{ "id": 2669983, "name": "GLORIA PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (C.F. Braun Constructors, Inc., Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Phillips v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1989-08-25", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201489\u20140028WC", "first_page": "704", "last_page": "709", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "187 Ill. App. 3d 704" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "442 N.E.2d 908", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 Ill. 2d 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3101494 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/93/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "533 N.E.2d 1178", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 Ill. App. 3d 943", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2433079 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/178/0943-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 N.E.2d 16", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 Ill. App. 3d 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5667553 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/143/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "422 N.E.2d 625", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5469326 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/85/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 N.E.2d 541", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5436910 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/65/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "317 N.E.2d 524", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 Ill. 2d 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2952333 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/58/0164-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 599, "char_count": 12237, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2514423364493507e-07, "percentile": 0.6101770798220282 }, "sha256": "d78c0f7c1619c436f682b23404ab786ebd4fb51c2f257ef69620bb558120ff54", "simhash": "1:2c8daace5287e62f", "word_count": 1967 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:20:22.173562+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GLORIA PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (C.F. Braun Constructors, Inc., Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nClaimant, Gloria Phillips, sought worker\u2019s compensation benefits for an ankle and leg injury allegedly suffered as a result of an accident which occurred while she worked for respondent, C.E Braun Contractors, Inc. An arbitrator denied benefits after finding that claimant failed to prove a causal relationship between the accident and her present condition of ill-being. The Industrial Commission (Commission), with one member dissenting, affirmed that decision. The circuit court of Will County confirmed the Commission\u2019s decision. Claimant appeals, contending that the Commission\u2019s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nClaimant worked as a secretary for respondent. On June 26, 1985, she was walking down a step at work when her left ankle and knee twisted inward. She experienced pain and notified her supervisor of the accident. The shooting pain in her foot and ankle radiated up into her left leg. She was treated by several physicians who diagnosed a sprained ankle and initially advised her not to work. Finally, in 1986 a physician diagnosed, and began treating for her for, a nerve injury. In June 1986, claimant attempted to return to work to fill in for another secretary. After 15 minutes seated at a desk, her left leg was very painful. She left work after four hours due to the extreme pain. She has not worked since that time. At the time of arbitration, claimant still experienced pain on prolonged sitting and when bearing weight on her left foot. She can sit, stand and walk for only brief periods before experiencing a sharp, burning pain radiating up her left leg. She walks with a limp, and her left leg is weak.\nDr. Dwight Woiteshek, an orthopedic surgeon, examined claimant on July 1, 1985. He observed that she walked with a limp and complained of pain in her left foot, ankle and leg. The foot was swollen and discolored. He diagnosed a sprained ankle and prescribed a short leg walking cast from July 1 to July 23, 1985. She continued to experience pain and noted little improvement in her condition. A bone scan of the left foot was normal. On August 14, 1985, he released claimant to return to work.\nDr. Alvin Kanter, an orthopedic surgeon, examined claimant on September 17, 1985. Claimant walked with a limp and experienced pain radiating from the left foot up through her leg. He diagnosed an inversion injury to the left ankle, treated it with rest and pain medication, and released claimant for work on November 7, 1985. On November 26, 1985, Dr. Kanter again saw claimant. She had the same complaints of leg pain. He advised her to apply heat and seek a job. On February 27, 1986, claimant reported continued radiating pain, and Dr. Kanter diagnosed a residual sprain of the left ankle with some residual symptomatology and discharged her from his case.