*1 STAPLETON, Aрpellant, JERRY v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (Peabody Company,
et Appellee). al. Coal Fifth District No. 5 — 95—0499WC Opinion Rehearing filed June August denied RARICK, J., concurring dissenting part.
Harris, Lambert, Dorris, Marion, appellant. Howerton & for P.C., Depauli, Heights, appellee. Keefe & Fairview opinion PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered *2 the court: Jerry Stapleton appeals
Claimant from an order of the circuit County confirming court of Clair St. a decision of the Illinois (Commission) denying Industrial Commission claimant’s claim for injury right benefits an respondent employer due to to his knee. The Peabody Company. Coal The arbitrator awarded claimant for 51 weeks for $416.67 temporary disability $20,720.65 necessary aid, total and for first (West (b) medical, surgical, hospital 305/8(a), and services. 820 ILCS 1994). reversed, finding injury to be an idio- pathic fall and that prove claimant failed to it resulted an from increased risk of harm employment. associated with his
The issues are whether the Commission’s decision that claim- ant failed prove arising an accident out of his was against the manifest
whereby original findings the Commission makes tak- without (see 305/19(e) (West ing 1994)) 820 ILCS is a violation of due clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. We affirm. evidence at arbitration will not be set forth in
detail. application
Claimant’s adjustment alleged injury for of claim an May 12, on form, On response inquiry to the of "How did Accident or Illness occur (Type)?” responded, "Walking, claimant gave left way knee and twisted knee.” At the hearing, Schuessler, arbitration Robert Johnson and Merle employees claimant, fellow 12, 1992, May testified that on near the end of the a.m., meal break at about 4:30 claimant fell while return- ing to work. Neither saw claimant fall. that, 12, 1992, tеstified prior May he had been off
work with 14, 1991, to his February left knee. On stepped he fell, off a scoop, injured the left knee. He was off work until October 22, 1992, 1991. On January slipped carrying he while bucket of again injured water and the left knee. He returned to work on May injuries, Because of these other two he wore a brace on his left knee. 12, 1992, taken to respect May injury, to the claimant was
With Sparta Hospital emergency room and was later treated Dr. room, Morgan. emergency Richard At the he told the nurse and doc- happened. May Morgan, On when he saw he told tor what respondent’s happened. him what Claimant was referred to exhibit injured employee report May an dated which he No. signed. response question happen?” to the "How did the accident wrote, gave way claimant "Knee and Fell.” examination, On redirеct claimant was asked what he told Morgan injury "I as to how the occurred. Claimant testified: area, walking my really say happened. back to and I can’t what work say All I I I can’t what caused me to fall. know is fell and —uh—hurt concerning Morgan’s my right report knee.” There was some fallen, Mоrgan about whether claimant had but claimant went to Morgan history and corrected him about that. corrected the medical petitioner’s after that. Claimant identified exhibit No. which was employee injury report completed of work-related confirmation reading day signed He did not fill it out but it after it. occurred, stated, report explaining injury In the area how the gave injuring both leg way getting "left while around debris —Fell knees.” May emergency Sparta Hospital room dated denied history included a taken a nurse in which claimant "it just either and stated the knee twisted *3 to knee on that
went out from under him.” The doctor’s notation Rt. "gave unexpectedly indicated claimant’s left knee out —hurt stumbling to catch balance.” knee — claim- he first saw Morgan, orthopedic surgeon, an testified that Morgan re- May history which injury ant for this on 1992. just had been corded in his notes for that date was that claimant knee. He was days following back to work the to the left two talking employee a fellow on working power around a box and to pain in his morning May felt the immediate onset of of 12 when he footing losing falling his not remember or knee. Claimant did thought he just experiencеd pain. Claimant said but the onset of down, anything. Claim- him, and not see something had hit looked did pain persistent Claimant had pain ant caused him to fall. said he could not right knee. Because following pain in the the onset of ambulate, Hospital. Sparta claimant was taken to claimant, Morgan supple- with
After a further conversation date notes for that Morgan’s history mented the on October stated: in his notes he had question
"There was about one some report. I falling indicated that he did not remember and he now really distinctly states that he can remember a time when he did Apparently fall typo and wrench his knee. this was a on the my secretary.” Morgan May testified that the accident 1992 which claimant injury described to him could have caused the anterior cruciate claimant’s knee. compensable injury
The arbitrator found a and аwarded benefits. The Commission reversed the arbitrator’s decision. The Commission found prove claimant failed to arising he sustained an accident (1) employment May 12, out of Commission reasoned claimant did not know the cause of the fall and leg stated his left (2) him; "went out” on prior injuries claimant had two to the left knee; claimant’s history and the medical provide did not a link mine, between the conditions in including hanging electri- slate, cal wires and moist fall; claimant’s unwitnessed suggested medical histories the fall idiopathic, caused pain onset giving way or the of one of his knees.
