Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

Mytnik v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2016 IL App (1st) 152116WC

Appellate Court 

Caption

MARK MYTNIK, Appellant, v, THE ILLINOIS WORKERS’ 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Ford Motor Company, 

Appellees).

District & No. First District, Workers’ Compensation Commission Division

Docket No. 1-15-2116WC

Filed November 10, 2016

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 14-L-50836; the 

Hon. Carl Anthony Walker, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Judgment reversed, and arbitrator’s decision reinstated.

Counsel on

Appeal

James S. Hamman, of Newman, Boyer & Statham, Ltd., of Tinley 

Park, for appellant.

Julie M. Tenuto and Timothy S. McNally, of Wiedner & McAuliffe, 

Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee.

Panel JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justices Hoffman, Hudson, and 

Stewart concurred in the judgment and opinion. 
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 On June 23, 2009, claimant, Mark Mytnik, filed an application for adjustment of claim 

pursuant to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 to 30 (West 

2008)), seeking benefits from the employer, Ford Motor Company, for injury to his back 

caused by “[e]xcessive twisting and bending on job.” Following a hearing, the arbitrator found 

claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded him benefits under the Act. On review, 

the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) reversed the decision of the 

arbitrator, finding that claimant failed to establish his injury arose out of and in the course of 

his employment. On judicial review, the circuit court confirmed the Commission’s decision. 

This appeal followed. 

¶ 2 On appeal, claimant challenges the Commission’s finding that he failed to prove an 

accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. We reverse the circuit court’s 

judgment confirming the Commission’s decision, reverse the Commission’s decision, and 

reinstate the decision of the arbitrator. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 4 The following evidence was elicited at the February 25, 2013, arbitration hearing. 

¶ 5 Claimant testified that he had worked for the employer on the assembly line since October 

1994. On May 21, 2009, he was working the “moon buggy” job, which involved installing rear 

suspensions on vehicles as they moved along the assembly line. The moon buggy job required 

the employee to stand on a platform that moved in a circular fashion, step on a foot pedal to 

raise the rear suspension up to the vehicle, reach back and grab an articulating arm, load the 

articulating arm with two bolts, and then raise the articulating arm up to the vehicle and press a 

button on the arm that secured the rear suspension with bolts. According to claimant, the moon 

buggy job required him to twist and turn to grab equipment like bolts and brackets and to reach 

behind him to grab the articulating arm. Claimant stated that sometimes the bolts would fall out 

of the articulating arm and had to be retrieved quickly to avoid the rotating platform from 

running over the bolts and jamming, which would result in the assembly line shutting down. 

When a bolt fell, claimant would have to “run down there, bend over, reach and *** pick it up 

before the [rotating platform] runs it over.” According to claimant, if the assembly line 

stopped, “you would usually get reamed out by the supervisor.” 

¶ 6 Claimant testified the moon buggy job allowed approximately 48 to 52 seconds to install 

the rear suspension on one vehicle before the assembly line moved. He estimated that he 

installed rear suspensions on approximately 62 vehicles per hour. In addition, he had to lift 

approximately 20 to 25 boxes of parts per day that weighed “anywhere from 30lbs, a lot 

heavier if you’re doubling them up, 70 pounds per box.” Claimant worked on the assembly line 

5 days per week, approximately 10 hours per day with two breaks. 

¶ 7 Claimant further testified that he started his workday at 6 a.m. on May 21, 2009. At 

approximately 10 a.m., he “noticed [his] back was starting to bother [him].” Claimant 

explained that he had sustained a prior back injury at the employer’s plant in 2002 or 2003. He 

continued to do his job that morning, but later, as he was reaching down to grab a bolt that had 

fallen on the assembly line, he felt “a real sharp, almost like needle pains down [his] right side, 

[he] knew something *** was just out of the ordinary.” Within 10 to 15 minutes of this, 
- 3 - 

claimant flagged down his supervisor, Zack Bozanic, and informed him that his back was 

hurting. After Bozanic found someone to take over claimant’s job, he sent claimant to the 

employer’s medical department. Claimant testified that once at the medical department, he 

reported sharp pains down the right side of his leg and that his back was bothering him. As he 

was sitting on a table, he noticed his leg started getting “a little numb.” The report from the 

medical department indicated claimant was seen at 12:17 p.m. and lists the time of onset of 

pain as 8:30 a.m. The report noted that claimant was “working on the moon buggy and [his 

right] leg stays on the foot paddle and as the moon buggy moves it twists [his] body and now 

[he] has [pain] in [his right] hip.” In addition, claimant complained of “low back [pain] 

radiating down the right hip and back of upper leg.” Claimant was diagnosed with a sprain and 

strain of his lumbar spine and pelvis. He was given ibuprofen and returned to work. Later that 

day, claimant filled out an accident report, in which he stated: “moonbuggy move[s] and you 

have your [right] leg on foot [pedal,] your [left] leg does not move so your body [turns.] I [felt] 

it when I was picking up bolts off the floor. Twisting of body felt pain in [right] hip and leg.” 

