the employer, the claimant submitted to an 

independent medical evaluation conducted by Dr. Robert Gordon. Dr. Gordon’s report is 

included in the record on appeal. Dr. Gordon wrote in his report that the claimant gave a 

history that included being “hit in his feet/bilateral lower legs” as a result of two rocks rolling 

down the embankment as he was walking up the embankment carrying a 50-pound rock. When 

the rocks hit his lower extremities, he threw the rock he was carrying “in such a fashion that he 

twisted to his right while he was throwing the rock.” Dr. Gordon reported that the claimant 

“ended up falling on to his right shoulder, right flank, and back in this incident.”

¶ 22 Dr. Gordon opined that if the claimant was telling the truth about the accident, then he 

likely suffered a lumbar strain, superimposed on preexisting degenerative changes. The 

arbitrator noted, however, that Dr. Gordon referenced inconsistencies in the claimant’s 

histories given to various medical providers. The arbitrator also noted that Dr. Gordon 

referenced inconsistencies between the claimant’s claim of bilateral lower extremity radicular 

symptoms and the lack of diagnostic evidence of neural involvement. In his report, Dr. Gordon 

recommended that the claimant return to light duty work, continue with anti-inflammatory 

medication, and obtain the CT myelogram that was the subject matter of the claimant’s motion 

to reopen the proofs. Dr. Gordon explained that the purpose of the CT myelogram was to 

“further assess for nerve root impingement at this time.”

¶ 23 The arbitrator assessed inconsistencies within the claimant’s testimony at the hearing, 

separate and apart from the medical records, as follows: 

“On the one hand, [the claimant] testified that, when he saw the two larger rocks 

rolling down the slope, he responded by turning to the left to get the 75-100 pound rock 

he was holding out of the way. On the other hand, he claimed the two rocks rolled only 

5 or 6 inches before striking him. The Arbitrator finds it highly unlikely that both could 

be true, calling into question [the claimant’s] credibility. If there were no other 

evidence casting doubt on [the claimant’s] credibility, this doubtful testimony might 
- 6 - 

seem insignificant, but taking into consideration the evidence as a whole, it seems 

unlikely [the claimant] is telling the truth.”

¶ 24 Again, as noted above, the record does not include a transcript of the claimant’s testimony.

¶ 25 In further analysis of the claimant’s credibility, the arbitrator found that the inconsistent 

histories that the claimant gave to various medical providers were significant. The arbitrator, 

however, believed that, “by far, the most damaging evidence against [the claimant] was the 

testimony of his own cousin, George Farris.” A transcript of George’s testimony is not 

included in the record.

¶ 26 George worked with the claimant on the day of the accident. According to the arbitrator, at 

the trial, George was asked about a conversation he had with the claimant just prior to the 

unwitnessed accident, and he testified that he could not recall the substance of the 

conversation. George admitted, however, that he gave detailed telephonic statements about the 

conversation to the employer’s insurance adjuster, Sandra Herwig. 

¶ 27 The arbitrator admitted the transcripts of George’s statements to Herwig into evidence, and 

these transcripts are included in the record on appeal. The transcripts indicate that George told 

Herwig that shortly before the accident occurred, the claimant told him that he was going to 

fake an accident. George told Herwig that the claimant had a $23,000 balloon payment coming 

due for his farm and told him that he was going to fall in order to have the employer pay for the 

balloon payment.

¶ 28 According to the arbitrator, at the trial, the claimant denied making these statements to 

George and denied faking the accident. The arbitrator, however, concluded that the statements 

George made to Herwig were more likely true than not because “[George] had no apparent 

motive or incentive to lie, and in fact had a motive to be truthful in disclosing his cousin’s 

attempted fraud; namely, to keep his job.” The arbitrator found that the claimant failed to prove 

that he suffered a compensable accident and denied all of the compensation sought by the 

claimant.

