Court Opinion

ID: 9742842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:21:33.56976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:20:14.327495
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Kluczynski, dissenting: In my judgment the Commission’s finding, that there was no employer-employee relationship established by the evidence in this case, is not against the manifest weight of the evidence and I would affirm its decision. The majority opinion admits that the question here involved is one of the most vexatious and difficult to determine in the law of compensation, and that no rule has been adopted by this court applicable to the facts of all cases. We have consistently emphasized that the determination of the question whether the petitioner was an employee or an independent contractor depends, in each instance, upon an analysis and evaluation of the circumstances of the particular case. Henry v. Industrial Com., 412 Ill. 279, 283. The circumstances here sufficiently support the finding that no employer-employee relationship was established by the petitioner upon whom this burden rests. If undisputed facts upon any issue permit more than one reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, the determination of the issue presents a question of fact and the conclusion of the Commission in deciding the question will not be disturbed upon review. Only if the undisputed facts are susceptible of but a single inference can the question be characterized as one of law. (See Henry, p. 284.) I am not persuaded that the facts here are susceptible of the one interpretation or single inference that the petitioner was the employee of the respondent. What the majority and the circuit court did was to substitute their determination for that of the Commission. This is contrary to our long established and repeated holding that we will not substitute our judgment for the decision of the Industrial Commission, unless that decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Holiday Inns of America v. Industrial Com., 43 Ill.2d 88, 90. Mr. Chief Justice Underwood joins in this dissent.