¶ 8 Claimant testified that he finished his shift, but when he woke up the next day, he was “in 

excruciating pain.” He returned to work on May 26, 2009, and reported he was unable to bend, 

twist, or stand. Claimant was sent back to the employer’s medical department, and from there, 

he was sent to Ingalls Urgent Care (Urgent Care). Medical reports from Urgent Care indicated 

that claimant noted “NO SPECIFIC TRAUMA,” but reported “that he was using a foot pedal 

repetitively with his right foot and twisting and turning when he began with right lower back 

pain that radiated down the posterior lateral aspect of his right thigh to his right foot.” A 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of claimant’s lumbar spine was performed that day 

and compared with a previous MRI dated December 3, 2003. The new MRI revealed a broad 

posterocentral and right paracentral disc herniation at L4-L5 that was not present on the 2003 

MRI and a preexisting broad posterocentral disc herniation at L5-S1. 

¶ 9 Claimant testified that he returned to work the following day and reported directly to the 

medical department. According to claimant, he stayed in the medical department for 

approximately six hours. At one point, Michelle Gregory, the employer’s workers’ 

compensation administrator, spoke with him. Claimant stated that he told her his back “was 

bothering [him],” “there [was] twisting involved, picking up of stock,” and when he “pick[ed] 

up that bolt[, he] felt that sharp pain.” Claimant testified that Gregory returned a few hours 

later and told him “there [was] no way [he] could have got hurt on this job” and that he needed 

to find his own physician. The report from the medical department stated that, upon 

observation of the moon buggy job, “[t]here [was] no bending, twisting or heavy lifting 

involved” and “[t]he case is denied as occupational after the above observation.” 

¶ 10 On May 27, 2009, claimant saw his primary care physician, Dr. William Luebbe, for his 

back pain. Dr. Luebbe referred him to Dr. Mark Chang for a surgical consultation. 

¶ 11 Claimant first saw Dr. Mark Chang at Midwest SpineCare on June 4, 2009. In a letter 

addressed to Dr. Luebbe of the same date, Dr. Chang indicated claimant had reported pain in 

his low back radiating down his right leg, which began two weeks prior after a work-related 

accident “when he was picking up some bolts while working on an assembly line.” Dr. Chang 

also noted claimant had a history of low back pain in 2003, but had completed physical therapy 

and had experienced no further back problems prior to the recent injury. Dr. Chang diagnosed 

claimant with an “[a]cute right L5 radiculopathy secondary to a new L4-5 disc herniation 
- 4 - 

causing significant nerve impingement, [and an] old L5-S1 disc herniation not causing 

radiculopathy.” He recommended physical therapy and epidural injections for pain. 

¶ 12 On June 8, 2009, claimant first saw Dr. Rajive Adlaka for management of his pain. At that 

time, Dr. Adlaka noted claimant presented with complaints of low back pain with right 

side-dominant radiculopathy, which began after he “ben[t] down to pick something up.” On 

June 9 and June 30, 2009, Dr. Adlaka administered epidural steroid injections. 

¶ 13 On June 16, 2009, claimant presented for an initial physical therapy evaluation at 

Accelerated Rehabilitation Centers. The office report from that date indicated claimant 

reported, “he was lifting and pulling equipment at work [on May 21, 2009, when] he started 

feeling a sharp pain in his [right] hip and [right] leg. *** [T]he following weekend, [he] started 

experiencing more pain on the quadrates lumborum and his [right] buttock.”

¶ 14 On July 20, 2009, claimant saw Dr. Edward Goldberg for a second opinion. On that date, 

Dr. Goldberg indicated that claimant reported developing right leg radicular pain on May 21, 

2009. Dr. Goldberg’s records note that “[claimant] was working on the line at Ford Motor 

Company. He twisted an arm of a machine and developed acute low back and right leg 

radicular pain. *** [I]t became progressively severe over the weekend. He could not move.” 