¶ 29 The claimant appealed the arbitrator’s decision to the Commission. The record on appeal 

does not include a copy of the Commission’s decision on appeal, although a copy of the 

decision is included in the claimant’s separate appendix. Other documents that are in the 

record, including a subsequent decision by the Commission, state that on November 13, 2007, 

the Commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator’s decision. The claimant then appealed the 

Commission’s decision to the circuit court.

¶ 30 Again, the record on appeal does not include the circuit court’s order on review. Other 

documents in the record indicate that the circuit court reversed the Commission on January 30, 

2009, and remanded the proceeding to the Commission. Specifically, the Commission’s order 

on remand from the circuit court, which is included in the record on appeal, quoted the circuit 

court’s order as follows:

“1. This matter is remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Commission for further 

proceedings. 

2. On further hearing, the Workers’ Compensation Commission:

 a. Shall not substantively consider any evidence of prior inconsistent statements 

of George Farris, which purportedly relate to statements concerning [the 

claimant’s] intent to stage an accident, but the [employer] may submit the transcript 

of George’s statement for possible impeachment.
- 7 - 

 b. Shall allow the [claimant] to submit into evidence the radiology Reports of 

the MR myelogram performed on October 4, 2005, which were the subject of [the 

claimant’s] Motion to Reopen Proofs.

c. Shall render a decision in the matter consistent with this Order.”1

¶ 31 On March 2, 2010, pursuant to the circuit court’s order, the Commission vacated the 

arbitrator’s previous decision and remanded the matter to the arbitrator for further proceedings 

consistent with the circuit court’s order.

¶ 32 On July 14, 2010, the arbitrator conducted a hearing on remand. The transcript for that 

hearing is included in the record on appeal. At that hearing, the arbitrator admitted the CT 

myelogram report into evidence and admitted the transcript of George’s inconsistent statement 

to Herwig for the limited purpose of impeaching his in-court testimony. The arbitrator did not 

hear testimony from any witnesses on July 14, 2010. 

¶ 33 On August 19, 2010, the arbitrator entered a decision after reconsidering the evidence in 

light of the circuit court’s order. The arbitrator once again found that the claimant failed to 

prove that he was involved in a workplace accident. The arbitrator again emphasized 

inconsistencies in histories that the claimant gave to various medical providers as well as 

inconsistencies within his testimony. The arbitrator noted that his histories were inconsistent 

concerning whether he twisted his back to the left or to the right and whether he did or did not 

land on his back. The arbitrator concluded, “In short, [the claimant’s] testimony as to accident, 

when compared to histories contained in the records, simply did not have the ring of truth to 

it.” The arbitrator concluded that “the credibility of the [claimant was] the key to the 

determination of whether the unwitnessed work accident actually occurred. The 

inconsistencies of the [claimant’s] testimony and the inconsistencies contained within the 

medical records leads to a finding that [the claimant] is not credible.”

¶ 34 With respect to the newly admitted CT myelogram report, the arbitrator concluded that it 

lacked “any probative value on the issue of accident and causation as no opinions have been 

offered to explain differences with early diagnostic test results and the potential worsening of 

[the claimant’s] condition months after the accident in question.”

¶ 35 The claimant appealed the arbitrator’s decision to the Commission, and on June 27, 2011, 

the Commission reversed the arbitrator’s decision, finding that the claimant met his burden of 

proving that he sustained a workplace accident. The Commission found that the “medical 

records, while not precisely echoing [the claimant]’s testimony, in general support a 

work-related accident.” The Commission found it significant that an EMG/NCV performed on 

June 2, 2005, showed evidence of “a right L5, S1 radiculopathy, electrophysiologically 

subacute.” The Commission believed that the newly admitted CT myelogram report was too 

far removed from the accident to show acute postaccident findings, but the report was 

“consistent with the EMG/NCV insofar as it shows foraminal impingement at L5-S1.” The 

Commission awarded the claimant temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses 

and remanded the claim to the arbitrator for further proceedings.

