{ "id": 3600538, "name": "PEABODY COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Gary B. Chalacoff et al., Appellees)", "name_abbreviation": "Peabody Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "2005-02-02", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201404\u20140359WC", "first_page": "879", "last_page": "884", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "355 Ill. App. 3d 879" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "503 N.E.2d 355", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Ill. 2d 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3179193 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/115/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "574 N.E.2d 682", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "686-87" }, { "page": "686-87" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 Ill. App. 3d 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5298258 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375" }, { "page": "375" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/214/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "666 N.E.2d 4", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6", "parenthetical": "\"In reviewing a decision of the *** Commission, a court may consider only the record and arguments that were before the Commission\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 Ill. 2d 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 55978 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "308", "parenthetical": "\"In reviewing a decision of the *** Commission, a court may consider only the record and arguments that were before the Commission\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/172/0303-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 N.E.2d 1007", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 Ill. App. 3d 1088", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3555341 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/175/1088-01" ] }, { "cite": "636 N.E.2d 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "82" }, { "page": "82" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 Ill. App. 3d 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5366445 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "486" }, { "page": "485" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/263/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "720 N.E.2d 1063", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1065" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 Ill. 2d 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 536098 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/188/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 N.E.2d 875", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "877" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 Ill. 2d 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5390802 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536-37" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/51/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "416 N.E.2d 243", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 2d 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5474046 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533-34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/83/0528-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 638, "char_count": 13708, "ocr_confidence": 0.736, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.148056530837267e-08, "percentile": 0.32455637374997537 }, "sha256": "3e33c42fa44232aca484a870c5d6bb96f9150816f4a1c8f312021747b9428da7", "simhash": "1:4d870bcf857de3b0", "word_count": 2140 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:57:27.413698+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "PEABODY COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Gary B. Chalacoff et al., Appellees)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn May 5, 1998, claimant, Gary B. Chalacoff, filed an application for adjustment of claim pursuant to the Workers\u2019 Occupational Diseases Act (Act) (820 ILCS 310/1 through 27 (West 1996)), seeking benefits from employer, Peabody Coal Company. After a hearing, an arbitrator denied claimant benefits. On review, the Industrial Commission (Commission) reversed the arbitrator\u2019s decision finding claimant \u201csustained his burden in proving that he was exposed to an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment with [employer].\u201d The Commission awarded claimant permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits in the sum of $361.33 per week for a period of 200 weeks, representing 40% loss of a man as a whole. See 820 ILCS 310/7 (West 1996). Employer sought judicial review of the Commission\u2019s decision in the circuit court of Christian County, which confirmed the Commission\u2019s decision. Employer appeals, arguing that (1) the Commission\u2019s finding that claimant Suffered an occupational disease is against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) the Commission\u2019s finding that claimant proved he suffered disablement within two years after the last day of the last exposure to the hazards of the occupational disease, as required by sections 1(e) and 1(f) of the Act (820 ILCS 310/l(e), (f) (West 1996)), is against the manifest weight of the evidence, (3) the Commission\u2019s finding that claimant is permanently partially disabled to the extent of 40% is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (4) the Commission erred by considering the testimony of a medical doctor who relied upon a report by his consulting radiologist/B reader in forming his opinion. We affirm the circuit court\u2019s order confirming the Commission\u2019s decision.\nClaimant worked as a coal miner for approximately 37 years during which time he was exposed to rock, silica, and coal dust. Claimant testified that he last coal mined on August 2, 1996, when employer closed the mine and laid claimant off from work. Although claimant had sufficient seniority to transfer to another mine, he believed that he would have to work underground and a company doctor advised claimant that he should not work underground. Claimant had difficulty breathing and \u201cbad knees.