Dr. Goldberg’s records were later corrected to state claimant “twisted his waist to reach back 

for the arm of a machine he uses to complete his job; then he developed acute low back right 

leg radicular pain.” Dr. Goldberg reviewed an MRI of claimant’s spine and diagnosed a disc 

herniation at L4-5 and a small herniation or annular bulging at L5-S1. Dr. Goldberg felt that 

claimant’s pain was caused by the herniated disc at L4-5, and he recommended a 

microdiscectomy at L4-5. He also noted it would be reasonable to perform a hemilaminotomy 

at L5-S1. Dr. Goldberg performed these procedures on August 4, 2009. Claimant continued to 

treat with Dr. Goldberg postoperatively. On February 1, 2010, Dr. Goldberg found claimant 

had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and released him to return on March 1, 

2010, with a permanent restriction of lifting no more than 25 pounds. 

¶ 15 Claimant returned to work on March 1, 2010. However, by March 2, 2010, claimant 

testified he “ended up hurting [him]self again” and, thereafter, he was unable to work due to 

pain and an inability to stand, twist, or bend for very long. 

¶ 16 On March 8, 2010, claimant saw Dr. Martin Luken, a board-certified neurologist. At his 

deposition, Dr. Luken testified that claimant reported having developed right-sided low back 

pain and sciatica while at work in May 2009 “as he engaged in his usual routine involving 

repetitive bending and light lifting while attending to automobiles passing him on the assembly 

line.” Dr. Luken testified that claimant continued to have pain in his right buttock and leg, 

which persisted in spite of postoperative physical therapy. He further noted that claimant had 

suffered a work-related low back injury “a decade or more earlier,” but that it had responded 

well to conservative treatment. Following a physical examination and a review of prior 

medical records, Dr. Luken diagnosed claimant with “persisting mechanical back pain and 

right lumbar radiculopathy status post lumbar discectomy and foraminotomy for a 

work-related disc herniation.” Dr. Luken prescribed pain medication and physical therapy, and 

suggested a functional capacity evaluation. Dr. Luken felt claimant could return to work at that 

time in a sedentary capacity involving no bending, stooping, twisting, or lifting more than 10 

pounds. 

¶ 17 Dr. Luken reviewed a video of claimant’s job, but based on information provided by 

claimant, he did not feel the video accurately portrayed claimant’s job duties. For example, Dr. 
- 5 - 

Luken testified that, based on information provided to him by claimant, he understood 

claimant’s “usual work routine involved a repetitive bending and light lifting [as well as] 

holding a pedal down with one foot while reaching behind him to grasp and deal with a power 

tool of some sort.” Dr. Luken continued, “[claimant] had to keep one foot planted on a pedal 

while twisting to retrieve this instrument that deal[s] with each passing car.” According to Dr. 

Luken, the activities described by claimant were not portrayed in the video. Based on the 

history provided by claimant, Dr. Luken opined, “the repetitive mechanical stresses which 

[claimant’s] work likely brought to bear to his lower back, in my opinion, very plausibly 

accounted for lower lumbar injury and either precipitation or exacerbation of the demonstrated 

disc herniation which we believe was responsible for [the] symptoms [claimant] reported as 

having developed in the course of his work” in May 2009. Dr. Luken last saw claimant on May 

17, 2010, at which time he continued to be of the opinion that claimant could return to 

light-duty work while waiting for a functional capacity evaluation. 

¶ 18 On June 2, 2010, claimant saw Dr. Jesse Butler, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, at the 

request of the employer. At his deposition, Dr. Butler testified that claimant provided a history 

of being an assembly line worker who, “during the course of his occupation, *** has to pick up 

stock for assembly and place bolts on an articulating computer arm.” In addition, “he’s 

required to push a foot pedal during the course of this assembly operation, and that there’s a 

twisting motion involved in completing this job assignment. He states he injured his back.” Dr. 

Butler acknowledged that claimant underwent a microdiscetomy surgery in August 2009,

which improved his overall pain. However, Dr. Butler testified that as of June 2, 2010, 

defendant continued to complain of having low back pain “between a 5 and 6 out of 10” with 

minimal activity, as well has numbness in his right calf into the foot, with occasional buckling 

of the right leg. 