 

1We note that the employer could have challenged the circuit court’s initial reversal of the 

Commission in this appeal, but failed to do so. Pace Bus Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 337 Ill. App. 3d 

1066, 1069, 787 N.E.2d 234, 236-37 (2003). Therefore, the employer has waived any claim that the 

circuit court’s initial reversal order was erroneously entered.
- 8 - 

¶ 36 One commissioner dissented. The dissenting commissioner wrote that she “wholeheartedly 

agree[d] with the Arbitrator’s assessment of [the claimant’s] credibility.” The dissenting 

commissioner noted inconsistencies between the accounts of the accident in the medical 

records and the claimant’s testimony. The dissenting commissioner also believed that the 

presence of a subacute L5-S1 radiculopathy revealed in the June 2, 2005, EMG/NCV did not 

prove an accident occurred on April 26, 2005. The dissent also took issue with the 

Commission’s temporary total disability award.

¶ 37 The employer appealed the Commission’s decision to the circuit court. The employer filed 

its request for summons in the circuit court of Rock Island County. The Rock Island County 

circuit court issued the summonses that were served on the claimant and the Commission. The 

claimant moved to dismiss the review proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 

advanced two arguments in support of his motion: (1) that the employer failed to name the 

Commission as a party in the caption of its request for summons, and (2) that because the 

claimant was a resident of Sangamon County, not Rock Island County, the Rock Island County 

circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. 

¶ 38 The circuit court denied the claimant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the failure to include 

the Commission in the caption of the request for summons was a scrivener’s error. The body of 

the request properly named the Commission as a party in interest. The court further held that 

the proper venue for the proceeding was Sangamon County, not Rock Island County. 

Therefore, the court transferred the case to the circuit court in Sangamon County. 

¶ 39 On August 13, 2013, after reviewing the record and the Commission’s decision, the circuit 

court of Sangamon County entered a docket entry finding “that the decision of the Illinois 

Commission is against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence.” The circuit court wrote that it 

agreed with the dissenting commissioner, that the “ruling of the Commission is reversed,” and 

that the arbitrator’s decision “is to stand.” The claimant now appeals the circuit court’s 

judgment. 

¶ 40 DISCUSSION 

¶ 41 I.

¶ 42 Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Sangamon County 

¶ 43 The first issue the claimant raises on appeal is that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction 

to review the Commission’s decision because (a) the employer’s request for summons did not 

name the Commission as a party in its caption and (b) because the circuit court in Rock Island 

County issued the summonses when it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We disagree with the 

claimant’s analysis and hold that the circuit court had jurisdiction.

¶ 44 a.

¶ 45 Caption of the Employer’s Request for Summons

¶ 46 The claimant correctly asserts that Illinois courts have held that the Administrative Review 

Law (735 ILCS 5/301 et seq. (West 2010)) requires, as a jurisdictional prerequisite, that an 

administrative agency be named in the caption of a complaint for administrative review. Bettis 

v. Marsaglia, 2013 IL App (4th) 130145, ¶ 19, 2 N.E.3d 344. The Administrative Review Law, 

however, does not establish the requirements for invoking a circuit court’s jurisdiction to 

review a decision of the Commission under the Act. “The Act clearly does not adopt the 
- 9 - 

Administrative Review Law.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 324 Ill. App. 3d 

961, 966, 755 N.E.2d 98, 102 (2001). Instead, the jurisdictional requirements are set out in 

section 19(f) of the Act. The interpretation of section 19(f) is a question of law to be reviewed 

de novo. Labuz v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2012 IL App (1st) 113007WC, 

¶ 26, 981 N.E.2d 14. 

¶ 47 “[O]n appeal from a decision of the Commission, the circuit court obtains subject matter 

jurisdiction only if the appellant complies with the statutorily prescribed conditions set forth in 

the Act.” Residential Carpentry, Inc. v. Kennedy, 377 Ill. App. 3d 499, 502, 879 N.E.2d 439, 

442 (2007). Section 19(f) of the Act sets out the procedure for an appellant to file a request for 

summons and states that the circuit court “shall by summons to the Commission have power to 

review all questions of law and fact presented by such record.” 820 ILCS 305/19(f)(1) (West 

2010). 

