Court Opinion

ID: 9782802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:17:10.464608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:12.315704
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STEWART, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in all aspects of the majority decision except the determination that the Commission’s award of 20% of the person as a whole under section 8(d)(2) of the Act should be vacated. From that portion of the majority decision, I respectfully dissent. In my view, the decision of the majority is based upon a faulty premise. The majority has determined that “the evidence presented at the hearing does not permit a delineation of a separate condition of ill-being attributable to each accident.” 409 Ill. App. 3d at 265. Treating the outcome of the claimant’s two accidents as one indivisible injury, the majority frames the issue as a matter of statutory constmction, to be reviewed de novo, and determines, as a matter of first impression, that a claimant involved in multiple accidents resulting in one condition of ill-being is entitled to only one permanency award under section 8(d) of the Act. 820 ILCS 305/8(d) (West 2002). I agree with the majority’s statutory interpretation, under de novo review, which determines that a claimant with multiple injuries to the same body part resulting in one condition of ill-being may recover only one award for permanent partial disability (PPD). However, whether a claimant suffers from one condition of ill-being or has sustained separate compensable injuries is a factual determination to be made by the Commission which should be reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard. The record does not support the majority’s assertion that the claimant failed to prove a separate condition of ill-being for each accident in this case. The decision of the Commission allowing a separate PPD award for each accident was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. It is the inconsistency between the legal principle established by the majority, and its application to the facts of this case, that is the basis for my dissent. Any suggestion by the majority that the claimant testified only about his current condition of ill-being, at a consolidated hearing, based upon two accidents, is not supported by the record. As the majority notes, the claimant’s two back injury claims were heard by the arbitrator in a consolidated hearing on April 2, 2007, and April 25, 2007. This observation does not fully reflect, however, what happened at those hearings. On April 2, 2007, the parties appeared at the arbitration hearing prepared to proceed only on the August 27, 2002, accident and a separate claim for an ankle injury which is not involved in this appeal. The parties only submitted request for hearing forms for those two claims. At the commencement of the hearing, the employer’s attorney advised the arbitrator of the claimant’s additional claim for the accident which had occurred on May 5, 2004, which had been assigned to a different arbitrator. The employer’s attorney then orally moved for consolidation of the claims pursuant to title 50, section 7030.10 of the Administrative Code. 50 Ill. Adm. Code 7030.10 (2010). Under that section, if a claimant files a subsequent claim against the same employer, the subsequent claim is to be assigned to the arbitrator hearing the first claim filed. 50 Ill. Adm. Code 7030.10 (2010). Without an objection from the claimant, the arbitrator consolidated the claims. However, since the parties had not anticipated the consolidated hearing and had not even filed a request for hearing for the May 5, 2004, accident, the testimony at the April 2, 2007, hearing was limited to the accident which occurred on August 27, 2002. At the first hearing, the claimant’s attorney only sought to question him about his injuries and condition of ill-being which resulted from the August 27, 2002, accident. Although the claimant did testify, on cross-examination, that he had hip problems that did not commence until after the second accident, the claimant did not specifically address the May 5, 2004, accident and the condition of ill-being which resulted from that injury until the April 25, 2007, hearing. At the April 25, 2007, hearing, the parties first filed the request for hearing form for the May 5, 2004, accident. Then, the claimant testified, and his testimony on that occasion was limited to the accident on May 5, 2004, and his injuries and condition of ill-being after that accident. At the conclusion of the claimant’s testimony, his attorney offered multiple exhibits, which included medical records from both accidents. The medical records were clearly segregated between the two accidents. Neither of the parties offered any medical testimony. The employer offered no testimony and no exhibits. The claimant’s testimony about his injuries and conditions of ill-being related to the two separate accidents was clearly separated between the two dates of hearing. In fact, he was never asked, at either hearing, whether his condition was the same or different after the two injuries. While it is true that the claimant injured the same area of his lower back in each accident, and testified to similar symptoms after each injury, a careful examination of his testimony, and the medical records admitted