Simpson v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n
2017 IL App (3d) 160024WC
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Curtis Simpson, a 31-year Peoria firefighter (22 years frontline, later administrative), suffered a heart attack on January 12, 2008 and received stents; he subsequently received a duty disability pension.
- Simpson filed for workers’ compensation under section 8, invoking the statutory rebuttable presumption in section 6(f) that firefighters’ heart/vascular conditions are work-related.
- Medical evidence: claimant’s expert (Dr. Weaver) opined occupational exposures (smoke, toxins, stress, shift work) could have contributed; employer experts (Drs. Fintel and Scott) attributed Simpson’s disease to non-occupational risk factors (age, male sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity).
- The arbitrator awarded benefits; the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, finding the employer rebutted the §6(f) presumption and that the claimant failed to prove causation by a preponderance.
- The circuit court affirmed the Commission; Simpson appealed. The appellate court upheld the Commission: it applied Thayer’s “bursting-bubble” approach (adopted in Johnston), concluded the employer introduced some evidence of alternate causes (ending the presumption), and found the Commission’s factual credibility determinations supported denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simpson qualifies as a "firefighter" under §6(f) | Simpson is covered despite administrative duties because of long frontline service and on-call/incident response | City did not contest coverage below but IML argued administrative status might exclude coverage | Court held Simpson was a firefighter under §6(f) (factual finding not against manifest weight) |
| Quantum to rebut §6(f) presumption | Presumption should remain unless employer produces strong, specific proof disproving occupational causation | Employer need only introduce some evidence of another cause to "burst the bubble" (per Johnston) | Court adopted Johnston: employer’s evidence of other causes (risk factors) was sufficient to terminate the statutory presumption |
| Whether employer actually rebutted causation and whether claimant proved causation after presumption fell | Dr. Weaver: occupational exposures may have caused/aggravated disease | Drs. Fintel/Scott: disease caused by non-occupational risk factors; Fintel more credible | Commission’s credibility choice upheld; claimant failed to prove work causation by preponderance; appellate court affirmed |
| Admissibility/use of amicus briefs | AFFI urged pro-claimant arguments, introduced matters outside record | City moved to strike extraneous material; IML sought to file amicus for City | Court struck portions of AFFI brief that were de hors the record, allowed IML to file late as amicus |
Key Cases Cited
- Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean, 95 Ill. 2d 452 (Ill. 1983) (discusses effect and burden of rebuttable presumptions)
- Diederich v. Walters, 65 Ill. 2d 95 (Ill. 1976) (articulates Thayer’s "bursting-bubble" approach to rebuttable presumptions)
- Beelman Trucking Co. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 233 Ill. 2d 364 (Ill. 2009) (standard: factual findings affirmed unless against manifest weight)
- Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 207 Ill. 2d 193 (Ill. 2003) (causation under Act requires employment to be a contributing cause)
- Zurich Ins. Co. v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 118 Ill. 2d 23 (Ill. 1987) (striking amicus submissions that rely on materials outside the record)