*1 judgment jury with the direction to reinstate the verdict and to enter thereon.
Reversed and remanded with directions. GOLDENHERSH, JJ.,
CHAPMAN and concur. SHELTON, Appellant CARL Cross-Appellee, EDMUND v. THE (Inland Company, INDUSTRIAL Appellee COMMISSION et al. Steel Coal Cross-Appellant). (Industrial Division) Fifth District Commission No. 5 — 93—0358WC Opinion September Rehearing 15, 1994. filed denied November *2 Wissore, Jr., Gulley Raleigh, appellant. Gulley, & for B.
Harold Nelson, Feirich/Sehoen/Mager/ Gary F. B. both of Michael Dahlen Green, Carbondale, appellee. for opinion of the court: delivered JUSTICE WOODWARD Shelton, Claimant, appeals from an order of the Carl Edmund County affirming of the Illinois a decision circuit court Franklin (Commission) awarding him loss permanent Industrial Commission employer, to the extent of 17.5%. of use of the man as whole seeking Company, cross-appeals dismissal Inland Steel Coal grounds. statutory on claim for benefits constitutional 1991, 20, on hearing October At the time of arbitration up age. He school to eleventh years attended claimant 75 mining industry, working claimant worked grade. Prior to in the coal He farm, an auto mechanic. Navy, and worked as on a was in the industry He in the coal job. a desk worked never worked at mechanic, making equipment which repairs plant 29 as a years for five up had walk and down welding. He also required him do tools, and 25 weighed between flights carrying of stairs the dust conditions at Inland but Originally he worked pounds. he black he was informed had in March 1979 bad there that were so He to a new location. change enough to entitle him to lung severe he retired on remained until 2, where he to Inland transferred claimant, every coal dust he inhaled According to October the mines. day worked at he cigarettes, approxi- that he further testified smoked
mately day years. quit smoking pack per approximately one for He claimant, years According prior in 1989. for three to four about retirement, experienced he shortness of breath when he tried himself, i.e., breathing His climbing carrying exert stairs or loads. get difficulties continued to worse. He retired in 1981 because he retirement, keep up could not Since his claimant has with his work. diagnosed dis- suffered two strokes has been with Parkinson’s breathing gotten gradually ease. Since difficulties have only yards becoming worse. He can walk to 30 before short breath. cross-examination,
On claimant did take a testified he medical retirement purposes; he made the decision to smoking retire in length. 1981. His to 50 was closer acknowledged He that he had emphysema been told he had but denied that smoking. had told him to quit doctors His ability to move around was also affected He strokes. also high pressure. suffered from blood
Admitted into depositions evidence were the evidence various this case. Their is summarized below. Houser,
Dr. William Charles board certified in internal medicine pulmonary diseases, employer. testified on behalf of the *3 history Houser obtained a pulmonary from and a complete conducted evaluation ray of claimant a which included chest X on June 1988. He suffering concluded that claimant was from coal workers’ (CWP) pneumoconiosis exposure related to his to coal dust and his work as a welder in his 29 aas coal miner. Dr. Houser also opined that suffering bronchitis, claimant was from chronic as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to his coal history cigarette activities and his smoking. cross-examination, On Dr. Houser testified claimant’s exposure adversely to asbestos could also lungs. have affect his It is impossible distinguish in claimant which factors caused his ill-being condition of varying susceptibility because individuals. Sanjabi,
Dr. Parviz B. pulmonologist, an internist and testified history the claimant. He took a medical from and examined claimant on reviewing November 1985. After claimant’s chest X ray pulmonary studies, and the Sanjabi function Dr. concluded CWP, claimant suffered from emphysema bullous and which he According suffered from at the time in he retired to Dr. San- jabi, working claimant could not have continued in the mines without endangering his health or life. cross-examination, Sanjabi Dr. testified claimant suffered