into evidence, reveals that his condition of ill-being changed after the second accident. After the August 27, 2002, injury, the claimant had two surgeries, a microdiscectomy at L4-L5 on August 30, 2002, and a microdiscectomy at L3-L4 on March 3, 2003. He then commenced physical therapy. An FCE conducted on June 27, 2003, found that he was capable of medium work. However, the recommendation contained in the FCE report was that the claimant attend a work-hardening program. After he attended work-hardening, Dr. Lim released him to return to work without restrictions. The claimant returned to his regular job and was able to work his regular duties for ten months before his accident on May 5, 2004. After the second accident, he was again treated by Dr. Lim who concluded that epidural injections were not helping and that he was not a candidate for additional surgery. Another FCE was performed on December 28, 2004, which again concluded that the claimant could work at a medium level. This time, however, rather than refer him for work-hardening, the FCE report concluded that the claimant was “not capable of performing his pre-injury job of a water distribution laborer.” On January 5, 2005, Dr. Lim released him to return to work, but with the permanent restrictions set forth in the FCE report. Upon his return to work, the claimant was placed in a lower paying job. Based upon the foregoing, the arbitrator found as follows: “While Petitioner was able to return to work after the first injury, he was precluded from returning to his regular course of employment after the second injury. Clearly, Petitioner’s medical condition worsened after the second injury.” Thus, the arbitrator found from the evidence that the claimant’s condition of ill-being was different after the two accidents. Accordingly, the claimant was awarded PPD of 20% of the person as a whole under section 8(d)(2) of the Act for the disability suffered in the August 27, 2002, injury which caused him to suffer physical impairment but no impairment of earning capacity. For the May 5, 2004, injury the claimant was given a wage differential award under section 8(d)(1) of the Act because the disability resulting from that injury caused an impairment of earning capacity. The Commission unanimously affirmed and adopted the findings of the arbitrator on both claims. It is the function of the Commission to determine questions of fact. O’Dette v. Industrial Comm’n, 79 Ill. 2d 249, 253, 403 N.E.2d 221, 223 (1980). “Though a court might draw different inferences from the evidence, it is axiomatic that findings of the *** Commission will not be reversed unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence.” O’Dette, 79 Ill. 2d at 253, 403 N.E.2d at 224. “In order for a finding to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, an opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 228 Ill. App. 3d 288, 291, 591 N.E.2d 894, 896 (1992). Here, the Commission made a factual determination that the claimant’s condition of ill-being was different after the second accident, and the evidence supports that finding. After the first accident, the claimant was able to return to his full duties. At that time, he suffered physical impairment but no impairment of earning capacity. As a result, an award of PPD under section 8(d)(2) of the Act was appropriate for that injury. 820 ILCS 305/8(d)(2) (West 2002). After the second accident, his condition worsened and he was unable to return to his previous employment. He clearly suffered an impairment of earning capacity after the second accident, justifying a wage differential award under section 8(d)(1) of the Act. 820 ILCS 305/8(d)(1) (West 2002). The Commission plainly found that the claimant proved that he suffered from one condition of ill-being after the August 27, 2002, accident and a separate condition of ill-being after the May 5, 2004, accident. Under the guise of de novo review, however, the majority simply states that “the evidence established only one condition of ill-being.” 409 Ill. App. 3d at 265. Although the claimant had two separate back surgeries after the first accident, the majority determines that “given his return to work without restriction and the lack of any evidence supporting a finding that the claimant suffered physical impairment after the first accident, a finding that the claimant suffered permanent physical impairment after the first accident would be purely speculative.” 409 Ill. App. 3d at 266. Presumably, under the majority analysis, a worker whose injury requires two back surgeries, but is able to return to his employment, has failed to prove any permanent physical impairment. Whether the claimant’s two accidents resulted in only one condition of ill-being is a factual determination which should be decided by the Commission. The findings of the Commission should be reviewed under the manifest weight of the evidence standard, and they are clearly supported by the evidence. It is difficult to ascertain what more the claimant could have done to separate the results of his two injuries. He testified about each accident and his resulting condition on separate hearing dates. The medical exhibits submitted were clearly separated between the two accidents. After the first accident he was able to return to full duties, while after the second accident he had permanent