\u201d Claimant testified that he spoke with employer on approximately February 27, 1997. Employer told claimant \u201cthey had a job *** down below.\u201d In response, claimant referenced a letter \u201cfrom the Peabody Mine doctor saying I couldn\u2019t go down below anymore.\u201d Claimant retired on March 1, 1997.\nClaimant testified that he first noticed breathing problems in 1974, while drilling. Claimant became covered in coal dust and would \u201ccough all that stuff up when [he] came up at night.\u201d Claimant continued to experience breathing problems. Claimant smoked since age 20, averaging 15 cigarettes per day. He quit smoking from January 1990 to February 1995.\nDr. Stephen Randag is a primary care physician and has treated claimant for more than 20 years. Dr. Randag\u2019s notes, dated August 26, 1981, through March 2, 2001, make multiple references to his diagnosis of claimant with chronic bronchitis from smoking. At his deposition, Dr. Randag stated that claimant\u2019s occupational exposures would also have been a causative factor in his chronic bronchitis.\nDr. William Houser testified on December 4, 2000, that he is a board-certified pulmonary specialist. Dr. Houser examined claimant on February 27, 1998, at the request of claimant\u2019s attorney. Claimant complained of a chronic cough with sputum production for approximately 27 years. Claimant also suffered dyspnea upon walking three to four blocks on level ground, or climbing two flights of stairs. Claimant reported that he experienced wheezing, especially at night. On physical examination, Dr. Houser noted late inspiratory rales at both bases which did not clear with deep breathing or coughing. Pulmonary function testing showed mild to moderate airway obstruction. Both Dr. Houser and his consulting radiologist/B reader read claimant\u2019s chest X ray as positive for coal workers\u2019 pneumoconiosis (CWP), category 1/1. Dr. Houser stated that claimant \u201chas sufficient occupational exposure *** and chest roentgenographic findings appropriate for the diagnosis of [CWP], category 1/1.\u201d Further, Dr. Houser offered that claimant\u2019s CWP \u201c[is] related to each and every exposure to coal and rock dust that [claimant] experienced during his 37 years of coal mine employment.\u201d In addition, Dr. Houser stated that claimant suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, secondary to smoking and coal and rock dust exposure. Dr. Houser concluded that claimant suffers from a permanent impairment of function which makes him unable to perform heavy manual labor and leaves him disabled from mining because any additional dust exposure would aggravate claimant\u2019s condition.\nDr. Peter G. Tuteur, a physician board certified in internal medicine and pulmonary disease, examined claimant on August 18, 2000, at employer\u2019s request. Dr. Tuteur did not believe claimant suffered from CWP \u201cor any other coal mine induced disease process.\u201d Although Dr. Tuteur believed that claimant\u2019s cough was due. to smoking, he agreed that the long-term inhalation of coal mine dust can aggravate chronic bronchitis.\nAfter the hearing, the arbitrator denied claimant benefits. On review, the Commission reversed the arbitrator\u2019s decision finding that claimant \u201csustained his burden in proving that he was exposed to an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment with [employer].\u201d The Commission awarded claimant PPD benefits in the sum of $361.33 per week for a period of 200 weeks, representing 40% loss of a man as a whole. Employer sought judicial review of the Commission\u2019s decision in the circuit court of Christian County which confirmed the Commission\u2019s decision. This appeal followed.\nEmployer first argues that the Commission\u2019s finding that claimant suffered an occupational disease is against the manifest weight of the evidence.\n\u201c[I]t is the province of the *** Commission to weigh the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the first instance, and we will not overturn its findings simply because a different inference could be drawn.\u201d Niles Police Department v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 83 Ill. 2d 528, 533-34, 416 N.E.2d 243, 245 (1981). Interpretation of medical testimony is particularly within the province of the Commission. A.O. Smith Corp. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 51 Ill. 2d 533, 536-37, 283 N.E.2d 875, 877 (1972). \u201cBefore a reviewing court may overturn a decision of the [Commission], it must find that the award was contrary to law or that the Commission\u2019s factual determinations were against the manifest weight of the evidence.\u201d Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 188 Ill. 2d 243, 245, 720 N.E.2d 1063, 1065 (1999).\nIn this case, Dr. Houser concluded that claimant suffered from CWP and that claimant\u2019s CWP was causally related to his exposure to coal dust. Dr. Houser based his opinion on \u201coccupational exposure of approximately 37 years\u201d and chest X rays revealing opacities \u201cin both upper and right mid lung zones,\u201d and indicating a category 1/1 CWP In addition, Dr. Houser stated that claimant suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, secondary to smoking and coal and rock dust exposure. Dr. Houser concluded that claimant suffers from a permanent impairment of function which makes him unable to perform heavy manual labor and leaves him disabled from mining because any additional dust exposure would aggravate claimant\u2019s condition. The Commission found Dr. Houser to be the most credible medical witness. Further, the Commission noted Dr. Houser\u2019s opinion was \u201cin accord with the statutory presumption found in *** the *** Act.\u201d See 820 ILCS 310/l(d) (West 1996). In addition, the Commission noted that Dr. Tuteur \u201cessentially concluded that coal dust can cause chronic bronchitis symptoms and agreed that long term inhalation of coal mine dust can aggravate chronic bronchitis.