¶ 19 In addition to conducting a physical examination, Dr. Butler also reviewed claimant’s 

medical records and a video of the moon buggy job. At the time of Dr. Butler’s examination of 

claimant, claimant had already undergone a microdiscectomy and completed several months of 

postoperative physical therapy. Dr. Butler reviewed claimant’s May 2009 and December 2003 

MRIs. He noted that the May 2009 MRI revealed a disk herniation at L4-5, which was not 

present on the December 2003 MRI, as well as a disk herniation at L5-S1, which was present in 

the December 2003 MRI. Dr. Butler opined that claimant had reached MMI as he had 

undergone surgery, completed “an appropriate amount of therapy,” and was able to work based 

on “the physical therapist’s determination of his functional capacities.” According to Dr. 

Butler, the degenerative changes noticeable on the MRI “most likely, preceded the accident,” 

but “it’s difficult to know when [the disk herniation] may have occurred.” Further, Dr. Butler 

testified that people with degenerative changes in the spine may become symptomatic by 

merely bending over or lifting something. 

¶ 20 Regarding the video, Dr. Butler testified the moon buggy job did not appear to involve 

“any twisting movement during this assembly operation, and the pace with which the bolts 

were drilled seemed to be at a very comfortable pace for someone doing this job.” Dr. Butler 

testified the activities depicted in the video were not sufficient to cause claimant’s injury 

because “[t]here’s really no loading of the spine, *** no occupational exposure, if you will, 

when you look at that job video.” In his opinion, claimant had reached MMI and could perform 

the activities he had viewed in the video. 
- 6 - 

¶ 21 On cross-examination, Dr. Butler testified it was a possible that a herniated disc could 

result from bending over to pick up a bolt by someone with degenerative changes to their 

spine. 

¶ 22 On June 1, 2011, claimant saw Dr. Andrew Zelby, a board-certified neurosurgeon, at the 

request of the employer. In addition to conducting a physical examination of claimant, Dr. 

Zelby also reviewed claimant’s medical records. Dr. Zelby testified that claimant told him he 

was performing his regular job duties on May 21, 2009, and “did not have any specific event or 

injury but felt pain in the low back radiating into the right buttock and down the right leg.” 

Claimant “notice[d] that when he bent to pick up a bolt the pain seemed sharper for a couple of 

seconds.” Following his examination of claimant, Dr. Zelby was of the opinion that, other than 

self-directed stretching and core-strengthening exercise, claimant needed no further treatment 

and could return to work in the medium-physical-demand level without any increased risk for 

injury. 

¶ 23 On June 26, 2011, claimant saw Dr. Michael Treister, an orthopedic surgeon, on his own 

accord. At his deposition, Dr. Treister testified that, in addition to performing a physical 

examination of claimant and obtaining x-rays of his lumbar spine, he also reviewed claimant’s 

medical records, including those from Dr. Luken, Dr. Chang, Dr. Adlaka, Dr. Luebbe, Dr. 

Butler, and Dr. Goldberg; the depositions of Dr. Butler and Dr. Luken; and a report issued by 

Dr. Zelby. Dr. Treister stated that at the time of the examination, claimant reported he was 

injured while working on an assembly line. According to Dr. Treister, claimant explained that 

his job required him to step on a pedal with one foot while simultaneously reaching back to 

pull the articulating arm forward to secure the suspension with two bolts. Claimant told him 

that sometimes a bolt would fall and he would have to retrieve it quickly. He also had to pick 

up boxes of bolts, sometimes two at a time, weighing 20 to 30 pounds, so that he was 

frequently lifting and twisting with 40 to 60 pounds. Dr. Treister continued, claimant told him, 

“on the day that he was injured, he began to have sharp low back pains, not while he was 

standing on the job, but while he was eating lunch. Pain began in the center of his *** right 

lower back and radiated down into his right buttock and then into the right posterior leg.” After 

he reported to the employer’s medical clinic, he returned to his job and his pain increased 

throughout the day as he worked, and throughout the following days. Following his 

examination of claimant, Dr. Treister diagnosed failed back syndrome and opined that 

claimant’s condition was causally related to a May 21, 2009, work accident. Dr. Treister based 

his causation opinion on the fact that claimant had preexisting degenerative disc disease, which 

put him at risk of herniation, and that he then had a sudden onset of pain while working. In Dr. 

Treister’s opinion, it did not matter how the injury came to be, whether from twisting, lifting, 

or bending, because in any case, the injury was related to one of his job activities. 

