Court Opinion

ID: 9525572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:05:06.946256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:38.263204
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: The arbitrator’s decision, which was adopted by the Commission and confirmed by the circuit court, found the accident occurred in the course of employment but did not arise out of claimant’s employment. The arbitrator found there was no evidence presented by claimant that the plant premises and roads were more dangerous than public roads. As the decision stated, “one’s employment must subject one to an increased risk beyond that to which the general public is exposed.” Both Brady and Caterpillar Tractor Co. support the decision. In Deal and Jewel Cos., referred to by the majority, the supreme court affirmed the decision of the Commission. The majority supports its reversal of the Commission citing Orsini and Jones. In Orsini, the supreme court stated: “[W]e will not reverse the decision of the Industrial Commission unless we find it to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We will not discard permissible inferences drawn by the Commission based upon competent evidence merely because other inferences might be drawn by us.” (Orsini, 117 Ill. 2d at 44, 509 N.E.2d at 1008.) In Jones (78 Ill. 2d at 287, 399 N.E.2d at 1315), the supreme court affirmed the Commission’s decision denying the claimant benefits. Because the supreme court affirmed the Commission in Orsini and Jones, they do not support reversal of the Commission in this case. The facts of this case may support affirming a finding the injury arose out of claimant’s employment. The Commission found otherwise. The facts permitted more than one reasonable inference, one comparable to Brady, and the order of the circuit court of Putnam County confirming the Commission decision should be affirmed.