¶ 48 In the present case, the employer’s request for summons did not include the Commission in 

the caption of the pleading. However, it is undisputed that the employer timely filed the request 

for summons with the circuit court, named the Commission as a party in interest in the body of 

the pleading, and listed its address and its attorney of record in the body of the pleading. The 

request for summons, therefore, complied with section 19(f)(1)’s requirement that the request 

contain the last known address of all parties in interest and their attorneys of record. 820 ILCS 

305/19(f)(1) (West 2010). There is no jurisdictional requirement contained within the language 

of section 19(f) concerning the content of the caption for the request of summons. 

¶ 49 It is further undisputed that the circuit court issued a summons to the Commission and that 

the employer timely served the summons on the Commission by certified mail. In addition, the 

employer filed the bond required by section 19(f)(2) on the same day as the request for 

summons, and it named the Commission as a respondent in the bond’s caption. 820 ILCS 

305/19(f)(2) (West 2010). 

¶ 50 We agree with the circuit court that the employer’s failure to name the Commission in the 

caption of the request for summons was merely a scrivener’s error or clerical error that did not 

deprive the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction because the employer properly named 

the Commission as a party in interest, listed its address and attorney of record in the body of the 

request, and timely served the summons. See, e.g., Shafer v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation 

Comm’n, 2011 IL App (4th) 100505WC, ¶ 31, 976 N.E.2d 1 (“The claimant has cited no case 

(nor have we found any) suggesting that a clerical error in a timely and otherwise properly 

drafted petition for review strips the Commission of jurisdiction to hear the petition, 

particularly where, as here, the petition adequately notifies the opposing party and the 

Commission regarding which case is being appealed.”).

¶ 51 The employer in the present case complied with all of the substantive requirements of 

section 19(f), and the clerical error in the caption of its request for summons did not deprive the 

circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Chambers v. Industrial Comm’n, 213 Ill. App. 

3d 1, 5, 571 N.E.2d 1001, 1004 (1991) (the claimant’s “written request for summons 

substantially complied with the requirements of section 19(f)(1)”); Forest Preserve District v. 

Industrial Comm’n, 305 Ill. App. 3d 657, 662, 712 N.E.2d 856, 859 (1999) (employer’s failure 

to include workers’ compensation claimant’s last known address in a request to issue summons 

did not deprive the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction). 
- 10 - 

¶ 52 b. 

¶ 53 Subject Matter Jurisdiction/Venue 

¶ 54 Next, the claimant argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review the 

Commission’s decision because the employer initially filed the request for summons in a 

county lacking subject matter jurisdiction. The employer filed the request for summons in the 

circuit court of Rock Island County. The claimant argued that the Rock Island County circuit 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because, at the time the employer filed the proceeding, 

the claimant resided in Sangamon County and had never worked in Rock Island County. The 

claimant moved to dismiss the review proceeding, but the Rock Island County circuit court 

transferred the case to Sangamon County instead of dismissing the case. The circuit court ruled 

correctly in transferring the case to Sangamon County. 

¶ 55 Section 19(f) of the Act provides as follows: “[T]he Circuit Court of the county where any 

of the parties defendant may be found, or if none of the parties defendant can be found in this 

state then the Circuit Court of the county where the accident occurred, shall by summons to the 

Commission have power to review all questions of law and fact presented by such record.” 820 

ILCS 305/19(f)(1) (West 2010). 

¶ 56 Rock Island County was not the county where the claimant could be found because he 

resided in Sangamon County. Therefore, we agree with the claimant that the employer should 

have filed the request for summons in the circuit court in Sangamon County. However, we 

believe that the circuit court properly transferred the case to Sangamon County. 