Claimant has the proving burden of all of the essential ele ments of his claim a preponderance of the Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial (1980). prove injured must that he was in an accident
which arose out of
employment
course of his
respon
with
dent. "In the course of’ employment
time,
refers to the
place, and
circumstances under
occurred,
which the accident
while "arose out
employment
of’
means there is a causal connection between the ac
cidental
injury and some risk incidental
to or connectеd with the
activity
employee
must do to fulfill his
Caterpillar
duties.
Tractor
Co. v.
57-58,
injury
"[A]n
is not compensable
causally
unless it is
connected
employment.”
Caterpillar,
Generally, the determination of whether an arose out of and in the course of claimant’s is a Commission, for the and thе Commission’s determination thereof will not be set aside contrary unless it is to the manifest of the ev idence. Day Hansel & Gretel Care Center v. Industrial Ill. 292-93, resolving questions fact, province it is the of the Commission to assess the credibility witnesses, resolve assign conflicts in the *4 weight to evidence, be accorded the and draw reasonable inferences from the Paganelis Comm’n, 468, evidence. v. Industrial 132 Ill. 2d 483, 1033, 548 (1989); Comm’n, N.E.2d 1040 v. Kirkwood Industrial 14, 20, 84 Ill. 2d 1078, (1981); 416 N.E.2d 1080 Pazara v. Industrial 16 76, 80, 767, (1980);
Comm’n, Corp. 81 Ill. 2d 405 N.E.2d 769 Kress v. Comm’n, 72, 79, 1046, App. Industrial 190 Ill. 3d 545 N.E.2d 1050 (1989). against The test of whether the Commission’s decision is weight manifest of the evidence is whether there was sufficient Comm’n, supрort factual v. evidence to it. Benson Industrial 91 Ill. 2d (1982). 445, 450, 90, 440 93 In order for the N.E.2d decision to be against weight the manifest review of the record opposite must disclose that the conclusion to that reached clearly proper Wagner Castings Commission was result. Co. v. 584, 595, 397, App. 241 Ill. 609 N.E.2d 3d Cohn, 30, (1993); App. 3d Flynn v. 220 Ill. (1991). may
A сlaimant not recover if the risk which he was ex to. posed personal idiopathic type a risk to him. An fall is a ac internal, personal cident which results from an weakness of the unexplained, injuries compensa If fall are claimant. resultant idiopathic, compensable ble. If the fall is resultant are not significantly injury by unless the contributed to the placing position greater in a falling. claimant risk of from 58-59, 667; Brands, Caterpillar, 129 Ill. 2d at at N.E.2d Nabisco App. Inc. v. Industrial 266 Ill. (1994); 238, 581-82 Elliot v. Industrial 153 Ill.
242-44, 1065-67 case, against the Commission’s decision was not In this Although he did weight of the claimant testified manifest еvidence. fall, in reports him his statements and medical not know what made finding idiopathic injury result support histories the Commission’s ing giving Nothing in the record ties the from one of his knees out. Claimant, only wit condition of the mine to claimant’s accident, slipped tripped ness to the never said he on the slate or an electrical wire. judgment
A court of
not substitute its
for that of the
review will
merely
inferences could
been drawn
because other
have
Instead,
finding must be shown
from the evidence.
