Flexible Staffing Services v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n
2016 IL App (1st) 151300WC
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Claimant Frederick Williams (right-hand dominant welder) suffered a work-related distal biceps tendon rupture on October 7, 2011, when a >400 lb rail fell; he had surgical repair and physical therapy and continued to report pain, numbness, and limited supination.
- Treating surgeon Dr. Aribindi released Williams to full duty on March 7, 2012 but respondent (Flexible Staffing) did not rehire him; claimant testified he could not perform welding duties and still used pain medication intermittently.
- Respondent’s physician, Dr. Levin, found maximum medical improvement, documented limited motion and decreased sensation, and assigned a 6% upper-extremity impairment (4% whole-person) under the AMA Guides.
- The arbitrator awarded 30% loss of use of the right arm; the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission modified the award to 25% after applying the five factors in 820 ILCS 305/8.1b(b) (impairment rating, occupation, age, future earning capacity, corroborating medical records).
- The circuit court remanded for the Commission to state reasoning; on remand the Commission explained why it gave less weight to the AMA impairment rating and increased the award to 25% based on claimant’s physically demanding occupation, age (younger, longer duration of disability), diminished future earning capacity, and corroborating medical records.
- Respondent appealed, arguing (1) legal misapplication of section 8.1b (considering factors without record evidence) and (2) the award was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Commission misapply §8.1b by considering factors lacking evidence? | Williams: Commission properly considered all §8.1b factors supported by the record and explained weight given. | Flexible Staffing: Commission considered age and future-proneness without evidentiary support, misreading §8.1b. | No — court treated any unsupported findings as manifest-weight issues; here record provided reasonable evidentiary support and Commission explained its reasoning. |
| Was the Commission’s 25% award contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence? | Williams: Commission permissibly discounted the 6% AMA impairment rating after weighing occupation, age, earning capacity, and corroborating records. | Flexible Staffing: The medical impairment rating should control; other factors lacked support, so award is excessive. | No — substantial evidence and permissible inferences support the Commission’s weighting of the five factors and the 25% award; appellate court defers to Commission’s expertise. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wabash County v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 408 Ill. App. 3d 924 (discussing insufficiency of evidentiary support for administrative findings)
- Johnson v. Industrial Comm’n, 89 Ill. 2d 438 (Commission decision contrary to manifest weight where evidence lacking causal link)
- Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 98 Ill. 2d 400 (limitations on inferring work causation absent evidence)
- Long v. Industrial Comm’n, 76 Ill. 2d 561 (deference to Commission on medical/disability factual questions)
- Presson v. Industrial Comm’n, 200 Ill. App. 3d 876 (Commission’s expertise and deference on workers’ compensation findings)
- Teska v. Industrial Comm’n, 266 Ill. App. 3d 740 (manifest-weight standard for reviewing Commission factual findings)