¶ 24 Terrance Purdy testified that he had worked for the employer for 191⁄2 years and, most 

recently, had been working “general utility,” which required him to be able to perform all of 

the jobs in the area. Purdy stated that he had worked the moon buggy job on and off for three or 

four years, but he had been consistently working the moon buggy job since claimant was 

injured. According to Purdy, the job requires twisting, bending, reaching, and lifting between 

20 to 30 boxes of bolts per day. He further testified that sometimes a bolt will fall and when it 

does, it must be retrieved before the moving platform runs over it in order to prevent the 

assembly line from shutting down. In Purdy’s experience, a bolt would fall twice per hour. 
- 7 - 

¶ 25 Hugh Ferguson III testified on behalf of the employer. He had worked for the employer for 

44 years, most recently as the government regulation coordinator. Furguson stated he also 

takes videos of certain jobs within the assembly plant when requested by the employer. While 

he never knows the purpose of the videos, the workers’ compensation department shows him 

exactly what to record. According to him, the employer asked him to take a video of the moon 

buggy job in this case, which he did during normal business hours. Prior to taking the video, he 

was not provided with a description of the job, given any information pertaining to the 

employee depicted on the video, or told how long to record for. 

¶ 26 Claimant testified that the video did not accurately depict the moon buggy job. According 

to claimant, the line was not going nearly as fast as it should have been, and the video showed 

the line actually stopping. Further, he stated the person depicted in the video was not putting 

nearly the number of parts on the vehicle as claimant did when he performed the job. (We note 

that the video was not included in the record.) 

¶ 27 Zachary Bozanic, testified last on behalf of the employer. He had worked for the employer 

for 19 years, most recently as a senior process coach. In May of 2009, he was a production 

supervisor who supervised the moon buggy job. Bozanic described the moon buggy job as a 

preferred job because it is less complex and physically demanding than other jobs. He agreed 

that if a bolt dropped in the middle of the track, it would stop the moon buggy and stall the line. 

¶ 28 Claimant testified at arbitration that he continued to have pain in his lower back area, down 

the hip area, and into the leg. In addition, his right knee sometimes buckled. Claimant stated 

that Dr. Luken had recommended a fusion surgery, but claimant testified he did not want to 

undergo another surgery at that time. 

¶ 29 On June 13, 2013, the arbitrator issued his decision in the matter. He found that claimant 

sustained an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment and that claimant’s 

current condition of ill-being in his back was causally related to the work accident. The 

arbitrator found the employer liable for claimant’s medical expenses and awarded him 791/7

weeks temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and permanent partial disability (PPD) 

benefits to the extent of 25% of the person as a whole. 

¶ 30 On October 7, 2014, the Commission unanimously reversed the decision of the arbitrator, 

finding that claimant failed to prove an injury arising out of and in the course of his 

employment. Prior to stating it reasons, the Commission noted as follows: 

“So that the record is clear, and there is no mistake as to the intentions or actions of this 

Commission, we have considered the record in its entirety. We have reviewed the facts 

of the matter, both from a legal and a medical/legal perspective. We have considered all 

of the testimony, exhibits, pleadings and arguments submitted by [claimant] and the 

[employer]. And after a complete review of the record, the Commission finds that 

[claimant’s] varied and inconsistent histories of the May 21, 2009[,] incident 

undermine his claim that he suffered accidental injuries arising out of and in the course 

of his employment with [the employer] on May 21, 2009.” 

The Commission then recounted all of the histories claimant had provided to the various 

medical providers and noted, 

“despite all of the histories provided by [claimant] through this treatment, [he] testified 

at hearing that his low back pain with radiation down the right lower extremity started 

when he reached down to retrieve a bolt that had fallen to the floor. [Claimant] chose to 
- 8 - 

proceed to trial with this history. Accepting [claimant’s] chosen history of the accident, 

despite the multiple accounts he had provided, the Commission finds that [claimant] 

failed to prove that he suffered [a compensable injury].” 

While the Commission acknowledged that claimant’s May 2009 MRI revealed a herniation at 

L4-L5 that was not present on the December 2003 MRI, it found that claimant’s “degenerative 

lumbar discs gave way with the simple act of bending forward,” demonstrating that his 

“lumbar condition was so deteriorated that any activity of normal life was sufficient to cause 

[his] spine to break down further.” The Commission also found that claimant’s act of bending 

down to retrieve a bolt did not expose him to a greater risk of injury than the general public. 

