{ "id": 2919359, "name": "LIONNIL BRYANT, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Ford Motor Company, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Bryant v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1993-08-06", "docket_number": "No. 1-92-0808WC", "first_page": "659", "last_page": "665", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "250 Ill. App. 3d 659" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "335 N.E.2d 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2966021 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/61/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.E.2d 347", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5463159 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/66/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 Ill. App. 3d 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2475149 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/198/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "228 Ill. App. 3d 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5221083 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/228/0551-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 597, "char_count": 13386, "ocr_confidence": 0.794, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.259244762335987e-08, "percentile": 0.4326095845742358 }, "sha256": "0ad44606a1c24165df48d27aede414e6401b386780f419a6c30478259c406f29", "simhash": "1:4937ad835d5444d6", "word_count": 2201 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:36.340475+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "LIONNIL BRYANT, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Ford Motor Company, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe appellant, Lionnil Bryant (the claimant), filed an application for adjustment of claim pursuant to the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.), contending he suffered injuries to his neck and right hand while working for the appellee, the Ford Motor Company (the employer). Following a hearing, the arbitrator found the claimant sustained a 20% loss of the use of his right hand and a 5% disability of a person as a whole. The arbitrator awarded benefits accordingly.\nThe employer sought review, claiming it was entitled to certain credits arising out of workers\u2019 compensation amounts previously awarded. The Commission increased the claimant\u2019s award, finding the evidence showed a 100% loss of the use of his right hand. The Commission found the employer was entitled to a 40% credit for amounts previously awarded. Therefore, on the instant claim, the Commission awarded the claimant for a 60% loss of the use of his right hand.\nThe circuit court reversed, finding the Commission\u2019s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The circuit court found the evidence showed a 60% loss of the use of his right hand. Noting the 40% credit, the circuit court held the claimant\u2019s award on the instant claim was reduced to 20%. The claimant appeals and we affirm.\nThe record shows that on October 3, 1985, the claimant was employed as a press operator at the employer\u2019s Chicago Heights operations. While operating the press, his right hand was pulled into the machinery, jerking his whole body. The claimant was taken to the emergency room of St. James Hospital. The claimant sustained lacerations and crushing injuries to the right hand. X rays were taken which revealed a comminuted nondeforming fracture of the proximal phalanx of the small finger. One of the lacerations was sutured and a sling was administered.\nOn October 4, 1985, the claimant was treated by Dr. Anthony L. Brown. According to Brown\u2019s report, the claimant complained of pain and swelling in the right hand and discomfort in the neck and shoulder. Brown examined the claimant\u2019s right hand and cervical spine, and reviewed the X rays taken the previous day. Brown found, inter alia, that the claimant sustained a crushing injury to the right hand with multiple lacerations and contusions, and a nondeforming fracture of the small finger. Brown also noted an old flexor tendon injury to the right small finger. .\nBrown treated the claimant on at least four more occasions in October of 1985, noting improvement in the claimant\u2019s condition. The claimant did not keep scheduled appointments in November and December of 1985. The claimant was examined by Brown on January 9, 1986. Brown\u2019s report of this examination discusses only the condition of the claimant\u2019s cervical spine and shoulders. There is no mention of complaints concerning the right hand, nor any specific comments on the condition of the hand. The report concludes that the examination was essentially negative and no further treatment appeared to be required. No additional appointments were scheduled.\nAt the request of the employer, Dr. Brown again examined the claimant on January 15, 1987. The claimant complained of discomfort in the right hand, especially when lifting. The claimant noted decreased grip strength, swelling and limitations in the motion of the small finger. He stated he experienced numbness in the entire hand when he slept on his right side. Brown\u2019s examination revealed restriction in the range of motion in the small finger.