Court Opinion

ID: 9523103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:36:08.86421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:33.821777
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring: The majority supports its opinion by citing Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 327 Ill. App. 3d 868 (2002), appeal allowed, 201 Ill. 2d 616 (2002). In Sisbro, as in the instant case, the arbitrator’s finding of causation was affirmed by the Industrial Commission (Commission) and confirmed by the circuit court, but this court reversed the finding. This court based its reversal on a well-established exception to the causation rule: any daily activity could have caused the claimant’s condition of ill-being. Although I dissented in Sisbro, I believe the instant case presents distinguishable facts warranting application of the causation exception. In Sisbro the claimant’s doctor testified that claimant’s condition of ill-being was caused by, and did not precede, his industrial accident. In giving this testimony, the doctor carefully considered the claimant’s preexisting medical condition — which the employer argued was a basis for applying the causation exception. The record indicated that the Commission relied on the doctor’s testimony in rejecting the employer’s argument. In the instant case, however, no such reliance is possible because testimony from the claimant’s doctor shows that the exception is applicable. Doctor Cohen testified that Haulk’s heart condition had deteriorated to a point where “any activity or no activity” could have caused his heart attack. The doctor further agreed that Haulk was “a heart attack waiting to happen.” As the majority acknowledges, compared to Sisbro, the instant case presents “[a] stronger factual scenario to which to apply the exception.” 337 Ill. App. 3d at 808. I agree and thus specially concur.