Court Opinion

ID: 9724456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:57:10.139793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:00.583086
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BUCKLEY, specially concurring: As my opinion makes relevant, this court’s hands are tied by the application of section 6 — 153 of the Code, and we must affirm the Board’s denial of Nowak’s application for duty disability benefits. Nevertheless, I feel constrained to comment on the sufficiency of the evidence presented in this case. Before doing so, however, let me point out that I am not the first author of an opinion to write a separate special concurrence. See, e.g, Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 196, 3 L. Ed. 2d 729, 735, 79 S. Ct. 666, 671 (1959) (where Justice Brennan concurred with his own opinion); Morizzo v. Laverdure, 127 Ill. App. 3d 767, 775 (1984) (where Justice Downing concurred with his own opinion). This court’s function on administrative review is to ascertain whether the findings and decisions of the administrative agency are against the manifest weight of the evidence. See City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 205 (1998). A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is clearly evident. See City of Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 204. In my opinion, the overwhelming evidence in this case leads to only one conclusion, that Nowak is unable to perform the job of a paramedic. After treating Nowak over a period of nine months, Dr. Cerullo, Nowak’s primary treating physician, determined that Nowak was not physically capable of returning to his position as a paramedic. The functional capacity evaluation report indicated Nowak “cannot currently perform at the physical demand level necessary for his previous position of paramedic with the Chicago Fire Department due to his inability to perform at the Very Heavy Physical Demand Level.” This is an objective report whose validity was not challenged by any of the medical doctors. Dr. Shermer concluded that “[t]he requirements of duty as a paramedic would clearly preclude this patient from performing in such duties in view of the findings noted within the records and the assessments noted, as well as the MRI studies noted.” Although Dr. Wetzel declined to give an opinion regarding Nowak’s disability status, he did, however, acknowledge the relevance of the functional capacity evaluation and stated that the results appeared to be reasonable. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Motto does not support a conclusion that Nowak was not disabled. Although Dr. Motto found objective fault with the WIN report because he could not reconcile Nowak’s subjective complaints with the objective findings of the report, the record shows that Dr. Motto misstated Nowak’s testimony regarding the subjective complaints. In addition, contrary to the Board’s assertion, Dr. Feely never unconditionally returned Nowak to work. In both his January 13, 1995, “Lay Up Certification” form and his January 27, 1995, report to Dr. Russell, Dr. Feely recommended that a “lift test” or a “work fitness examination” be performed to determine Nowak’s lifting capacity prior to being returned to “100% full active duty.” Dr. Ryan is the only doctor who unequivocally testified that Nowak is not disabled. However, as Nowak points out, Dr. Ryan did not take into consideration the findings of the WIN report; thus, he lacked the information required to objectively evaluate whether Nowak could return to work as a paramedic. In sum, I firmly believe that the decision of the Board is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Nevertheless, as stated in the majority opinion, we must affirm.