Flexible Staffing Services v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 2016 IL App (1st) 150564WC

Background

Claimant Frederick Williams (right-hand dominant welder-fabricator) sustained a work-related distal biceps tendon rupture on October 7, 2011; he underwent surgical repair and PT and was released to full duty in March 2012 but continued to report pain, limited supination, numbness, and occasional Norco use.
Employer Flexible Staffing Services (respondent) refused to rehire claimant after his release to full duty; claimant testified he could not perform welding tasks at his prior level and had difficulty using his own welding equipment.
Employer’s IME physician (Dr. Levin) rated claimant a 6% upper-extremity impairment (4% whole-person) under the AMA Guides and found MMI; treating surgeon’s records documented ongoing limited supination and pain at last visit.
The arbitrator awarded a 30% loss of use of the right arm; the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission modified that to 25% but initially did not explain reasoning; trial court remanded for articulation.
On remand the Commission explained its analysis under section 8.1b(b) of the Act, considering the five statutory factors (physician impairment rating, occupation, age, future earning capacity, corroborating medical records) and concluded the 6% AMA impairment did not fully capture claimant’s disability, awarding 25% loss of use of the right arm.
Employer appealed, arguing (1) legal misapplication of section 8.1b and (2) the Commission’s findings were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed the Commission.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission misapplied section 8.1b by not giving controlling weight to the physician impairment rating	The Commission properly considered the AMA impairment rating as one factor among five and may weigh other statutory factors	Employer argued the physician’s impairment rating should control and other factors cannot be used without record evidence	Court held the Commission correctly applied §8.1b: no single factor controls and the Commission may weigh impairment alongside occupation, age, earning capacity, and corroborating records
Whether the Commission’s increased award (25% vs. 6% impairment) is against the manifest weight of the evidence	Claimant: medical records and testimony corroborate ongoing pain, limited motion, effect on welding job, reduced earning capacity	Employer: record lacks evidence to support reliance on some factors (age impact, greater proneness to future injury, diminished earning capacity)	Court held substantial evidence supports Commission’s factual findings; inferences from claimant’s testimony and medical records sufficed and the decision is not against manifest weight of the evidence

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Industrial Comm’n, 89 Ill. 2d 438 (1982) (manifest-weight review where Commission’s findings lacked evidentiary support)
Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 98 Ill. 2d 400 (1983) (insufficient evidence to connect work activities to claimed injury upheld)
Long v. Industrial Comm’n, 76 Ill. 2d 561 (1979) (deference due to Commission’s expertise on medical/compensation questions)
People ex rel. Madigan v. Kinzer, 232 Ill. 2d 179 (2009) (courts must respect statutory text; cannot add unstated exceptions)
Wabash County v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 408 Ill. App. 3d 924 (2011) (distinguishing errors of law from findings unsupported by evidence)
Martino v. Levatino, 99 Ill. App. 3d 907 (1981) (Commission decision contrary to manifest weight where record lacked causation evidence)
DiVittorio v. Industrial Comm’n, 299 Ill. App. 3d 662 (1998) (appellate court will not reweigh statutory factors assigned to Commission)
Presson v. Industrial Comm’n, 200 Ill. App. 3d 876 (1990) (substantial deference to Commission’s medical findings)
Teska v. Industrial Comm’n, 266 Ill. App. 3d 740 (1994) (standard of review: reverse only if opposite conclusion is clearly apparent)