¶ 31 On June 24, 2014, the circuit court of Cook County confirmed the Commission’s decision.

¶ 32 This appeal followed. 

¶ 33 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 34 On appeal, claimant challenges the Commission’s finding that he failed to prove an 

accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. In contrast, the employer 

maintains that the Commission properly denied compensation for three different reasons, each 

of which it claims was sufficient on its own to support the decision. 

¶ 35 Initially, the employer contends that the Commission found claimant failed to establish a 

work accident based on his inconsistent histories of the incident. However, we must reject the 

employer’s suggestion that the Commission rejected the claim on this basis. Although the 

Commission stated, claimant’s “varied and inconsistent histories of the May 21, 2009[,] 

incident undermine his claim that he suffered accidental injuries arising out of and in the 

course of his employment,” it did not deny claimant compensation on that basis. (Emphasis 

added.) Rather, the Commission continued its analysis and ultimately denied the claim after 

finding (1) claimant “was not engaged in an activity which presented a greater risk of injury to 

him than to the general public” and (2) claimant had a preexisting lumbar condition that “was 

so deteriorated that any activity of normal life was sufficient to cause [his] spine to break down 

further.” Accordingly, we focus our analysis on the two bases determined by the Commission 

to be dispositive. 

¶ 36 The purpose of the Act is to protect employees against risks and hazards that are peculiar to 

the nature of the work they are employed to do. Orsini v. Industrial Comm’n, 117 Ill. 2d 38, 44, 

509 N.E.2d 1005, 1008 (1987). “To obtain compensation under the Act, a claimant bears the 

burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has suffered a disabling injury 

which arose out of and in the course of his employment.” Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 

207 Ill. 2d 193, 203, 797 N.E.2d 665, 671 (2003). “Both elements must be present at the time 

of the claimant’s injury in order to justify compensation.” Springfield Urban League v. Illinois 

Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2013 IL App (4th) 120219WC, ¶ 25, 990 N.E.2d 284. An 

injury occurs “in the course of employment” when it “occur[s] within the time and space 

boundaries of the employment.” Sisbro, 207 Ill. 2d at 203, 797 N.E.2d at 671. An injury “arises 

out of” employment when “the injury had its origin in some risk connected with, or incidental 

to, the employment so as to create a causal connection between the employment and the 

accidental injury.” Id. 

¶ 37 Whether an injury arose out of and in the course of one’s employment is generally a 

question of fact and the Commission’s determination on this issue will not be disturbed unless 
- 9 - 

it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Brais v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation 

Comm’n, 2014 IL App (3d) 120820WC, ¶ 19, 10 N.E.3d 403. In resolving questions of fact, it 

is within the province of the Commission to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve 

conflicts in the evidence, assign weight to be accorded the evidence, and draw reasonable 

inferences from the evidence. “The test is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the 

Commission’s finding, not whether this court or any other tribunal might reach an opposite 

conclusion.” Land & Lakes Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 359 Ill. App. 3d 582, 592, 834 N.E.2d 

583, 592 (2005). “For the Commission’s decision to be against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, the record must disclose that an opposite conclusion clearly was the proper result.” 

Id. 

¶ 38 Because we reject the employer’s contention that the Commission found claimant did not 

suffer a work accident, we turn our focus to whether claimant’s injury “arose out of” his 

employment. To determine whether a claimant’s injury arose out of his employment, we must 

first determine the type of risk to which he was exposed. Baldwin v. Illinois Workers’ 

Compensation Comm’n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 472, 478, 949 N.E.2d 1151, 1156 (2011). This court 

has recognized three categories of risk to which an employee may be exposed: (1) risks that are 

distinctly associated with one’s employment; (2) neutral risks that have no particular 

employment or personal characteristics, such as those that the general public is commonly 

exposed; and (3) risks that are personal to the employee. Springfield, 2013 IL App (4th) 

120219WC, ¶ 27, 990 N.E.2d 284. 

¶ 39 In analyzing risk, the first step is to determine whether a claimant’s injuries arose out of an 

employment-related risk. A risk is distinctly associated with employment “if, at the time of the 

occurrence, the employee was performing acts he was instructed to perform by his employer, 

acts which he had a common law or statutory duty to perform, or acts which the employee 

might reasonably be expected to perform incident to his assigned duties.” Caterpillar Tractor 

Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 129 Ill. 2d 52, 58, 541 N.E.2d 665, 667 (1989). “A risk is incidental 

to the employment where it belongs to or is connected with what an employee has to do in 

fulfilling his duties.” Id. If a claimant’s injury is determined not to have resulted from an 

employment-related risk, we must then consider whether it was a result of a neutral risk or a 

personal risk. See, e.g., Young v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2014 IL App (4th) 

130392WC, ¶ 23, 13 N.E.3d 1252 (“when a claimant is injured due to an employment-related 

risk *** it is unnecessary to perform a neutral-risk analysis”). 