\u201d The Commission\u2019s finding that claimant suffered an occupational disease is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nEmployer next argues the Commission\u2019s finding that claimant proved he suffered disablement within two years after the last day of the last exposure to the hazards of the occupational disease, as required by sections 1(e) and 1(f) of the Act (820 ILCS 310/l(e),(f) (West 1996)), is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Whether a claimant has provided sufficient evidence of disablement is a question of fact for the Commission, and its decision in this regard will not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 263 Ill. App. 3d 478, 486, 636 N.E.2d 77, 82 (1994).\nIn this case, claimant\u2019s last day of exposure was the last day of his employment, August 2, 1996. Claimant testified he first experienced breathing problems in approximately 1974. A company doctor advised claimant that he should not work underground. Claimant had difficulty breathing and \u201cbad knees.\u201d In multiple entries dated August 26, 1981, through March 2, 2001, the medical records show claimant diagnosed with chronic bronchitis. Although the medical records attribute claimant\u2019s chronic bronchitis to smoking, Dr. Randag stated that claimant\u2019s occupational exposures would also have been a causative factor in his chronic bronchitis. Dr. Houser examined claimant on February 27, 1998, and concluded that claimant suffered from (1) CWP caused by exposure to coal and rock dust, and (2) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis caused in part by exposure to coal and rock dust. He concluded that claimant is disabled from mining. The evidence supports the Commission\u2019s conclusion that the claimant\u2019s disablement occurred within the statutory two-year period.\nEmployer next argues that the Commission\u2019s finding that claimant is permanently partially disabled to the extent of 40% is against the manifest weight of the evidence.\n\u201cA determination of the extent of a claimant\u2019s disability is a question of fact, and the Commission\u2019s decision will not be set aside unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.\u201d Freeman, 263 Ill. App. 3d at 485, 636 N.E.2d at 82. As previously set forth, when conflicting medical evidence is presented, it is for the Commission to determine which testimony will be accepted. Here, claimant testified that he started noticing breathing problems as early as 1974, and that his problems have continued over time and interfere with his normal activities. Claimant testified that as a result of his breathing problems, he can only walk three to four blocks on level ground, or climb two flights of stairs. Under these circumstances, the Commission\u2019s award of 40% is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nEmployer next argues the Commission erred by considering the testimony of Dr. Houser because he relied upon a report by his consulting radiologist/B reader in forming his opinion. The B reader read claimant\u2019s chest X ray as positive for CWF\u00a1 category 1/1. Employer relies on Dugan v. Weber, 175 Ill. App. 3d 1088, 530 N.E.2d 1007 (1988), asserting \u201c[the] report *** was prepared in anticipation of litigation\u201d and, therefore, was not trustworthy. Claimant responds that employer waived any claim of error by failing to assert it before the Commission. See Fitts v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 172 Ill. 2d 303, 308, 666 N.E.2d 4, 6 (1996) (\u201cIn reviewing a decision of the *** Commission, a court may consider only the record and arguments that were before the Commission\u201d).\nIn Rock v. Pickleman, 214 Ill. App. 3d 368, 375, 574 N.E.2d 682, 686-87 (1991), the court that decided Dugan limited that case to its unique facts and reversed the trial court\u2019s preclusion of the expert\u2019s testimony because he relied on another nontreating doctor\u2019s opinion:\n\u201cHere, Dr. Pomerantz\u2019s statement is similar to the statements in Melecosky [v. McCarthy Brothers Co., 115 Ill. 2d 209, 503 N.E.2d 355 (1986),] because both are ordinarily relied upon by doctors in forming opinions. Just as. doctors commonly rely upon their patients\u2019 statements, doctors frequently consult other doctors, often specialists, and find them reliable in forming opinions. [Citation.] Moreover, as the Committee\u2019s note shows, the drafters of Rule 703 explicitly envisioned that a testifying expert would rely on other doctors\u2019 opinions.\u201d Rock, 214 Ill. App. 3d at 375, 574 N.E.2d at 686-87.\nIn this case, Dr. Houser testified that the B reader\u2019s interpretation was the type of data he customarily relies on in the treatment of his patients. The Commission did not err by considering the testimony of Dr. Houser because he relied upon a report by his consulting radiologist/B reader in forming his opinion.\nWe affirm the circuit court\u2019s order confirming the Commission\u2019s decision.\nAffirmed.\nHOFFMAN, CALLUM, HOLDRIDGE, and GOLDENHERSH, JJ., concur.\nEffective January 1, 2005, the name of the Industrial Commission was changed to the \u201cIllinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission.\u201d However, because the Industrial Commission was named as such when the instant cause was originally filed, we will use this name for purposes of consistency.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Kevin M. Hazlett, EC., of Swansea, for appellant.", "Culley & Wissore, of Raleigh, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "PEABODY COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Gary B. Chalacoff et al., Appellees).\nFifth District (Illinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission Division)\nNo. 5\u201404\u20140359WC\nOpinion filed February 2, 2005.\nKevin M. Hazlett, EC., of Swansea, for appellant.\nCulley & Wissore, of Raleigh, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0879-01", "first_page_order": 897, "last_page_order": 902 }