Court Opinion

ID: 9741217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:51:42.88561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.921898
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority affirming on the basis of a physical-mental trauma. I dissent as to the award of penalties. The Commission decision suggests two partial concurrence-dissents. Commissioner KInnaman concurs in granting recovery but would award penalties. Commissioner Gilgis would deny benefits and penalties. This case does present facts concerning psychological injuries, an area even this court has struggled with in adopting a precedent to be used by arbitrators and the Commission. I agree there was sufficient evidence to find physical-mental basis for recovery. It was a complex case, penalties were properly denied by the Commission, and this court should affirm the order of the circuit court. Additionally, we now find the facts of this case and its importance to be such to issue an opinion to provide binding precedent. As the Commission dissent points out, there was “a valid basis to dispute liability in this controversial, hotly-contested ‘mental trauma’ case.” The prior cases and the facts presented here were not so clear as to justify an award of penalties. I would affirm the award of benefits but deny penalties.