\nDr. Douglas Anderson, a neurosurgeon at Loyola, examined claimant on November 26, 1986. Dr. Anderson diagnosed L5 radiculopathy, dystrophic in nature, potentially relative reflex sympathetic dystrophy or traumatic radiculitis. The myelogram and CT scan were normal. The final diagnosis was traumatic radiculopathy. Following conservative treatment, Dr. Anderson suggested surgery to implant a spinal epidural stimulator to treat the intractable pain syndrome, but claimant declined this option.\nDr. Anderson testified, at a deposition that in his opinion the present condition of ill-being was caused by the June 26, 1985, work accident. At the time claimant twisted her left ankle and leg, she suffered a stretch injury of the peripheral nerves associated with the L5 dermatone and myotome in the lower left leg. Claimant had been disabled from the time of the accident on June 26,. 1985, and was still unable to return to her duties. Dr. Anderson had not released her to return to work. He was not very optimistic and described her prognosis as \u201cguarded.\u201d\nDr. Steven Mash examined claimant on April 9, 1986, at respondent\u2019s request. Dr. Mash diagnosed a post-strain-sprained left foot. Carolyn Good and Robin P\u00edese testified for claimant that they heard Dr. Mash refer claimant to Loyola Medical Center for treatment of a \u201cserious problem.\u201d Dr. Mash could not recall making the referral, but he did note that she was in need of further evaluation. Dr. Mash was not asked to express an opinion about causation. He agreed that twisting or stretching the ankle or foot could result in a leg injury, and that there was a \u201creasonable possibility\u201d that claimant sustained such an injury. Dr. Mash did not examine claimant\u2019s leg and restricted his examination to her foot and ankle.\nOn April 14, 1987, the arbitrator concluded that claimant failed to prove a causal connection and denied any compensation. On July 7, 1987, the Commission, with one member dissenting, adopted the findings of the arbitrator, merely commenting that they were supported by evidence in the record.\nThe trial court found that the Commission\u2019s decision was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and confirmed that decision.\nClaimant contends that the Commission\u2019s finding of no causal connection is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We agree.\nClaimant bears the burden of proving that the injury was causally related to her employment. (Newgard v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1974), 58 Ill. 2d 164, 317 N.E.2d 524.) The Commission\u2019s findings of fact will not be disturbed unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Deal v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 234, 357 N.E.2d 541.) However, where factual matters are susceptible of only one inference, it becomes a question of law, and this court is not bound by the Commission\u2019s decision. (Butler Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 213, 422 N.E.2d 625.) Where claimant proves causation with unrebutted expert medical testimony which sufficiently supports a finding of causal connection, a reviewing court may set aside the Commission\u2019s decision finding no causation. Dean v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1986), 143 Ill. App. 3d 339, 493 N.E.2d 16, cited in Busaytis v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1989), 178 Ill. App. 3d 943, 533 N.E.2d 1178.\nA chain of events which establishes a prior condition of good health, an accident, and a subsequent condition of ill-being resulting in disability may be sufficient to prove a causal connection between the accident and the employee\u2019s injury. International Harvester v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 59, 442 N.E.2d 908.\nDr. Anderson offered the only direct opinion on causal connection. He opined that claimant\u2019s present condition of ill-being was caused by the work accident. He reviewed the early medical records, which included consistent complaints of pain in the left foot, ankle and leg. He concluded that when claimant twisted her left ankle and leg at work, she sustained a stretch injury of the peripheral nerves associated with the L5 dermatome and myotome in that leg. Dr. Anderson explained that nerve stretch injuries are commonly associated with radiculopathy and are well known to be associated with distal and far-reaching pain syndromes. Dr. Anderson based his decision on the nature and mechanism of the injury, the fact that the injury involved inversion of the left foot and leg; the onset, character and persistence of the pain as documented by the medical records; the lack of response to treatment and medication; the positive neurological findings; the EMG report and results; and the absence of any other nerve root compression in the spine, as shown by the normal myelogram and CT scan. The records of Drs. Kanter and Woiteshek contained complaints consistent with Dr. Anderson\u2019s diagnosis. Thus, Dr. Anderson found claimant\u2019s complaints could be taken \u201cas evidence of a process that was less focal than ankle sprain and associated indeed with a traumatic nerve injury, stretch injury of the nerve that could involve the radical of the L5 nerve root.