Court Opinion

ID: 9819171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:19:23.506575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:48.688276
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully disagree. The first decision of the Commission was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In its first decision, the Commission properly noted that there was competing and conflicting expert medical testimony. The Commission refers to the testimony of Dr. Buckingham. He found: "Pulmonary function testing was essentially normal. ***[T]here was no expression of the disease present at the examination, and there was nothing to indicate that Petitioner could not return to his normal work activities. There was no indication present of any permanent disability.” The Commission also found that Dr. McFee "opined that there was no evidence to indicate that Respondent’s plant conditions were a factor in the aggravation or trigger of Petitioner’s asthma.” The Commission refers also to Dr. Aaronson’s conclusions that claimant’s condition is "unrelated to his work exposure,” "[p]ulmonary function studies were essentially normal,” and "Petitioner should be allowed to return to work.” Although the Commission in its first decision could, as fact finder, have found in favor of the claimant, it did not. The first decision should be reinstated. RAKOWSKI, J., joins in this dissent.