\nThe claimant was examined by Dr. Richard Shermer on April 4, 1988. The claimant complained of intermittent aching in the right hand. Shermer noted a one-inch scar over the \u201cright long knuckle.\u201d Shermer found the claimant could not completely close the long finger into the palm. This condition resulted in decreased grip strength in the right hand. Shermer\u2019s examination showed full \u201cexcursion\u201d of the thumb, index, ring and little fingers. Shermer opined the claimant had a permanent partial loss of the use of the right hand arising out of his inability to completely close the long finger into the palm.\nThe claimant testified before the arbitrator that he did not lose any time from work as a result of his injury. He stated that he was eventually moved to the job of sweeper (which he could perform one-handed) at his previous rate of pay. He stated his right hand was in a sling for about six months. The claimant testified he noticed he could not use his hand in the manner he had previous to the incident. He noted his hand would get numb when he tried to pick things up and that he continues to have pain in the hand. He also testified that when he lifts objects with the right hand he experiences pain in the hand which radiates up his arm to his elbow.\nAs noted above, the arbitrator found the claimant sustained a loss of 20% of the use of his right hand resulting from his inability to completely close the long finger into his palm. On review, the Commission found the claimant sustained a 100% loss of the use of his right hand. The Commission stated that it \u201crecognize[d]\u201d the claimant was unable to use his right hand and that the medical evidence corroborated the claimant\u2019s subjective complaints.\nThe circuit court of Cook County reversed, finding the Commission\u2019s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The circuit court found there was no medical evidence to support a finding of complete disability and that the evidence also did not support the claimant\u2019s subjective complaints at arbitration. The circuit court concluded the arbitrator\u2019s findings were consistent with the medical evidence.\nOn appeal, the claimant contends the circuit court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the Commission on a question of fact. The claimant contends the record supports a finding of complete disability in his right hand. He cites the fact he has been given one-handed work since the incident. The employer responds that the circuit court correctly determined the Commission\u2019s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The employer contends the medical evidence does not support the subjective complaints the claimant expressed at arbitration. Nor does the medical evidence support a finding of 100% loss of the use of the right hand.\nThe extent of a claimant\u2019s disability is a factual question to be determined by the Commission, and its decision will not be set aside unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Santiago v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 356, 362 N.E.2d 347.) The loss of a member is complete when the normal use of the member has been taken away. C.S.T. Erection Co. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 251, 335 N.E.2d 419.\nIn the instant case, the record is devoid of any evidence to support a finding of 100% loss of the use of the claimant\u2019s right hand. None of the medical evidence supports the Commission\u2019s finding. Neither Dr. Brown nor Dr. Shermer opined the claimant\u2019s hand was totally disabled. The claimant\u2019s hand required no further treatment after October 21, 1985 \u2014 18 days after the initial injury. The record shows the small finger on the claimant\u2019s right hand was already impaired by a previous injury. It was not until Dr. Shermer\u2019s examination in 1988 that there is any mention of impairment to the middle finger. Interestingly, Shermer noted no impairment of the small finger. None of the medical reports reflects a complaint of numbness on lifting objects or that he dropped things. The medical records are not consistent with the complaints expressed at arbitration.\nIn addition, the claimant did not testify he could not use his right hand. He only testified he could not use the hand in the same way he had prior to the October 3,1985, injury.\nIn sum, there is no evidence the claimant sustained a 100% loss of the use of his right hand. The Commission\u2019s decision on this issue is simply arbitrary and without basis in the record. Therefore, the circuit court correctly determined that the Commission\u2019s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nTherefore, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcCULLOUGH, P.J., and RAKOWSKI and RARICK, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER" }, { "text": "JUSTICE WOODWARD,\ndissenting:\nI respectfully dissent. The Commission\u2019s decision in favor of the claimant is supported by the evidence. It is axiomatic that, due to its expertise in the area of workers\u2019 compensation, the Commission\u2019s findings as to the nature and extent of permanent disability are given substantial deference. (Grischow v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1992), 228 Ill. App. 3d 551.) It is not a reviewing court\u2019s province to substitute its judgment for the Commission\u2019s, merely because it might have made a different finding. Grischow, 228 Ill. App. 3d at 559.