\u201d Dr. Anderson opined that claimant has been disabled and unable to perform her job duties since the accident of June 26, 1985. She was currently unable to return to work. He had no opinion as to the permanency of her condition and found her prognosis was guarded.\nRespondent offered no direct evidence rebutting claimant\u2019s causal connection. The medical records of Drs. Woiteshek and Kanter show that claimant complained of pain in her left foot, ankle and leg. Drs. Woiteshek and Kanter offered no opinion regarding claimant\u2019s leg, because they examined and X-rayed only her foot. Respondent relies on the fact that those doctors simply diagnosed a sprained ankle. A claimant should not be punished, however, because the initial treating physicians failed to correctly diagnose her condition.\nRespondent offered the testimony of Dr. Mash. However, respondent failed to ask Dr. Mash whether or not he agreed with Dr. Anderson\u2019s diagnosis and failed to ask his opinion regarding causation. On cross-examination, Dr. Mash agreed that a peripheral nerve injury can occur by twisting or stretching the ankle or foot. It was a \u201creasonable possibility\u201d that claimant had sustained such an injury. Moreover, he admitted not performing tests above the left ankle and not examining the left leg at all. In addition, Dr. Mash deferred to Dr. Anderson\u2019s opinion as to whether or not claimant was presently able to work.\nThe Commission expressly based its decision on the findings of the arbitrator. Those findings contain several significant factual errors. The arbitrator limits the injury \u201cto [the] left foot,\u201d while the medical records clearly include her repeated complaints of leg pain.\nThe arbitrator asserted that there was \u201cconflicting medical testimony,\u201d despite the fact that there was no conflict as to causal connection.\nThe arbitrator relied upon the evidence deposition of Dr. Woiteshek. Dr. Woiteshek never testified.\nThe arbitrator reported that Dr. Woiteshek released claimant for work after seeing her on April 9, 1986. This is eight months after claimant\u2019s final visit to Dr. Woiteshek on August 14,1985.\nThe arbitrator apparently discounted or ignored Dr. Anderson\u2019s final opinion and diagnosis. The arbitrator cited only Dr. Anderson\u2019s preliminary diagnosis, mentioned at the beginning of his deposition. The arbitrator ignored Dr. Anderson\u2019s final diagnosis, made after the diagnostic tests were performed, or traumatic radiculopathy caused by a stretching injury to the peripheral nerves in the left leg.\nThe arbitrator also relied upon the fact that the CT scan and myelogram were normal. Dr. Anderson, however, testified that normal findings were consistent with his diagnosis of a stretching peripheral nerve injury.\nThe arbitrator also relied on the fact that Dr. Kanter reported \u201cnothing about any back injury or back symptoms.\u201d This case has nothing to do with a back injury. The myelogram and CT scan simply ruled out low back pathology as a cause of claimant\u2019s leg pain.\nThe arbitrator denied temporary total disability, even for the period during which Dr. Kanter advised her not to work and her left leg was in a cast.\nWe conclude that the Commission\u2019s determination that claimant failed to prove a causal connection between her work injury and her present condition was erroneous as a matter of law. See Busaytis v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1989), 178 Ill. App. 3d 943, 533 N.E.2d 1178.\nWithout discussion, we reject as being without merit claimant\u2019s contention that she is entitled to penalties under sections 19(k), 19(1) and 16 of the Act.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Will County confirming the Commission\u2019s determination that claimant\u2019s condition was not caused by her work injury is reversed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the holdings contained herein.\nJudgment reversed and remanded.\nBARRY, P.J., and WOODWARD, McCULLOUGH, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McNAMARA" } ], "attorneys": [ "Marc A. Perper and Mitchell W. Horwitz, both of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, Inc., of Chicago, for appellant.", "Michael Gahan, of Rooks, Pitts & Poust, of Joliet, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GLORIA PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (C.F. Braun Constructors, Inc., Appellee).\nThird District (Industrial Commission Division)\nNo. 3\u201489\u20140028WC\nOpinion filed August 25, 1989.\nMarc A. Perper and Mitchell W. Horwitz, both of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, Inc., of Chicago, for appellant.\nMichael Gahan, of Rooks, Pitts & Poust, of Joliet, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0704-01", "first_page_order": 730, "last_page_order": 735 }