¶ 40 Injuries arising out of neutral risks, which have no particular employment or personal 

characteristics, are generally not compensable. Springfield, 2013 IL App (4th) 120219WC, 

¶ 27, 990 N.E.2d 284. Neutral risks include stray bullets, dog bites, lunatic attacks, lighting 

strikes, bombings, hurricanes, and falls while traversing stairs, public sidewalks, and 

commercial driveways. Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute v. Industrial 

Comm’n, 314 Ill. App. 3d 149, 163, 731 N.E.2d 795, 807 (2000); Village of Villa Park v. 

Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2013 IL App (2d) 130038WC, ¶ 20, 3 N.E.3d 885; 

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago v. Illinois Workers’ 

Compensation Comm’n, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1010, 1014, 944 N.E.2d 800, 804 (2011). However, 

injuries arising out of neutral risks may be compensable if the claimant can show he was 

exposed to a risk to a greater degree, either qualitatively or quantitatively, from that of the 

general public. Id. 
- 10 - 

¶ 41 Finally, injuries arising out of personal risks—which “include exposure to elements that 

cause nonoccupational diseases, personal defects or weakness, and confrontations with 

personal enemies”—are generally not compensable. Illinois Consolidated Telephone Co. v. 

Industrial Comm’n, 314 Ill. App. 3d 347, 352, 732 N.E.2d 49, 53-54 (2000). An exception to 

this general rule of noncompensability concerns injuries caused by idiopathic falls where 

“work place conditions significantly contribute[d] to the injury by increasing the risk of falling 

or the effects of a fall.” Id. at 352-53, 732 N.E.2d at 54. 

¶ 42 In this case, the Commission found that claimant failed to prove a work accident because 

his act of bending down to pick up a bolt did not expose him to a greater risk of injury than the 

general public. In other words, the Commission determined claimant’s injury was the result of 

a noncompensable neutral risk. Implicit in its decision is a determination that claimant’s injury 

did not result from an employment-related risk. On review, claimant contends that the 

Commission’s decision on this issue was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

According to claimant, his injury arose out of a risk distinctly associated with his employment 

and, therefore, a neutral-risk analysis was unnecessary. 

¶ 43 In support of his contention, claimant relies on Young, 2014 IL App (4th) 130392WC, 13 

N.E.3d 1252. In Young, the claimant was a parts inspector whose job, in relevant part, was to 

examine parts to ensure they were made according to specifications. Id. ¶ 4, 13 N.E.3d 1252. 

On the day of his work accident, the claimant was inspecting parts contained in a deep, narrow 

box. Id. ¶ 5, 13 N.E.3d 1252. As he was reaching for the last item in the box, he felt a “snap or 

pop” in his shoulder. Id. The Commission denied benefits on the basis “ ‘that the mere act of 

reaching down for an item did not increase [the claimant’s] risk of injury beyond what he 

would experience as a normal activity of daily living.’ ” Id. ¶ 14, 13 N.E.3d 1252. On review, 

however, this court found, “[a]lthough the act of ‘reaching’ is one performed by the general 

public on a daily basis, the evidence in this case established the risk to which claimant was 

exposed was necessary to the performance of his job duties at the time of his injury.” Id. ¶ 28, 

13 N.E.3d 1252. 

¶ 44 Similar to the risk involved in Young, in this case we find that the risk associated with the 

act of bending down to pick up a fallen bolt was an employment-related risk. Specifically, the 

evidence showed that claimant’s job required him to load bolts into an articulating arm, raise 

the arm up to the vehicle, and press a button on the arm to secure the rear suspension with the 

bolts. Witness testimony established that during this process, it was not uncommon for bolts to 

fall out of the articulating arm and onto the floor. Claimant, along with Purdy and Bozanic, 

testified that if the bolts were not retrieved from the floor before the rotating platform ran them 

over, the rotating platform would jam which would then result in the entire assembly line 

shutting down. According to claimant, in the event that the assembly line stopped, he would be 

subject to discipline. 