restrictions. Under the majority analysis, regardless of the different effect the claimant’s injuries have upon his earning capacity, if he testifies that he had similar symptoms after each injury, he has only proved one condition of ill-being. This analysis could be applied to virtually all claimants with multiple back injuries. It can be argued that, under the majority opinion, any claimant with multiple back injuries can only obtain one recovery. The majority’s conclusion, under de novo review, that the claimant may only obtain one recovery for multiple back injuries, is in direct conflict with this court’s decision in Consolidated Freightways v. Industrial Comm’n, 237 Ill. App. 3d 549, 604 N.E.2d 962 (1992). In Consolidated Freightways, the claimant, a dockhand, suffered a lower back injury in 1984 and was treated by chymopapain injection. After seven months of recuperation, he returned to his usual employment and performed his regular job duties. The 1984 claim was settled, in part, for an award of 15% loss of the person as a whole under section 8(d)(2) of the Act. In 1987, the claimant suffered another work-related injury to the same disc location. The second injury resulted in a surgical procedure. The claim for the second injury proceeded to arbitration and the claimant was awarded, in part, an award of 20% of the person as a whole under section 8(d)(2) of the Act. On appeal, the employer argued that it should receive a credit for the prior award since the exact same part of the body had been injured. This court correctly denied the employer any credit for the award for the first injury, holding that the Act only provides for a credit for a prior injury to a specific body part listed in section 8(e). In my view, the majority decision effectively allows the employer a credit for the claimant’s prior back injury by allowing him only one recovery, that being for his condition of ill-being after the second injury. The only distinction between the majority decision in this case and Consolidated Freightways is that, here, the two claims were heard in a consolidated hearing, while the claimant in Consolidated Freight-ways managed to settle his first claim before the second one proceeded to arbitration. There is little doubt that, under Consolidated Freight-ways, the claimant in this case would be entitled to both awards if he had received a settlement or an award under section 8(d)(2) of the Act for his August 27, 2002, injury prior to an arbitration hearing on the claim for his May 5, 2004, injury. Claims should not be decided based upon such fortuitous circumstances. A claimant is entitled to separate consideration of each of his claims at a consolidated hearing. Finally, contrary to the majority’s assertion, Freeman United provides further support for the decision of the Commission. Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 99 Ill. 2d 487, 459 N.E.2d 1368 (1984). In that case the employer argued that the Commission’s finding that the second injury “was a separate accident rather than a continuation of the original injury [the claimant] suffered [was] against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Freeman United, 99 Ill. 2d at 498, 459 N.E.2d at 1374. It is in that context that the court stated: “Although the second injury was to the same part of the body as the first, the test is not whether [the claimant] sustained a new or independent type of injury, as Freeman suggests, but whether he suffered a second accident which caused further disability of a type which the law would recognize as compensable.” Freeman United, 99 Ill. 2d at 498, 459 N.E.2d at 1374. Despite the disability resulting from the amputation of both legs below the knee in his first accident, the claimant in Freeman United had continued to be employed. After the second accident, he was unable to work and suffered a lost earning capacity. Because the claimant suffered a “further disability of a type which the law would recognize as compensable,” an inability to work, the Freeman United court held that the Commission’s finding that his second accident was not “a continuation of the original injury” was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Freeman United, 99 Ill. 2d at 498, 459 N.E.2d at 1374. The same is true in this case. In the first accident the claimant suffered a physical impairment, but no lost earning capacity. After the second accident, he was unable to return to his regular duties and suffered a lost earning capacity. As in Freeman United, the decision of the Commission that the claimant’s second injury was not a continuation of his original injury was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. As a result of its failure to give deference to the factual determinations of the Commission in this case, the majority sets forth no clear standard to determine when a claimant with multiple back injuries is entitled to only one recovery. The evidence of record in these claims is typical of workers with multiple back injuries. Whether two accidents are a continuation of the same injury or result in separate conditions of ill-being is a factual determination which should be made by the Commission. That determination should not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm in its entirety the judgment of the circuit court, confirming the decision of the Commission.