¶ 57 In Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 293 Ill. 62, 67, 127 N.E. 80, 81 

(1920), the court noted that the Act provided for a review of a decision of the Commission in 

“[t]he circuit court of the county where any of the parties defendant may be found.” (Internal 

quotation marks omitted.) The employer in that case sought a review of the Commission’s 

decision in the circuit court of Coles County. Id. at 64, 127 N.E. at 80. The supreme court held 

that, under the facts of that case, the only court that had jurisdiction was the circuit court of 

Champaign County and that the circuit court of Coles County did not have subject matter 

jurisdiction. Id. at 67-68, 127 N.E. at 82. 

¶ 58 The supreme court, however, quoted section 1 of “An Act in relation to the practice in the 

courts of record in this State” (Venue Act) as follows: “ ‘wherever any suit or proceeding shall 

hereafter be commenced, in any court of record of this State, and it shall appear to the court 

where the same is pending that the same has been commenced in the wrong court or county, 

*** the court shall change the venue of such suit or proceeding to the proper court or county.’ ” 

Id. at 68, 127 N.E. at 82 (quoting Ill. Rev. Stat. 1917, ch. 146, ¶ 36). The supreme court 

concluded that the legislature intended for the Venue Act to grant circuit courts the power to 

change the venue of each suit or proceeding to the proper court or county, including “those 

cases begun in courts not having jurisdiction of the subject matter.” Id. at 68-69, 127 N.E. at 

82. The supreme court, therefore, held that the circuit court in Coles County could not enter 

any orders affecting the rights of the parties under the Commission’s award, but that the Venue 

Act empowered the court to “transfer the cause to the proper county, which in this case was 

Champaign county.” Id. at 69, 127 N.E. at 82. The court concluded that the circuit court in 

Coles County properly transferred the proceedings to the circuit court of Champaign County. 

Id. at 69-70, 127 N.E. at 82. 

¶ 59 Subsequent to the Central Illinois Public Service Co. decision, in 1955, the legislature 

repealed the Venue Act. Ferndale Heights Utility Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 112 Ill. 
- 11 - 

App. 3d 175, 179, 445 N.E.2d 334, 338 (1982). The legislature replaced the Venue Act with 

section 10(2) of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, ch. 110, ¶ 10(2)), which expressly 

codified the concepts of venue and jurisdiction that were outlined by the supreme court in 

Central Illinois Public Service Co. Ferndale Heights Utility Co., 112 Ill. App. 3d at 179, 445 

N.E.2d at 338. The legislature subsequently eliminated the language of section 10(2) of the 

Civil Practice Act in 1976 (Pub. Act 79-1366, § 16 (eff. Aug. 6, 1976)), but this “deletion was 

not intended to change the substantive law but was merely a recognition of the fact that the 

courts of our State are now uniformly courts of general jurisdiction.” Ferndale Heights Utility 

Co., 112 Ill. App. 3d at 179-80, 445 N.E.2d at 338. 

¶ 60 Currently, section 2-619(a)(1) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure provides for the 

dismissal of a cause of action for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but only if “the defect 

cannot be removed by a transfer of the case to a court having jurisdiction.” 735 ILCS 

5/2-619(a)(1) (West 2010). Section 2-104 of the Code of Civil Procedure also provides that no 

action shall “be dismissed because commenced in the wrong venue if there is a proper venue to 

which the cause may be transferred” and provides the procedure for filing a motion to transfer 

venue. 735 ILCS 5/2-104(a) (West 2010). 

¶ 61 Although the Code of Civil Procedure generally does not apply to workers’ compensation 

proceedings, “where the Act or Commission rules do not regulate a topic, civil provisions have 

been applied to workers’ compensation actions.” Illinois Institute of Technology Research 

Institute v. Industrial Comm’n, 314 Ill. App. 3d 149, 154, 731 N.E.2d 795, 800 (2000). See also 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 324 Ill. App. 3d at 965, 755 N.E.2d at 101 (applying section 2-619(a)(1) 

of the Code of Civil Procedure for the dismissal of a judicial review action that lacked 

jurisdiction). 

