2016 IL App (1st) 152116WC
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Mark Mytnik, a Ford assembly-line worker, filed for workers’ compensation for a back injury claimed to have arisen May 21, 2009 while performing a “moon buggy” job that required standing on a rotating platform, holding a foot pedal, loading bolts into an articulating arm, and occasionally bending to retrieve fallen bolts to avoid line stoppage.
- He reported acute right-sided low back pain radiating down the leg after reaching to pick up a bolt; MRI in May 2009 revealed a new L4-5 herniation not present on a 2003 MRI; he underwent microdiscectomy and related treatment and received disability awards from an arbitrator.
- Employer’s medical reviewers (and a workplace video) downplayed twisting/bending and suggested the job did not impose unusual spinal loading; some medical testimony noted preexisting degenerative changes and that degenerative spines can herniate from ordinary bending.
- The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed the arbitrator, finding claimant gave inconsistent histories, that the bending was a neutral risk (no greater than the general public), and that claimant’s spine was so degenerated any normal activity could have caused the herniation.
- The circuit court confirmed the Commission. The Appellate Court reversed, holding the Commission’s denial was against the manifest weight of the evidence and reinstated the arbitrator’s award.
Issues
| Issue | Mytnik’s Argument | Ford’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant’s injury “arose out of” employment (compensability) | The bending/retrieving of fallen bolts was an employment-specific risk integral to his duties and increased his exposure compared to the public | The act of bending was a neutral, everyday risk that did not expose claimant to greater risk than the public | Held for Mytnik: risk was distinctly associated with employment (bolts routinely fell; retrieving them was part of the job), so injury arose out of employment |
| Whether claimant’s inconsistent histories defeated his claim | Inconsistencies do not negate that the injury occurred during job duties; claimant testified consistently at hearing about retrieving a bolt | Commission relied on varied histories to undermine credibility | Court: Commission noted inconsistencies but did not deny on that basis; inconsistencies alone did not support reversal when other evidence showed an employment risk |
| Whether preexisting degenerative spine bars recovery (Cook limitation) | Although preexisting degeneration existed, evidence shows claimant worked full duty from 2003–2009 and the new L4-5 herniation occurred after the work episode; employer presented no persuasive proof that any normal activity would have caused the herniation | Employer argued degeneration meant any ordinary activity could have caused the herniation, so compensation is barred | Held for Mytnik: Commission’s conclusion that claimant’s spine was so deteriorated that any normal activity would have caused the herniation was against the manifest weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Orsini v. Industrial Comm’n, 117 Ill. 2d 38 (recognizes Act’s purpose to protect employees from occupational risks)
- Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 207 Ill. 2d 193 (burden: prove injury that arose out of and in course of employment)
- Baldwin v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 472 (discusses risk categories and analysis)
- Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 129 Ill. 2d 52 (employment-related risk defined: acts incidental to duties)
- County of Cook v. Industrial Comm’n, 69 Ill. 2d 10 (limitation: preexisting health so deteriorated that any normal activity is overexertion bars compensation)
- Illinois Consolidated Telephone Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 314 Ill. App. 3d 347 (distinguishes personal risks and idiopathic falls exception)