Court Opinion

ID: 9744074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:52:53.503078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.217991
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SIMON, dissenting: I would follow the sound dissenting opinion filed in the appellate court by Justice McNamara and concurred in by Justice Barry. In its request for arbitration, the employer indicated that it disputed the occurrence of an accident and the receipt of notice from the claimant. At the hearing before the arbitrator, however, the employer offered no witnesses in support of its position. The claimant, on the other hand, testified that he suffered the accident, described how it happened and named the foreman, Robert Beasely, who was present when it occurred and who received notice on behalf of the employer. He also furnished the names of a physician the claimant said he visited the morning after the accident and a chiropractor he claimed he saw several times shortly after the accident. This was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. When the employer chose not to offer any witnesses disputing the claim, there was no reason for the claimant to prolong the arbitration proceeding by offering evidence in rebuttal. That evidence would merely have been cumulative. Thus, the claimant’s decision to refrain from offering additional evidence should be regarded as a salutary one: it reduced the expense of prosecuting the claim, shortened the size of the record to be reviewed, and in general accelerated the completion of the proceeding. Moreover, there was no need for the claimant to embarrass Mr. Beasely, his foreman, by calling him for testimony which would be adverse to their employer and inconsistent with the position the employer took prior to the hearing but failed to support at the hearing — that there had never been an accident and that it had not received notice of an accident. Notwithstanding the absence of any evidence contradicting the claimant’s testimony, the arbitrator reached a conclusion adverse to the claimant. As the majority opinion explains, the arbitrator relied upon the absence of records showing any medical or chiropractic treatment to the claimant from the date of the alleged accident on January 25, 1979, until June 29, 1979, to reach her conclusion — in disregard of the claimant’s unquestioned testimony — that the claimant had failed to prove the occurrence of a compensable accident. Because the arbitrator’s finding was based entirely on inferences which were contradicted by the only direct evidence offered, I believe, as did the two dissenting justices in the appellate court, that the claimant’s offer of additional eyewitness testimony relating to the occurrence of the accident and medical records to clarify the dates of visits to the physician and chiropractors was both a logical and expeditious way to establish that the arbitrator misunderstood the evidence. That mistake constituted good cause within the meaning of the rule, particularly where, as in this case, the arbitrator’s evaluation of the case was erroneously influenced by the employer’s unsupported pleadings and demonstrated an unanticipated misunderstanding of the evidence presented. As the dissenting justices pointed out, the refusal to consider additional evidence was especially unreasonable where “the employer’s own agent is prepared to expose a spurious defense.” The clear showing of a need to offer additional evidence in a proceeding of this type to avoid a miscarriage of justice or denial of a meritorious claim should be regarded as sufficient to constitute “good cause” as that term is used in the Industrial Commission rule as well as in the statute. The majority’s conclusion that “good cause” was not shown in this case is unduly technical, and it stands in the way of arriving at a just and truthful resolution of the claim. There is a second compelling reason to reverse the appellate court’s decision in favor of the employer. The majority states that the only issue in this court is whether the claimant should have been allowed to present additional evidence at the hearing on review before the Industrial Commission. It then goes on to observe that the claimant has not “either in the lower courts or this court” challenged the arbitrator’s finding that the claimant failed to prove an accidental injury as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. (114 Ill. 2d at 47.) Both in this court and the appellate court, however, the claimant contended that his additional evidence should have been admitted to offset an erroneous judgment made by the arbitrator. The claimant argued in this court: “A case was made at arbitration for accident and seeking medical care, but the Arbitrator chose to ignore positive evidence and chose instead to rely on some circumstantial evidence to presume no treatment and therefore no accident.” This is sufficient to raise an issue as to whether the arbitrator’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence, even though those precise words were not used. The claimant was the only witness before the arbitrator. He offered the only evidence that was received. His testimony that he fell approximately five feet while at work in the presence of his foreman, sought 'medical attention the next morning from a physician, and shortly thereafter was treated by chiropractors stands uncontradicted and unrebutted. On this state of the record I believe that the proper conclusion for this court to reach is that the arbitrator’s finding was clearly erroneous. I regret to say that in my opinion technicalities have been permitted to suppress the truth and override justice in this case. If, as the majority concludes, truth and justice in this case can only be achieved at the expense of invalidating Industrial Commission Rule 4 — (4)(B)(3), then the rule is already invalid in my view and in need of reform. Procedural rules of the Industrial Commission are intended to assist arbitrators and the commissioners in the dispensation of justice, and it is a strange procedure when courts sacrifice justice for the preservation of procedural rules.