¶ 62 Accordingly, we believe that the supreme court’s holding in Central Illinois Public Service 

Co. is still applicable under the current statutory scheme of the Act. When a workers’ 

compensation appeal is mistakenly filed in the wrong county, nothing in section 19(f) of the 

Act prohibits a circuit court from transferring the case to the proper county. Therefore, we hold 

that the circuit court of Rock Island County correctly transferred the employer’s appeal to the 

circuit court of Sangamon County rather than dismissing the employer’s appeal for a lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

¶ 63 The claimant’s argument that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction has no merit.

¶ 64 II. 

¶ 65 The Commission’s Finding That a Compensable Accident Occurred 

¶ 66 Having determined that the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider the employer’s appeal,

we next turn to the claimant’s argument that the circuit court improperly reversed the 

Commission’s finding that a compensable accident occurred. As noted above, the Commission 

found in favor of the claimant on the central, disputed issue of fact of whether a compensable 

accident occurred and based its decision largely on its assessment of the claimant’s credibility.

¶ 67 Initially, we note that the employer argues that the arbitrator was in the best position to 

determine the claimant’s credibility. This is not the law. The Commission is the finder of fact, 

and it is the Commission that we owe deference on factual issues. Edward Gray Corp. v. 

Industrial Comm’n, 316 Ill. App. 3d 1217, 1222, 738 N.E.2d 139, 143 (2000). “[O]ur supreme 

court has consistently held that when the Commission reviews an arbitrator’s decision, it 
- 12 - 

exercises original, not appellate, jurisdiction and that the Commission is not bound by the 

arbitrator’s findings.” Hosteny v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 397 Ill. App. 3d 

665, 675, 928 N.E.2d 474, 483 (2009). Accordingly, we reject the employer’s request that we 

give deference to the arbitrator’s decision, rather than the Commission’s decision.

¶ 68 Whether the claimant suffered from a compensable accident is a question of fact to be 

determined by the Commission. National Freight Industries v. Illinois Workers’ 

Compensation Comm’n, 2013 IL App (5th) 120043WC, ¶ 26, 993 N.E.2d 473. The 

Commission’s findings with respect to factual issues are reviewed under the manifest weight 

of the evidence standard. Tower Automotive v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 407 

Ill. App. 3d 427, 434, 943 N.E.2d 153, 160 (2011). “For a finding of fact to be against the 

manifest weight of the evidence, an opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent from the 

record on appeal.” City of Springfield v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 388 Ill. 

App. 3d 297, 315, 901 N.E.2d 1066, 1081 (2009). 

¶ 69 In the present case, there were no witnesses to the accident. Therefore, the claimant was the 

only witness who testified that the accident occurred. In assessing the claimant’s credibility, 

the Commission commented on inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony, but believed that 

they were insignificant, finding that “[t]he medical records, while not precisely echoing [the 

claimant’s] testimony, in general support a work-related accident.” One commissioner 

dissented because she “wholeheartedly agree[d] with the Arbitrator’s assessment of [the 

claimant’s] credibility.” The circuit court, in turn, reversed the Commission’s decision 

because, the court noted, it agreed with the dissenting commissioner. Assessment of the 

claimant’s credibility was the common lynchpin of the different decisions of the arbitrator, the 

majority of commissioners, the dissenting commissioner, and the circuit court. 

¶ 70 In the present appeal, we are faced with the task of reviewing the Commission’s decision 

based on the manifest weight of the evidence standard, but the record on appeal does not 

contain the most crucial evidence that the Commission considered in reaching its decision, i.e., 

the claimant’s testimony.

¶ 71 In the present appeal, the claimant is the appellant, and it is the appellant’s duty to provide 

the reviewing court with a sufficiently complete record. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 

391, 459 N.E.2d 958, 959 (1984). Because the appellant has the duty to provide a complete 

record, a reviewing court will usually resolve any doubts caused by an incomplete record 

against the appellant. Id. at 392, 459 N.E.2d at 959. 

