Court Opinion

ID: 9717038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:56:41.161664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:50.846716
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court and reinstate the award. I am unable to distinguish this case from Converters, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 218, 223, where the court said: “The resolution of disputed questions of fact is primarily the function of the Industrial Commission. (Gubser v. Industrial Com., 42 Ill. 2d 559.) The Commission ‘must hear and judge the credibility of the various witnesses, sift the evidence, determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies, and then, upon such determination, render its decision.’ (B. F. Gump Co. v. Industrial Com., 411 Ill. 196, 198.) On review ‘the function of this court is limited to a determination of whether findings of the Industrial Commission are against the manifest weight of the evidence. [Citations.] Too, we hold that if the evidence is conflicting or of a nature which permits the reasonable drawing of differing inferences, we will not set aside the award solely because we might have made a finding on the evidence different from the one made by the Commission or because we might have drawn inferences other than the ones reasonably drawn by the Commission.’ Gubser v. Industrial Com., 42 Ill. 2d 559, 562.” The majority makes much of the fact that there was testimony indicating that petitioner may have made out-of-court statements which conflicted with his testimony. Proof of inconsistent statements is not a sufficient basis for holding that the decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. As this court said in Guthrie v. Van Hyfte (1966), 36 Ill. 2d 252, 258, “The fact that a witness, be he a party or otherwise, has made out-of-court statements inconsistent with his sworn testimony does not per se destroy the probative value of his testimony, and it ordinarily remains for the trier of fact to determine where the truth lies. (58 Am. Jur., Witnesses, [sec.] 863; Chicago City Railway Co. v. Ryan, 225 Ill. 287, 289; Mathews v. Granger, 196 Ill. 164, 171.)” The decision of the Industrial Commission on a disputed question of fact should not be set aside because the circuit court is of the opinion that a different conclusion is more reasonable. It should be set aside only when it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In this case it is not, and I would reinstate the award. MR. JUSTICE CLARK joins in this dissent.