Court Opinion

ID: 9735196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:04:59.784215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:55.955718
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: ■ I disagree with the majority’s decision, which reversed the trial court’s order confirming the Commission’s decision. This case is not about whether claimant had carpel tunnel syndrome. All of the doctors agree that claimant did have carpal tunnel. What this case is about is whether the Commission’s decision finding “that he failed to prove this current condition of ill-being is causally related[,] *** arising out of and in the course of the Petitioner’s employment.” The majority cites Dexheimer in support of overturning the Commission’s decision. Dexheimer makes it clear that “a reviewing court will not discard the findings of the Commission, even though it might have decided differently on the same facts, unless such findings are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” Dexheimer, 202 Ill. App. 3d at 443, 559 N.E.2d at 1037. The majority relies on an entry of Dr. Augustin, September 25, 1992, “This is related directly under Workmen’s Comp.” There is nothing in that entry concerning an examination and claimant was simply referred to an “Ortho-MD.” As pointed out by the majority, the entry above these statements is “Still wants to argue that his rt. inguinal hernia exacerbation, was mainly caused by his work.” The majority also states that Dr. Carroll did not challenge Dr. Augustin’s comments that claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome was related to his occupation. I respectfully suggest that this statement by the majority is incorrect for two reasons. First, Dr. Augustin did not examine claimant as to any carpal tunnel syndrome and, second, Dr. Carroll’s report does not make any reference to Dr. Augustin. With respect to the medical reports, Dr. Loughran, by entry of September 20, 1993, states: “Patient was just examined by me 9/28/93 and gave a history of carpal tunnel syndrome for the past few mo. He gave no specific date of injury, nor stated any work related accident at that time. Nothing was documented at that time as to any injury.” A prior entry of June 12, 1993, states: “Here for evaluation of carpal tunnel. Needs professional opinion as to whether condition is work related or not.” In reviewing the report of Dr. Carroll, he stated in his report in part: “The patient has undergone appropriate care for right carpal tunnel syndrome. He has reached maximum medical improvement. Treatment has been appropriate. He has some mild residual subjective symptoms and minimal evidence of continued median nerve irritation on examination. He. has reached maximum medical improvement. There is evidence of industrial impairment. He has been released to full duty and should remain working at a normal level. On a note in the chart it was determined that this was directly related to his occupation. No follow up was coordinated. His diagnosis is right carpal tunnel syndrome and his prognosis is good.” In the report of Dr. Shermer with respect to the history given as to the claimant: “The patient is fifty-nine years old. The patient states that he works as a driver and states that he has a problem with the right wrist and hand which have been going numb with considerable pain involving the wrist, going up the arm to the shoulder. The patient states that this problem has been present for approximately eight months, but in the past couple of months the symptoms have become progressively worse. The patient states that the problem has awakened him at night. He did see a Union Health Clinic and the patient was referred for electromyogram. The patient states that he was told that he had a carpal tunnel syndrome and required surgery.” The date of this report is October 15, 1992. Dr. Shermer’s report shows no other history and nothing with respect to the job duties of the claimant. With respect to a right wrist and hand examination, Shermer stated: “The right wrist contours are normal. There is no thickening present. The patient is able to flex the right wrist to 80°. Pronation, supination, radial and ulnar deviation are intact. Thenar and hypothenar muscles are intact. The skin is well callused for both hands. The patient does have a significant positive Tinel sign. The Phalen sign is questionably positive. The patient does have intact sensation for all digits. He does note a variable diminished sensation to pinwheel and touch over the palmar aspect of the hand, involving primarily the thumb, index and long fingers. The grasp strength, however, is quite good for the right hand, with the fingers closing completely into the palm and resisting opening. Finger abductor and adductor strength remains intact and thumb pinch is excellent. The wrist circumference measures 7” on the left and 7” on the right. The left wrist shows the same excursion levels. Grasp strength is excellent for the left hand. The Tinel and Phalen signs are negative.” It is significant to note that in Dr. Shermer’s summation as to disability he states as follows: “The relationship to his work duties is not clear, although the theory of cumulative and repetitive stress, over a period of time, has been used to link these conditions and trauma at work.” The Commission’s findings with respect to the medical records of Shermer, Loughran, and Carroll are correct. These findings make it clear that the Commission’s decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Repetitive trauma is uniquely an area of expertise for the Commission. I also disagree with the majority’s reliance on Darling as a rationale to reverse the Commission. In Darling, there was a substantial amount of evidence as to claimant’s work activities, “[t]he medical reports *** contain a myriad of statements clearly depicting the repetitive nature and frequency of the movements.” Darling, 176 Ill. App. 3d at 195, 530 N.E.2d at 1142. Here, the statements comparing the proof as to claimant’s employment and home improvement activities is not a basis for finding the Commission’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Everyone, the Commission, the circuit court, and this court, agrees this claimant had carpal tunnel syndrome. However, it is clear that the record supports a finding of no causal connection between the injury and claimant’s work.