On bronchitis, emphysema, from as both of which chronic well bullous examination, On the doctor were obstructive conditions. redirect agreed contributing factor that CWP was obstructive lungs. condition Partridge, family practitioner, O. testified for the
Dr. Elliot July 8, On he examined claimant on behalf claimant. Department Labor in with a Federal United States connection lung had on claimant’s medical black action claimant filed. Based examination, diagnosed history Partridge and Dr. claimant as (COPD), suffering pulmonary from chronic obstructive disease history cig- resulting mining employment 40-year and his from reviewing reports and smoking. After the recent medical test arette suffering results, Partridge opined Dr. that claimant was from CWP. being opined He disabled from further that claimant was comparable work because gainfully as a coal miner or other employed adequately. "pulmonarywise,” perform unable to In claimant’s he was welding lung damage caused the CWP resulted from activities, smoking, as pneumoconiosis, cigarette degree each aging process. impossible It was to determine what lungs. Cigarette smoking damage does factor caused the not cause CWP. cross-examination, Partridge claimant Dr. testified that
On cigarette smoke. Pneu- exposed to either coal dust or should component part of claimant’s condition of COPD moconiosis was Kelly, board certified in internal medicine Stephen Dr. Kelly medicine, employer. Dr. pulmonary testified on behalf of the lungs typically in the included impairments testified that obstructive bronchitis, COPD, and asthma. Coal comprises emphysema, produce a restric- pneumoconiosis, if it would exposure, dust causes to a ventilatory pattern. can also contribute much tive Coal dust smoking pattern. Cigarette degree type of lesser to an obstructive not, ventilatory generally, does produces pattern; an obstructive itself, type pattern. produce a restrictive depo- and test results Based claimant’s medical Getty, Kelly claimant and Dr. William sition from predomi- was caused opined that claimant’s *4 contributing a minor by cigarette smoking, with coal dust nately However, solely on the totally disabled claimant would be cause. smoking-induced COPD. his basis of cross-examination, recom- that he would Kelly Dr. testified
On exposure to coal patient cease CWP that patient with mend gainful opinion, dust. In claimant was disabled from pulmonary impairment factor employment and his causative re-cross-examination, disability. Kelly of his On testified simple progressive claimant suffered from CWP rather than massive fibrosis. Tuteur,
Dr. Peter board certified in internal medicine medicine, pulmonary employer. He testified for the reviewed history as claimant’s medical his medical records. Dr. Tuteur cigarette-smoke-associated opined that claimant suffered from pulmonary chronic did from obstructive disease. Claimant not suffer pulmonary by simple lung restrictive disease caused CWP since his capacity always measurements had been above normal and in fact increasing. opined pres- have been Dr. Tuteur further that claimant’s to, ill-being by, ent aggravated condition was not related caused by dust; compression lung inhalation of coal of his tissue was by emphysema. cross-examination, caused his condition of bullous On Dr. Tuteur testified that he had not examined claimant. Bruce,
Dr. Robert M. board certified internal medicine and pulmonary medicine, employer. February 3, 1991, testified for the On he examined claimant took a medical from him. He also reviewed claimant’s medical hospital reports. records and Based on test, the results the pulmonary function Dr. Bruce concluded that airways claimant had severe obstruction with no evidence of re- component. strictive impairments Obstructive are associated with reduction in air flow impairments rates. Restrictive any result from process lung that causes the capacity total to become smaller than predicted. Emphysema and chronic obstructive are bronchitis impairments. obstructive simple While in most cases CWP does not function, interfere at all lung does, with when it it causes a restric- pattern. tive opined Dr. Bruce that claimant suffered from a severe airway cigarette-induced by obstruction caused emphysema obstructive bronchitis. Claimant showed no evidence of restrictive process from cause.
