Chi. Transit Auth. v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, Appeal No. 1-12-3722WC
| Decision Date | 10 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 1-12-3722WC |
| Parties | CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, et al., (Luis Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellee). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
Circuit No. 12-L-50064
Honorable Daniel T. Gillespie, Judge, Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The Commission's finding that the claimant suffered injuries under the "mental-mental" theory was neither contrary to law nor against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 The claimant, Luiz Gonzalez, filed an application for adjustment of claim under the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2004)), seeking benefits for psychological/mental injuries allegedly sustained while working as a bus driver for the Chicago Transit Authority ("CTA" or "employer") on four specific dates: March 3, 2010; March 22, 2010; April 13, 2010; and April 26, 2010. A section 19(b) hearing was held on August 9 and August 17, 2010, before Arbitrator Brian Cronin. The arbitrator found that the claimant sufferedinjuries arising out of and in the course of his employment as it related to each of the four instances. The arbitrator awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for the period from April 27, 2010, through August 9, 2010 (the date of the hearing), for a total of 15 weeks. The arbitrator also awarded $9,520.20 for reasonable and necessary medical expenses. The employer sought review before the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission), which affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's decision with additional facts and analysis.1 The employer then sought judicial review of the Commission's decision in the circuit court of Cook County, which confirmed the decision of the Commission. The employer then filed a timely appeal with this court.
¶ 4 The following factual recitation is taken from the evidence presented at the arbitration hearing conducted on August 9 and 17, 2010.
¶ 5 The claimant began his employment with the employer in 1999, when he was hired as a janitor/laborer at the 77th Street Garage. In late 2007, the claimant was given the choice of alay-off or training to become a bus operator. After successfully completing a training program, the claimant assumed the duties of bus operator in February 2008, driving a route out of the Archer Avenue garage. The claimant testified that the clientele on that route was a mixture of races and socio-economic backgrounds. He also testified that he encountered no problems on this route.
¶ 6 In February 2010, the employer closed the Archer Avenue facility and the claimant chose to be transferred to the employer's 74th Street facility based upon its relative proximity to his home in Tinley Park, Illinois. The claimant was permitted to choose from a number of available routes and chose an east/west route which ran along 63rd Street between Stoney Island Avenue and Kedzie Avenue. The claimant drove this route on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. His hours were 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 6 p.m., with an hour lunch during the interim. On each day except Friday, the claimant was required to pick up students at Englewood High School at the end of the school day.
¶ 7 The claimant testified that the most problematic part of his route was the stop at Englewood.2 He testified that every day at the school, there were at least five police cars present when school was dismissed. The bus would completely fill up with 80 or 90 students, many of whom refused to pay. He testified that when he confronted a student who did not pay, he was usually threatened with physical violence. He also testified that 90% of all the passengers on his route were African American, while he was a fair-skinned Latino American. He testified that he constantly received verbal threats from many of the students who would taunt him with statements such as "white boy, we're gonna fuck you up!"
¶ 8 On March 3, 2010, at approximately 9 a.m. the claimant observed three young males follow another young male onto the bus. The three immediately attacked and attempted to rob the lone youth once the bus started moving. The claimant drove a short distance until he was able to flag down a police officer. The officer entered the bus and was able to stop the altercation and arrest one of the assailants. A surveillance video, activated by the claimant, recorded the incident. Following the incident, the claimant completed an incident report and was required to appear in court as a witness in a criminal proceeding related to the assault.
¶ 9 The claimant testified that, although at no time did any of the attackers attempt to make any physical contact with him, the event nevertheless caused him great fear and apprehension. He testified that he became even more anxious when he found out that the silent alarm on the bus did not work. The claimant did not seek medical or psychological treatment following this occurrence.
¶ 10 Shortly after that incident, the claimant sought a transfer to another route. From March 5, 2010, to March 8, 2010, the claimant was assigned to a route on Pulaski Street. The claimant requested a transfer back to the 63rd Street route after he realized that he might not get as many hours on the Pulaski Street route. The claimant testified that when he asked to return to the 63rd Street route, he told his supervisor that he felt as threatened and apprehensive on the Pulaski route as he had on the 63rd Street route.
¶ 11 On March 22, 2010, at approximately 3 p.m., the claimant drove his bus away from Englewood after filling the bus with students. He testified that as he pulled away from the school, one of the students engaged an emergency apparatus, referred to as the "cherry," the purpose of which was to stop the bus and open an emergency door in the rear of the bus. The claimant testified that the students would occasionally activate the "cherry" in order to allowother riders to get on the bus through the emergency door without paying a fare. In order to start the bus after the "cherry" has been activated, the claimant would have to reset the device. On this particular occasion, the claimant was having trouble restarting the bus following a cherry pulling incident. A female student passenger became extremely upset with the claimant's failure to get the bus started. The claimant testified that she screamed and cursed at him repeatedly. She approached the claimant, lunged toward him while he was seated at the steering wheel, then reached passed him started wildly pressing buttons on the dashboard. While the passenger was pressing buttons on the dashboard, the claimant activated a silent alarm. The claimant was then able to restart the bus and drove a short distance. The female passenger exited the bus and was taken into custody by police responding to the claimant's silent alarm. Surveillance video corroborated the claimant's testimony regarding the incident. The claimant filed an incident report at the end of his shift.
¶ 12 The claimant testified that the event caused him extreme anxiety and made him feel as if he had no control of the bus. He did not, however, seek medical or psychological treatment after this occurrence.
¶ 13 On April 13, 2010, at approximately 4 p.m., the claimant had stopped his bus to pick up passengers when several youths opened a panel on the right rear section of the bus and disabled the battery, thus cutting power on the bus. The claimant was forced to exit the bus to reconnect the power. As he got off bus, the claimant shouted at the youths and they retreated a few yards away to a nearby bus stop shelter. The claimant testified that he went to the rear of the bus and opened the panel to manually reconnect the battery cables. While doing so, the youths taunted the claimant with racial epithets. The claimant testified that one of the youths then through abottle and a brick at him. The claimant also testified that, after he reconnected the power, he got back on the bus and the youths followed him onto the bus.
¶ 14 Surveillance video showed the claimant chasing the youths away as he exited the bus and walked toward the battery panel. The video also showed the group of youths standing at the bus stop several feet away from the claimant while he worked on the battery. The video also showed a can or similar object roll toward the claimant from the direction of the youths, and then showed the youths follow the claimant onto the bus.
¶ 15 The claimant testified that, after he got on the bus, he drove to the end of the route. He called the CTA control center and reported the incident and also reported that he was having chest pains and trouble breathing. A Chicago Fire Department rescue squad was summoned and within a few minutes arrived to treat the claimant. The rescue report recorded the claimant's complaints of breathing difficulty, chest pressure and left arm numbness, as well as symptoms of hyperventilation. The report further indicated that the claimant gave a history of "almost being assaulted" and that he believed he suffered a "panic attack" as a result.
¶ 16 The claimant was transported to Jackson Park Hospital where the emergency department attending physician recorded a clinical impression of chest pain - angina following an incident of anxiety. The claimant testified that, after this incident he was afraid to go to work and began to experience nightmares.
¶ 17 On April 26, 2010, the claimant went to work early so he could speak to his supervisor about the March 3, 2010, incident. He had received a letter from the State's Attorney's office requiring him to appear as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial