Court Opinion

ID: 9713426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:15:14.695641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:18.713123
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: The decision of the Industrial Commission was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and its decision which was affirmed by the trial court should be affirmed by this court. The petitioner appealed the decision of the arbitrator to the Industrial Commission, a principal issue being the arbitrator’s determi- ■ nation of the average weekly wage. The Commission’s decision in its findings states: “With respect to Petitioner’s average weekly wage the Commission notes that no evidence was presented as to the weeks and parts thereof that Petitioner actually worked or the number of hours per week for which he was to be regularly employed. Respondent was Petitioner’s only employer in the year preceding the accident. Petitioner was employed by Respondent for 52 weeks preceding the accident and his earnings in those 52 weeks were stipulated to by the parties.” As stated in the petitioner’s brief, the parties stipulated that the petitioner worked the entire 12 months before the accident for the defendant and excluding overtime earned $6,896.95. In line with Hasler v. Industrial Comm’n (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 46, 454 N.E.2d 307, where the “claimant was not engaged in two occupations” and the “annual wages were clearly determined,” the decision of the commission and the trial court should be affirmed. The decision of the Industrial Commission was made upon the evidence presented. That this court should state that the petitioner should now get another chance to prove his petition will only produce countless appeals citing this decision as authority to present the merits of the petition anew. McNAMARA, J., joins in this dissent.