¶ 45 Here, we find the manifest weight of the evidence establishes claimant’s injuries occurred 

as a result of a risk distinctly associated with his employment. While the act of “bending” may 

be an act performed by the general public on a daily basis, the evidence established that bolts 

would regularly fall out of the articulating arm during the assembly process. When a bolt 

would fall, claimant had to “run down there, bend over, reach and *** pick it up before the 

[rotating platform] r[an] it over.” In other words, picking up fallen bolts was an integral part of 

claimant’s job. Because the risk associated with claimant’s act of bending to pick up the bolt 

was a risk distinctly associated with his employment, he established that his injury “arose out 
- 11 - 

of” his employment. The Commission’s failure to find an employment-related risk is against 

the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 46 We also find that the record does not support the Commission’s determination that 

claimant’s injury was not compensable because his “preexisting back condition was so 

deteriorated that his back simply gave out during a basic daily activity.” In reaching its 

decision, the Commission relied on County of Cook v. Industrial Comm’n, 69 Ill. 2d 10, 370 

N.E.2d 520 (1977). The Cook court recognized a limitation to the general rule that “the 

employee need only prove that some act or phase of the employment was a causative factor of 

the resulting injury” to be compensable under the Act. Id. at 17, 370 N.E.2d at 523. 

Specifically, the court noted, “[t]he sole limitation to the above general rule is that where it is 

shown the employee’s health has so deteriorated that any normal daily activity is an 

overexertion, or where it is shown that the activity engaged in presented risks no greater than 

those to which the general public is exposed, compensation will be denied.” Id. at 18, 370 

N.E.2d at 523. In this case, the Commission, citing the above limitation, concluded that 

claimant’s injuries were not compensable because his “degenerated lumbar discs gave way

with the simple act of bending forward,” which “demonstrate[d] that his lumbar condition was 

so deteriorated that any activity of normal life was sufficient to cause [his] spine to break down 

further.” 

¶ 47 Based on our review of the record, we find the manifest weight of the evidence shows that 

claimant’s health was not so deteriorated that any normal daily activity would constitute “an 

overexertion.” Initially, we note that the employer presented no evidence which established 

claimant’s back condition was so deteriorated that any normal daily activity would have 

caused the disc herniation at L4-5. The lack of evidence on this matter is understandable 

because the employer did not advance this theory before the Commission. During arbitration, 

the closest evidence provided that would support the Commission’s finding on this issue was 

during Dr. Butler’s deposition when he testified, hypothetically, that a herniated disc could 

result from bending over to pick up a bolt in a person whose “spine [was] in the condition that 

[claimant’s] spine was in.” On cross-examination, Dr. Butler testified that a herniated disc 

could result under the above described circumstances. However, he stated, “[i]t depends on 

how he bent over, how often that happened. I mean, anything is possible, sure. But I don’t 

know. It’s hard to say.” Dr. Butler did not specifically testify as to the type or extent of the 

degenerative changes in the hypothetical patient’s lumbar spine or suggest that claimant’s back 

was similarly degenerated prior to his work injury in May 2009. On the other hand, the 

evidence established that while claimant had suffered a previous back injury in 2003, that 

injury had been successfully treated using conservative modalities. Until the time of the injury 

at issue here, claimant worked on the assembly line 5 days per week, 10 hours per day, and he 

had not missed any significant amount of time from work between his 2003 injury and the May 

2009 injury. Further, there is no evidence in the record that claimant sought treatment for any 

low back or right hip issues between his 2003 injury and the May 2009 injury or that he 

suffered any low back or right hip discomfort whatsoever in that timeframe. 

¶ 48 Although we are reluctant to set aside the Commission’s decision on a factual question, we 

will not hesitate to do so when the clearly evident, plain, and indisputable weight of the 

evidence compels an opposite conclusion. Potenzo v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation 

Comm’n, 378 Ill. App. 3d 113, 119, 881 N.E.2d 523, 529 (2007). Here, the Commission’s 

finding that claimant’s lumbar spine had deteriorated to the point of collapse prior to his May 
- 12 - 

2009 accident is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 49 III. CONCLUSION 

¶ 50 For the reasons stated, we reverse the circuit court’s judgment confirming the 

Commission’s decision, reverse the Commission’s decision, and reinstate the decision of the 

arbitrator. 

¶ 51 Judgment reversed, and arbitrator’s decision reinstated.