Court Opinion

ID: 9709979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:58:52.620129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:53.183645
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RARICK, dissenting: Although the majority correctly notes that the extent and permanency of a claimant’s disability are questions of fact and that the Commission’s factual determinations will not be overturned unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence (Amoco Oil Co. v. Industrial Comm’n (1991), 218 Ill. App. 3d 737, 748, 578 N.E.2d 1043, 1051), the majority proceeds to find the Commission’s determinations as to total and permanent disability to be against the manifest weight of the evidence in this instance. Manifest weight of the evidence is that which is clearly evident, plain and indisputable. (Caterpillar, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n (1992), 228 Ill. App. 3d 288, 291, 591 N.E.2d 894, 896.) In order for a finding to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, an opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent. (228 Ill. App. 3d at 291, 591 N.E.2d at 896.) Stated differently, a decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only when, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commission, the court determines that no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the Commission’s decision. (See Beeler v. Industrial Comm’n (1989), 179 Ill. App. 3d 463, 467, 534 N.E.2d 408, 411.) Not only do I believe the opposite conclusion is not clearly apparent, I believe the evidence here clearly compels affirmance of the Commission’s decision. For these reasons, I dissent. The evidence reveals claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Bloch, considered claimant’s condition to be chronic. While claimant had madej some strides, according to Dr. Bloch, claimant also may never be able to function successfully in the work environment again; Claimant has become extremely depressed to the point of having suicidal ideations, and his inability to participate in even joyful activities, such as his oldest son’s wedding, has served only to heighten his sense of isolation and decrease his already critically low self-esteem. He has little energy or motivation, and his concentration is quite poor. Not only has claimant’s condition impaired his professional functioning, it has also impaired his daily living. Even employer’s expert, Dr. Conroe, opined claimant was unable to sustain gainful work activities. Prior to the September 1985 incident, claimant had worked effectively for employer for some 20 years, had a successful marriage and social life, and had no history of mental disorders. Now claimant can do little else other than sit in front of the television and accomplish minor chores or errands. It was all he could do to attend three real estate closings during a two-year period. Moreover, the fact claimant can accomplish some things of a limited nature does not mean claimant is not totally disabled. (See E.R. Moore Co. v. Industrial Comm’n (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 353, 361, 376 N.E.2d 206, 209.) Being unable to perform substantially the duties of his occupation, claimant is, in my view and in that of the Commission, totally and permanently disabled. The majority’s statement that claimant would appear qualified for a wide variety of jobs, both legal and nonlegal, is not supported by the record, and in my view, is pure speculation. As liability cannot be premised upon imagination, speculation or conjecture (see A.M.T.C. of Illinois, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 482, 488, 397 N.E.2d 804, 806), neither can a finding of no liability or, in this instance, a finding of no permanent, total disability. Given the unrebutted medical evidence supporting the finding of the Commission, I believe the majority has impermissibly substituted its judgment for that of the Commission. I would therefore affirm the decision of the Commission, as confirmed by the circuit court, in its entirety. EGAN, J., joins in this dissent.