Elliot v. Industrial Com'n of Illinois

• Decision Date: 11 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. 1-86-1199,1-86-1199
• Citation: 106 Ill.Dec. 271,153 Ill.App.3d 238,505 N.E.2d 1062
• Parties: , 106 Ill.Dec. 271 Charles ELLIOT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS, Respondent, and County of Cook, a Body Politic and Corporate of Illinois, Respondent-Appellant. WC.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1062

505 N.E.2d 1062

153 Ill.App.3d 238, 106 Ill.Dec. 271

Charles ELLIOT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS, Respondent and County of Cook, a Body Politic and Corporate of Illinois Respondent-Appellant.

No. 1-86-1199 WC.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Industrial Commission Division.

Feb. 11, 1987.

Rehearing Denied March 30, 1987.

Richard M. Daley, State's Atty., Chicago (Dennis J. DaPrato, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Nicholas Liontakis, Ltd. Homewood, for petitioner-appellee.

Justice McNAMARA delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant Charles Elliot sought benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act after allegedly injuring his back while working for respondent Cook County. An arbitrator found claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with respondent. The arbitrator awarded $246.15 per week for 23 weeks for temporary total disability and found claimant's disability had not yet reached a permanent condition. On review, the Industrial Commission upheld that decision, and the trial court confirmed the Commission's decision.

On appeal, respondent contends that the Commission's decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence because the fall was idiopathic, caused by pre-existing weakness in claimant's right leg; that at the time of the accident claimant was not performing his assigned duties; and that claimant failed to prove his present condition differed from his condition prior to December 24, 1984.

On December 24, 1984, claimant was a correctional officer at Cook County Department of Corrections when he fell while walking down a flight of stairs in the prison. On December 31, 1984, claimant filed an application for adjustment of claim. At the hearing before an arbitrator, claimant testified: "While going down the stairs into the lower deck [of the prison], I slipped on the bottom stair, my leg giving away. I twisted my back and fell on my buttocks causing pain." Claimant was not carrying anything when he fell. He immediately experienced pain going down his right leg to his foot. Claimant agreed that he was not bending or lifting, and that he was just walking and his leg gave out. On the date of the accident, claimant submitted a written report stating: "My right leg gave way while going down the steps * * *."

Regarding his prior medical history, claimant testified that the pain in his back radiating down his right leg began prior to the injury at issue. His right leg had also given out before at home. On August 13, 1978, claimant injured his back in a work-related accident for which he subsequently received worker's compensation benefits. He underwent back surgery on March 23, 1979, and was placed on permanent light duty when he returned to work in December 1979. On January 30, 1984, claimant was involved in an automobile accident in which he injured his back. He was hospitalized and received steroid injections and other medical treatment. He returned to work on August 13, 1984. At that time he suffered from pain in his back and some numbness in his leg.

A report of the March 23, 1979 surgery performed by Dr. William B. Fischer indicated that claimant had a history of low back pain radiating down the right leg. The surgery revealed a bulging disc at L4-L5, and a lumbar laminectomy and discectomy were performed.

A hospital discharge summary report dated March 3, 1984, stated that claimant had been hospitalized since February 27 following an auto accident, and that Dr. Fischer was the attending physician. The history noted the previous laminectomy, and that claimant had "been asymptomatic since that time, until January 30, [1984] when the patient was involved in a motor vehicle accident and began to experience severe back pain radiating down the right buttock and into the left leg. The patient has noted parathesias and numbness over the right dorsal foot as well." Claimant was treated with bed rest, steroid injections, and a cervical collar. A March 1, 1984 report signed by a consulting physician indicated that claimant had pain and numbness down the right leg, right foot drop and difficulty walking due to the right leg weakness. A March 2, 1984 certification of disability status signed by Dr. Fischer referred to claimant's low back and right leg sciatica.

A physical therapist's report dated March 14, 1984, indicated that following the January automobile accident, claimant had been experiencing pain in the lower back and right lower extremity. Claimant demonstrated decreased strength throughout the right lower extremity. He complained of numbness in the toes of the right foot and along the lateral aspect of the right thigh and hip. "He relates he has significant difficulty in bearing weight on the right lower extremity." On April 18, 1984, the therapist reported that claimant continued to complain of numbness along the right side and distally throughout into the toes.

On May 10, 1985, Dr. Sid John Shafer wrote that he had examined claimant. Claimant gave a history of the earlier laminectomy, following which he "made a very good recovery." Claimant "did have occasional backache but did not have pain in the right lower extremity and he was able to work." On the date of the report, claimant complained of constant pain in the back of the right thigh and right calf with numbness in the right toes and some tingling on the outside of the right foot. Dr. Shafer concluded that in all probability the accident of December 24, 1984 contributed to claimant's present complaints.

Dr. Prasit R. Sri, an orthopedic surgeon, testified at an evidence deposition that he began treating claimant on May 7, 1984. He had not reviewed any of claimant's medical records prior to that date. Claimant's condition was diagnosed as low back pain with right sciatica, with L5 nerve root involvement on the right side. Dr. Sri believed that the December 24, 1984 accident either aggravated "his underlying problem" or created a new problem. In regard to claimant's previous underlying problems, Dr. Sri referred to the 1979 laminectomy and the 1984 steroid treatments following the January 1984 automobile accident. Dr. Sri agreed that after the automobile accident, claimant had nerve root involvement and right sciatica, and that he had the same problems following the accident at issue before us. Regardless of whether the medical records prior to the December 24 accident showed claimant's condition was better or worse, he would not alter his opinion that the December 24 accident could have aggravated a previous problem or created a new problem.

Dr. Sri also testified that if claimant stated his right leg gave out, causing him to fall, it was possible that this could be attributed to his prior condition of sciatica on the right side. The fall possibly could have been caused due to the weakening of the right leg. "Well, anything's possible, but I cannot make a conclusion because so many things can cause [the] leg of his to give out, too." Dr. Sri agreed that a person with L5 nerve root involvement down the right side, or sciatica, would experience pain, numbness, and tingling in the right lower extremity.

Various employees of respondent testified as to claimant's assigned and actual duties on December 24, 1984.

The arbitrator found that on December 24, 1984, claimant sustained accidental injuries which arose out of and in the course of his employment with respondent. The arbitrator adopted the opinion of Dr. Sri that the fall at work was either a new injury or an aggravation of the previously compensated injury of August 13, 1978. On review, the Commission adopted the findings and decision of the arbitrator. The Commission found that claimant's injury was not due to an idiopathic fall, but instead was due to slipping on the stairs. The trial court confirmed the Commission's decision, finding that it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court noted respondent's argument that claimant had a pre-existing back injury with resultant weaknesses in his leg, but held that the resolution of conflicting evidence and inferences was for the Commission.

The question of whether an accident arose out of the employment is to be determined by the Commission and its decision will not be set aside unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Prince v. Industrial Com. (1959), 15 Ill.2d 607, 155 N.E.2d...