Dr. Bruce further opined that claimant was disabled from a pulmonary standpoint, and that the disablement was caused emphysema condition of and chronic bronchitis. Claimant did suffer CWP, from simple simple any physiologic but his CWP did not cause changes pulmonary could measured on function studies. Claimant’s inhalation of aggravated coal dust neither caused nor physiologic changes; cigarette smoking alone could account changes function studies. cross-examination,
On emphy- Dr. Bruce testified that sema was not caused his inhalation dust. inha- Claimant’s *5 216 dust, dust, including
lotion of coal silica could have been a factor development aggravation or of his chronic Claimant’s the bronchitis. gen- by CWP his inhalation of coal dust. Coal dust is not was caused development aggravation an erally factor in the or causative ventilatory obstructive defect. examination, Dr. the inhala-
On redirect Bruce testified that for abnormality, an there would tion of rock dust to lead to obstructive lung injury have to be a definable as silicosis.. ill- found that claimant’s condition of
The arbitrator causally miner. He being related to as coal was the 17.5% of further found that claimant was disabled to extent of argument rejected employer’s the man as whole. The arbitrator 6(c) by claim for was barred section the Workers’ that the benefits 1992)). (820 310/6(c) (West (Act) Act ILCS Occupational Diseases arbitrator, the the circuit Commission affirmed the decision of by appeal Commission. This court confirmed the decision the cross-appeal by employer the followed. claimant and employer’s cross-appeal. will the in the We address issues raised First, claimant’s claim is barred under employer the contends that (820 (West 1992)). 6(c) 6(c) 310/6(c) ILCS Section section of the Act part follows: provides pertinent by injury exposure to any
"In than or death caused other asbestos, application equipment radiological materials or or unless years with Commission within 3 compensation for filed the after disablement, compensation has been where no the date the years payment of the date of the last paid, or within 2 after later, be paid, whichever shall compensation, where has been (Emphasis add- right application such shall be barred.” file 310/6(c) (West 1992).) ed.) (820 ILCS 6(c) following above-quoted language, section Immediately provides follows: by July caused 1973 cases "Effective application compensation is pneumoconiosis unless
miners has years employee the Commission within filed with after paid, has or within compensation been exposed last where no any has compensation been payment where years after the last (Emphasis be barred.” right application file shall paid, the such (West 310/6(c) 1992). added.) 820 ILCS within filed claim argues while claimant employer years three he to file within exposure, failed five last disablement, employer contends was which the of his the date 31, 1981. October by five-year governed responds that CWP supplant limitations, obviously intended which was
statute 6(c) Act; three-year filing requirement preceding init section otherwise, five-year filing provision is nullified. precept statutory specific provi
It is a basic construction that ones; moreover, general sions control over are to statutes way meaningless in a language construed which does not render the 345.) superfluous. (People (1984), Singleton 103 Ill. 2d Courts obligated are to construe unjust statutes both to avoid absurd or con sequences their constitutionality. People and to affirm v. Williams language susceptible differing
Where the of a statute interpretations, necessary it is legislative to ascertain the intent beyond looking express considering purpose words and to be (Goodson served the statute. *6 18.) 16,
App. 3d Different sections the same statute should be pari considered as in materia and should be construed so as to avoid 18.) (Goodson, an illogical App. determining result. 190 Ill. 3d at In is, what may the intent the statute properly the court not consider statute, only language the a used in but the necessity also reason and law, remedied, sought for the evils the to be purpose and the to be Goodson, achieved. App. 190 Ill. at 3d legislative
Examination the discloses that that 6(c) portion of five-year section filing requirement sets forth the specifically for CWP passed subsequent part cases was to that 6(c) (820 section specifying three-year filing requirement. ILCS 310/ (Smith-Hurd 6(c), 1993).) Statutory Notes, Historical & at 747 We agree with the claimant that statutory urged by the construction the employer effectively nullify would the five-year filing period provided specifically for meaningless CWP. It would render legislature’s the 6(c) amendment in section filing the Act to a special include time for CWP exposure. based on the date of last
Therefore, light five-year in filing fact that the requirement three-year followed in the filing time requirement and the fact that five-year filing the requirement specifically CWP, is directed at we conclude that claim was not barred provisions the 6(c) section of the Act.
