Court Opinion

ID: 9713253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:12:17.139052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:17.865146
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, specially concurring: Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident giving rise to this claim present serious credibility questions insofar as the claimant is concerned, it is the responsibility and duty of the Commission to determine that credibility and to make its decision. We should reverse as pointed out by the majority only when that decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. I write this special concurrence because the majority cites Cook v. Industrial Comm’n for the proposition that when the arbitrator’s actual findings are rejected by the Commission without new evidence, an extra degree of scrutiny is required to determine if there is sufficient basis for the Commission’s decision. As stated in my dissent in Cook, I continue to disagree that this should be the law of the State of Illinois. The Industrial Commission has no responsibility to accept additional evidence during its review process except as set forth specifically in the statute, chapter 48, section 19(e). Additional evidence is to be presented to the Commission only when such evidence: “(1) relates to the condition of the employee since the time of the arbitration hearing, (2) relates to matters that occurred or conditions that developed after the arbitration hearing, or (3) was, for good cause, not introduced at the arbitration hearing.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, par. 138.19(e). If we are to give additional credence to the arbitrator’s decision where the statute requires the authority and decision-making process be in the Industrial Commission, we are again attempting to destroy the legislative purpose of the Industrial Commission’s responsibility. Likewise as pointed out in the majority decision, we should not accept the employer’s argument that we establish a new rule authorizing the Commission to reverse the decision of the arbitrator if that decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. This is not provided for in the Workers’ Compensation Act, and any decision to the contrary would be in direct contravention of supreme court cases. Although I disagree with the Commission’s decision with respect to this incident, it cannot be said to be against the manifest weight of the evidence.