Court Opinion

ID: 9732888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:41:30.925668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:35.855581
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RARICK, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the circuit court erred in its interpretation and application of section 1(d) of the Act. Section 1(d) does not raise a presumption that a claimant suffers from pneumoconiosis. Rather, once it is shown that a claimant suffers from pneumoconiosis, section 1(d) raises a rebuttable presumption that such condition is causally connected to his employment. 820 ILCS 310/1(d) (West 1994). I must respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the Commission’s original decision was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Reviewing Commissioner Jones’ dissent, I find it to be very thorough and well reasoned, and I would adopt the conclusions therein.