Second, employer the also contends that the Act is unconstitu- tional in process, having legally that it due violates no stan- fixed dards, vague. that the statute is presumed constitutional,
Statutes are to be and one chal who lenges provision invalidity. establishing has the burden of (City its (1990), Page Airport 613, Geneva v. Du Authority App. 3d 621.) Legislation challenge will process survive substantive due so long it reasonably designed is remedy legislature to evils health, safety, gen public be has determined to a threat to 861.) (1992), App. Ill. 3d (People Sonntag eral welfare. v. process only reasonably requires due the statute be clause designed accomplish be the means of purposes, to its it best Ill. 3d accomplishing People them. Smith argues system there are no employer that unlike the Federal assessing guidelines apply law an in Illinois arbitrator under sufficiency roentgenograms, diagnostic of chest studies, tests, medically gas arterial and other function blood Further, system, accepted in under the Federal tests cases CWP. disability payments, determining there are criteria for entitlement law, left make while under Illinois the arbitrator is decisions which might upon guesswork. Finally, speculation based argues legitimate employer the State can have no interest determination benefits. preserving standardless responds pointing out that under the Federal evidence, lung largely hearsay are black claims decided on statute formulas are predetermined rather evidence. Since than testimonial used, In testimony is often not utilized Federal cases. medical contrast, key majority factor in the of cases by ordinary governed in such are under the Act. The decisions cases (Coriell rules cases. of evidence civil 110.) may bring parties under the Act Both claim medical tests. In each interpret results of the various findings her fact makes his or based the arbitrator Thus, although no the Act contains rules of well-settled evidence. formulas, brought in a under the Act an arbitrator’s decision case standards, discretion hardly nor is based unlimited without *7 us believe. employer the would have argument. vagueness employer’s the unpersuaded
We are also intelligence ordinary people so that of Where a statute is uncertain process. (City meaning, the statute denies due guess must at its of 628.) the language if the of Geneva, at An act is void it is face, meaning a to which statute, to have appears on its application in the circum precise intelligent or impossible give to Geneva, (City 193 operate. to under which it is intended stances of 628.) if its process terms A civil is violative due App. 3d at statute all. or at really as be no rule standard vague indefinite to are so and 233, Refining 267 U.S. Sugar Co. A.B. Co. v. American Small 295, 239, 589, 593, Ed. 45 S. Ct. 297. 69 L. (1966), Pennsylvania v. employer’s reliance on Giaccio 518, misplaced. is In that 86 Ct. Ed. 2d S.
U.S. L. permitted that the law that Supreme found States Court the United juries against acquitted to an defendant was unconstitu- assess costs jury apply making as no to in provided tional standards the observed, previously such determination. we under the As have Act, guided by is applicable arbitrator the rules evidence belief, Contrary employer’s uniformity civil cases. to the awards requirement objective benefits is neither a nor an under the Act. reject employer’s argument We therefore Act un- constitutional. turn appeal.
