Court Opinion

ID: 9741549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:57:51.766006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:24.691163
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I suggest that the majority is simply reweighing the evidence that was presented to the Commission. The majority bases its decision solely upon the testimony of the claimant and a concession by the respondent’s attorney during oral argument that the photographic exhibits do show varying heights. The Commission in its decision stated that it had “reviewed the exhibits, PX7, RX1 and RX2, the photographs of the sidewalk, along with petitioner’s medical histories, and finds there was no defect or hazard in the sidewalk.” The Commission also stated, “More specifically, the Commission finds that Petitioner provided significantly varying accounts of the incident in her medical histories.” And the Commission further stated that “in her contemporary medical records, Petitioner indicated that she twisted her ankle on the sidewalk, twisted her ankle in a big hole in the ground, and slipped off the edge of the sidewalk.” The Commission also noted that the testimony of the claimant at the time of arbitration differed from her medical records and further found that when petitioner was asked to review PX7, “she testified that it accurately portrayed the sidewalk as it was on the date of the incident.” She did not mark on the photograph where the incident occurred, whether the sidewalk was dry, whether there were any holes, obstructions or rocks on the pavement. I agree with the majority in their reference to Bommarito that “[slpecial hazards or risks encountered as a result of using a usual access route satisfy the ‘arising out of requirement of the Act.” 349 Ill. App. 3d at 491. In this case, there is simply no proof that there was a special hazard or risk encountered. The record shows that the photographic exhibits are not helpful to this court in its determination of the appeal. Other than the testimony of the claimant, which was discounted by the Commission, there is no basis for recovery. The trial court’s order should be reversed and the decision of the Industrial Commission reinstated. HOLDRIDGE, J., joins in this dissent.