¶ 72 However, when a party appeals to the appellate court following the entry of a judgment of 

the circuit court in a workers’ compensation proceeding, it is the decision of the Commission, 

not the judgment of the circuit court, which is under consideration. Travelers Insurance v. 

Precision Cabinets, Inc., 2012 IL App (2d) 110258WC, ¶ 33, 967 N.E.2d 856 (“In a workers’ 

compensation proceeding, the Commission, an administrative agency, is the ultimate 

decision-maker” and the appellate court “reviews the decision of the Commission, not the 

decision of the circuit court.”). Therefore, our deference is afforded the Commission’s 

decision, not the circuit court’s or the arbitrator’s decisions, and our review of the 

Commission’s factual findings is “extremely deferential.” Dodaro v. Illinois Workers’ 

Compensation Comm’n, 403 Ill. App. 3d 538, 544, 950 N.E.2d 256, 261 (2010). Accordingly, 

in an appeal from the circuit court in a workers’ compensation proceeding, a reviewing court 

will resolve any doubts caused by an incomplete record in favor of the findings made by the 

Commission. 
- 13 - 

¶ 73 In Foutch, the supreme court explained that “in the absence of [a complete] record on 

appeal, it will be presumed that the order entered by the trial court was in conformity with law 

and had a sufficient factual basis.” Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 392, 459 N.E.2d at 959. Extending this 

concept to our review in the present case, because it is the decision of the Commission that is 

under consideration, the lack of a complete record requires us to presume that the 

Commission’s decision was in conformity with law and had a sufficient factual basis, not the 

circuit court’s decision. The employer initially appealed the Commission’s decision to the 

circuit court to challenge the Commission’s factual finding with respect to whether a 

compensable accident occurred and, in the present appeal, continues to argue that the 

Commission’s factual findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence.2

¶ 74 “An issue relating to a circuit court’s factual findings and basis for its legal conclusions 

obviously cannot be reviewed absent a report or record of the proceeding.” Corral v. Mervis 

Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144, 156, 839 N.E.2d 524, 532 (2005). The same is true with 

respect to factual findings made by the Commission. In the present case, the record does not 

include the testimony of the claimant. We must presume, therefore, that the Commission 

properly assessed the claimant’s credibility and considered his testimony along with other 

competent evidence in finding that a compensable accident occurred. Webster v. Hartman, 195 

Ill. 2d 426, 433-34, 749 N.E.2d 958, 963 (2001) (Because of an incomplete record, the 

supreme court “presume[d] that the trial court heard adequate evidence to support its decision 

and that its order granting defendant’s motion to enforce settlement was in conformity with the 

law.”). Without a transcript of the claimant’s testimony, we cannot conclude that the 

Commission’s findings based on his testimony were against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. Accordingly, we must affirm the Commission’s decision and reverse the circuit 

court’s judgment.

¶ 75 CONCLUSION 

¶ 76 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court, reinstate the 

Commission’s decision, and remand the claim for further proceedings pursuant to Thomas v. 

Industrial Comm’n, 78 Ill. 2d 327, 399 N.E.2d 1322 (1980). 

¶ 77 Circuit court reversed; Commission’s decision reinstated; cause remanded.

 

2

In his brief, the claimant argues that we should reverse the circuit court because it did not have an 

adequate record before it to review the Commission’s decision. As noted above, however, our task is to 

review the Commission’s decision based on the record on appeal under the manifest weight of the 

evidence standard, not the circuit court’s decision. Nonetheless, it is worthy of note that it was the 

employer that initially allowed the filing of an incomplete record upon review before the circuit court, 

which has also resulted in this court having an incomplete record. In addition, we are at a loss to 

understand how the circuit court could have found that the Commission’s decision was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence, based on a determination that the claimant was not credible, after 

reviewing a record that does not include the claimant’s testimony.