We now to merits of the claimant’s totally permanently asserts that he and disabled only awarding Commission erred him of man as a 17.5% the whole. We, nevertheless, conclude that the Commission’s decision was against weight of the manifest the evidence. permanently partially arbitrator found that claimant was testimony,
disabled based as that of experts. medical The arbitrator noted that since claimant’s retire- breathing ment: gradually "[Claimant’s] has continued to worsen. At time, daily severely activities are due restricted to (25) shortness of He twenty-five breath. could walk no more than yards becoming breath, before short of and he could climb more no steps than few having stop without to to catch his breath.” The arbitrator further noted that opinions the medical as to claimant’s disability ranged from pulmonary impairment complete disable- from gainful employment. ment
An employee totally permanently purpose disabled for the compensation workers’ when he is benefits unable to make some industry contribution justify payments sufficient to him of (A.M.T.C. wages. Illinois, Inc., Mayflower Aero Co. Transit 487.) Industrial Comm’n 77 Ill. 2d This not require does the injured party physical reduced to state total or mental (A.M.T.C. incapacity helplessness. Illinois, Inc., 77 Ill. 2d at ) If employee an up can take employment some form of without life, endangering his health or he is not entitled to total perma (A.M.T.C. Illinois, Inc., nent compensation. at 77 Ill. 2d ) 488. Just cannot perform very because a claimant physi strenuous not, by itself, cal labor does entitle him an permanently award as Illinois, Inc., disabled. A.M.T.C. Ill. 2d at At hearing, the time of the arbitration claimant was 75 age. He up grade. attended school In the eleventh addition to mining, farming his work an included majority automobile mechanic. The in this case concluded that claimant could not return to coal because exposure to coal dust would be detrimental to his health. His *8 ability inhibited of his to walk more than 25 feet or
shortness breath in his that to climb stairs. Most the medical case found Partridge pulmonarily impaired. Dr. found that claimant was comparable totally disabled from or claimant was totally employment. Kelly Dr. concluded that claimant was disabled However, employment. Kelly also that gainful from concluded solely claimant been disabled on the basis would have smoking-induced chronic obstructive disease. disability is so that is not If the claimant’s limited nature he no obviously unemployable support or if there is medical evidence disability, a claim of is the claimant to total the burden establish unavailability employment person to a in his circumstances. (1981), Ill. (Valley Mould & Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm’n 2d 546-47.) showing diligent may be but This burden met attempts by proof to find work or that because of unsuccessful education, experience any is age, training, perform and he unfit to Valley no but the most menial tasks for which stable market exists. Co., at Mould & Iron 2d 547. age Although he at
In this claimant retired longer keep up with the that he retired because he could no stated work, on the recommendation of doctor because he did not retire that disability. There is no in the record any evidence following employment his retirement claimant conducted a search for disability. It any he was turned down for due testimony seek that claimant did not could be inferred from Although per is se retirement. there no employment because of his permanent dis person is entitled an award rule that retired ignored. ability, the fact of retirement cannot be distinguishable Monterey from Coal Co. both This case Co. App. Zeigler and Coal 241 Ill. 3d Industrial Comm’n Monterey In Coal any Co., gainful testimony perform claimant could not there was training, age lack of education employment, and due to his limitations, found that significant this court physical In Zeigler services. reasonably stable market there was no disability was Co., Coal there was medical he was no lon claimant testified that permanent, and the total and ger able to do work. proving of the elements burden of all employee
An bears the It injury. case, including permanency of the the extent the factual Commission to determine province within rea- weight given the evidence and the issues, to be to decide the therefrom, assess the to be drawn sonable inferences credibility witnesses. Commission’s determination of these against weight will issues set aside unless it is the manifest *9 Co. evidence. Marathon Oil 815-16. It is a reasonable inference from the record this case that totally prevented state of health not have would seeking him from other his retirement and that given experience previous education and work there would have reasonably been a stable market for his services. therefore
We conclude that of perma- Commission’s award partial nent to the extent of 17.5% of the as a man whole against was not weight the manifest of the evidence. judgment circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
RAKOWSKI, SLATER, RARICK, JJ., concur. McCULLOUGH,
PRESIDING specially concurring: JUSTICE agree I five-year filing period in cases caused pneumoconiosis miner’s apply. does respondent 1(f), his brief requires cites to section
that the disablement occur years within two day after last of last (820 310/l(f) (West 1992)). exposure ILCS Other than this bare statement, respondent argue point does not nor does he evidence to prove show that the claimant did the disease occurred within two after exposure. last 1(f) This court has stated that section does apply in cases similar this, and I write this special only point concurrence out that 1(f) applicability section pursued respondent. is not