\nThe majority\u2019s opinion states that there is no evidence that claimant sustained a 100% loss of the use of his right hand. This is simply not the case here. Claimant testified that, prior to his accident, he had worked 12 years as a punch press operator. As a result of his right hand injury, he was not able to return to work in that capacity. Claimant has not regained any industrial function in his injured hand and has been restricted to one-handed work. He wears a sleeve on his right hand while at work. Claimant testified that he is unable to lift or grasp anything with his right hand. He experiences pain which goes from his hand, up his arm, causing pain in his elbow. This pain is aggravated by cold weather and often arises in the evenings. Of particular importance here is the employer\u2019s failure to offer any evidence that claimant is not a one-handed worker.\nAs noted in the majority\u2019s opinion, Dr. Brown\u2019s last examination of claimant revealed a deterioration in his right hand\u2019s condition. At that time, claimant had experienced decreased grip strength and limitations in the small finger\u2019s motion. Dr. Shermer was told by claimant of his continuing right hand problems. Dr. Shermer noted that claimant could not close the long finger of his right hand. The observations of Drs. Brown and Shermer, when taken together, show that two of claimant\u2019s right fingers were substantially dysfunctional.\nIn the arbitrator\u2019s decision, the following language is found:\n\u201cOn October 3, 1985, Petitioner was working as a press operator when he caught his right hand in the machine. He received a crushing injury to the right hand in his attempt to extricate himself injured his neck. The injury to the hand resulted in lacerations, swelling and a comminuted fracture of the fifth proximal phalanx. *** The petitioner came under the care of Dr. Anthony L. Brown, the respondent\u2019s selected treating doctor. A contoured hand and forearm cast dressing was applied. Petitioner was placed on one-arm restricted job duty. *** A soft cervical collar and arm sling were prescribed for a period of six months. He continued to work with one arm until 1986 when his job was changed to that of a sweeper. *** He still wears a special sleeve on his hand and works with one arm. ***.\n*** No doctor has suggested that Petitioner\u2019s complaints are insincere. This is even more significant in light of Petitioner\u2019s continued employment on one-handed, restricted duty which involved a job change. In his examination of April 4, 1988, Dr. Shermer found a one inch scar over the right long knuckle. The scar was hypertrophic with thickening. Petitioner lacks one inch to complete closure of the long finger. There was a decrease in hand grip. Dr. Brown\u2019s x-ray of January, 1987 revealed a fracture of the fifth metacarpal with slight angulation. I concluded from the foregoing that Petitioner, whose work is manual in nature, has suffered significant disability.\u201d\nIn its decision and opinion on review, the Commission stated:\n\u201cThe Commission modifies the Decision of the Arbitrator to find that petitioner sustained 100% loss of use of the right hand pursuant to \u00a78(e) of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act.\nIn support of said finding, the Commission recognizes that Petitioner is unable to use his right hand and that the medical evidence corroborates Petitioner\u2019s subjective complaints.\" (Emphasis added.)\nIn requiring that claimant come forward with medical support, the majority ignores the fact that a claimant may recover on his own testimony without corroboration. (Old Ben Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1990), 198 Ill. App. 3d 485.) It is clear that the Commission placed the most emphasis on claimant\u2019s testimony, which described the uselessness of his right hand for work purposes. It is also obvious that the Commission did not find that the medical evidence undercut claimant\u2019s testimony. This medical evidence, when coupled with claimant\u2019s unrebutted testimony, demonstrates a substantial impairment of claimant\u2019s right hand. The record before us supports the Commission\u2019s decision that claimant had sustained a 100% loss of the use of his right hand, and I would affirm the circuit court\u2019s judgment.", "type": "dissent", "author": "JUSTICE WOODWARD," } ], "attorneys": [ "Jonathan Kurasch, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Ridge, Condon & Saunders, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LIONNIL BRYANT, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Ford Motor Company, Appellee).\nFirst District (Industrial Commission Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 92\u20140808WC\nOpinion filed August 6, 1993.\nWOODWARD, J., dissenting.\nJonathan Kurasch, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRidge, Condon & Saunders, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0659-01", "first_page_order": 677, "last_page_order": 683 }