Court Opinion

ID: 9719126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:42:57.327695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:04.715396
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE RYAN, dissenting: I have no quarrel with the general proposition of law announced by the majority, i.e., that a person is totally disabled for purposes of section 8(f) when he cannot perform any services except those for which no reasonably stable market exists. However, I disagree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that the claimant, in this case has offered a sufficient quantum of evidence to support a finding that she is, in fact, totally disabled within the context of section 8(f). Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent from the result reached by the majority today. The evidence adduced both on arbitration and on review reveals the following facts. The claimant is suffering from general dermatitis that will remain cured or at least under control so long as she does not expose herself to solutions such as detergents and cleaning fluids. In this regard, the claimant testified that her allergic condition only flares up when she comes into contact with these types of toxic irritants. Further, the claimant, after being advised not to return to E. R. Moore Company, sought employment at only two other places, a garment factory and a bookbindery. For reasons not clear in the record, she did not secure employment at either place. Given these pertinent facts, I cannot assent to the majority’s finding that the claimant is totally disabled within the meaning of section 8(f). There is no proof that the claimant is unable to return to work. In fact, the evidence shows that she is free to perform just about any type of menial or light labor, as long as she stays away from the toxic skin irritants which could trigger her allergy. Even giving due consideration to the claimant’s age, experience, training and ability, the evidence does not show that her opportunities for employment in such a diverse and large labor market as exists in the Cook County area can be considered so bleak as to permit the conclusion that she is unable to perform any services for which a stable labor market exists. To justify such a conclusion, I believe the claimant must come forward with more evidence than that which she has proffered in this case. The evidence she has presented, that is, that she was not “called back” by the two factories at which she sought employment, proves little. First, there is no indication whether these factories had any openings for employment, or that the claimant was refused employment for any reason relating to her age, experience, training, or ability. Moreover, given the large number of factories and business establishments at which the claimant could seek and possibly find work, it would seem that two applications for employment provide little convincing evidence to support a finding of permanent disability. The case on which the majority relies to sanction a finding of permanent disability “despite the employee’s failure to show that work was not available,” American Rivet Co. v. Industrial Com. (1966), 34 Ill. 2d 69, is inapposite to the case at hand. In American Rivet, the claimant, whose work experience had been limited to employment as a machine operator, was prevented from continuing in that line of work or any similar type, when an injury caused him to have headaches, dizziness, blurred vision, and blackouts. Also, because of a chronic leg condition, he was prevented from performing any type of a desk job. He was an immigrant with only one year of formal education, and he had difficulty with the English language. Consequently, because of the severe limitations concerning the claimant’s opportunity for any type of employment, it was concluded that the evidence sustained the finding of total and permanent disability. In the instant case, however, no such severe handicap exists as to the claimant. She is a relatively healthy individual, albeit of advanced years. Unlike the claimant in American Rivet, I do not think she should be exempted from the traditional burden of proving that she cannot perform any services except those for which no reasonably stable market exists. Lewis v. St. Charles Parish Hospital Service District (La. 1976), 337 So. 2d 1137, the case upon which the majority relies to justify an award for total disability as a result of an employee’s susceptibility to dermatitis, is unpersuasive authority to sustain such an award to the claimant in the instant case. In Lewis, there was much more than a mere susceptibility to an allergic condition. The claimant in Lewis suffered severe discoloration of her hands which resulted in their appearing disfigured and diseased. The court specifically noted that the unsightly appearance of the claimant’s hands greatly narrowed her employment opportunities. Also, the Lewis court noted that, as a result of certain demographic factors, there was virtually no market for the claimant’s services in the area in which she sought employment. (Lewis v. St. Charles Parish Hospital Service District (La. 1976), 337 So. 2d 1137, 1140.) Moreover, three justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court dissented from the majority holding and felt that susceptibility to allergy, even coupled with the physical appearance of the claimant’s hands, is not enough to support a finding of permanent disability. The claimant here has not come forward with enough evidence, medical or otherwise, to sustain a finding of permanent disability. The shifting of the burden of proof to the employer, which the majority espouses, comes about only after the employee has established that her condition is such that she is unable to perform any services for which there is a reasonably stable market. Professor Larson stated that the employee must prima facie prove that she falls in an “odd-lot” category. That is, that only irregular or unpredictable, as distinguished from steady or continuous, employment can be performed by, or is available to, the employee. In such cases, Professor Larson states, the burden then shifts to the employer to show that some kind of suitable work is regularly and continuously available. (2 A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation secs. 57.51, 57.61.) The employee in our case, by proving that she has a dermatitis that flares up on exposure to certain irritants, and that she applied for work at two factories in a job market area as diversified as Cook County, has not established the prima facie showing envisaged by Professor Larson. MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD joins in this dissent.