the Commission’s
Brady
v. Louis
against
to be
the manifest
Co.,
143 Ill. 2d
& Sons Construction
Ruffolo
(1991);
Pazara,
at
The next issue is whether taking is a original findings оf fact without sion makes this issue al process. to due We address violation of claimant’s raise it before the for failure to it could be deemed waived Comm’n, Taylor See Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission. 387-88, 134 N.E. *5 relating
Claimant cites several cases procedure employed to the given decision, and the deference to the Commission but no case is cited relating to the of provisions pro how these violate due appellate depository cess. The court is a appellant not into which an may dump Thweatt, the burden of research. Bank v. Illinois Ill. Apр. 3d appellant must support 341(e)(7). authority. his contention with citation of 155 Ill. 2d R. obligation
But that appellant. is not restricted to the respondent appellee as must support argument also its with citation 341(f). authority. Respondent authority 2d R. has cited no Nevertheless, whatsoever оn this issue. the merits will be addressed. directly claimant does not challenge the constitutionality of 19(e) section Compensation of the Workers’ (Act), Act which states part: relevant
"In all cases in which hearing the before the arbitrator is held after December no additional evidence shall be intro- by parties duced the before the Commission on review of the deci- 305/19(e) (West 1994). sion of the Arbitrator.” 820 ILCS Claimant arguing not it is a violation of due to have a rule in which the evidence, Commission does not hear but that it is what the Commission evidence, i.e., does with the credibility assess weigh evidence, the which process. Although violates due section 19(e) of the Act does refer to making the findings Commission law, and conclusions of it does specifically not set out the rule that the Commission is to assess the credibility of weigh witnesses and the evidence, although certainly these are gener- functions of fact finders ally. essence, the claimant challenges procedure employed by reaching Commission in a decision and the deference accorded to that by decision acknowledges courts. Claimant that the manifest standard whiсh courts review Commission decisions and concept that judge Commission credibility is the are judicially created. argues that give deference the courts the Commis
sion’s decision and the determination that the Commission exercises original, appellate, jurisdiction rather than аrose at a time when the However, heard evidence. even when the Act allowed the Commission the evidence, discretion to hear additional the Com mission rule then in effect limited the evidence to be at the (1) review hearing relating evidence to the claimant’s cоndition since the arbitration hearing, relating occurring matters or conditions developed which after hearing, the arbitration which was not introduced at the hearing good arbitration cause. 6 Reg. 8040, 7040.40(b) Ill. (July 1982); 8048-49 50 Ill. Adm. Code § 43, 49-50, Ill. In Werries v. (1986), that Supreme Court of Illinois decided 461-62 present only portion not a of his evidence before the party a could supply portion the deficient later before the Com arbitrator and then Instead, the arbitra Such a would be unworkable. mission. proper in order to render deci tor must have all available evidence present all sion, failure to make reasonable efforts to and the hamper the efficient to the arbitrator would available evidence system potential administration to the compensation of the workers’ parties in all cases. detriment claimant, although recognizing that the Com
The cases cited recognized also mission could consider additional a trial de novo even the Commis Commission did not conduct parties sion had the discretion to allow the to introduce additional *6 that the Commission’s function evidence. These cases did not decide сhanged presented. was See as fact finder if no additional evidence 475, 478-79, 593, Comm’n, v. Industrial 312 N.E.2d Wirth (1974); 371 Ill. 21 Rodriguez v. Industrial v. Industrial In J&J Transmissions (1993), and Dillon v. App. 243 Ill. 3d 195 Ill. (1990), that, is court held even no additional evidence this Commission, judge credibility, the Commission is heard original jurisdiction, and is not bound weighs the exercises Therefore, argue findings. attempt claimant’s by the arbitrator’s only because the Commis principles that came into existence these unpersuasive. sion could hear evidence is proceeding, necessary it is not In an administrative taken before the same officers who have the ultimate be may decision-making authority. proceedings be Administrative by hearing refer the case for final determina conducted officers who board, personally "heard” tion to a the members of which have not process requirements Due are met if the decision- making and bases its determination on evidence board considers hearing proceedings before the officer. contained in a Evanston, City Homefinders, Inc. v. does not violate employed in this case process. claimant’s to due judgment County confirming of the circuit St. court of Clair n >
the decision of the Commission is affirmed. Affirmed.
RAKOWSKI, COLWELL, HOLDRIDGE, JJ„ concur. RARICK, concurring JUSTICE dissenting part: in majority’s I concur with handling of the due issue case, in this but because I believe claimant’s fall was com- pensable, I also must dissent. It majority points is true as the out that claimant testified he was not sure how the accident happened. majority But what the recognizе fails to are the circumstances sur- rounding underground the fall. Claimant walking mine wet, slick slate with ground. 4-inch-diameter cables on the l1/2- employment clearly conditions of claimant’s contributed to the cause of his As the gave arbitrator stated: "Even if the knee way reason, appаrent moist, no rapidly left foot slid on the slick slate caught and caused knee to be under the Petitioner very quickly greater and with force.” I therefore believe the accident arose out of and in the course of claimant’s claimant’s ill-being causally condition of related to the accident. HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellee,
CHARLES A. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC *7 al., Defendants-Appellants. RAILROAD COMPANY et Fifth District No. 5 — 95—0514
Opinion August filed