{ "id": 3749896, "name": "EDWARD HINES PRECISION COMPONENTS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Matthew Dearing, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Edward Hines Precision Components v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "2005-03-24", "docket_number": "No. 2-04-0608WC", "first_page": "186", "last_page": "196", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "356 Ill. App. 3d 186" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "591 N.E.2d 894", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "896" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 Ill. App. 3d 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5220058 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/228/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "403 N.E.2d 221", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3071050 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/79/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "759 N.E.2d 952", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "959" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 Ill. App. 3d 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1281473 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193-94" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/326/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "416 N.E.2d 1078", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1080" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. 2d 14", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3046580 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/84/0014-01" ] }, { "cite": "608 N.E.2d 162", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "163-164", "parenthetical": "Commission is free to give more weight to testimony of a treating physician" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 Ill. App. 3d 768", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5140005 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "774-75", "parenthetical": "Commission is free to give more weight to testimony of a treating physician" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/240/0768-01" ] }, { "cite": "723 N.E.2d 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "850" }, { "page": "851" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 Ill. App. 3d 1037", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 349567 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1040" }, { "page": "1040" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/309/1037-01" ] }, { "cite": "596 N.E.2d 1281", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1284" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 Ill. App. 3d 734", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5201760 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "737" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/231/0734-01" ] }, { "cite": "759 N.E.2d 979", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "983" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 Ill. App. 3d 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1281371 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "182" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/326/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "556 N.E.2d 261", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264" }, { "page": "264" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 Ill. App. 3d 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2475195 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "47" }, { "page": "47" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/198/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "505 N.E.2d 1026", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1028" }, { "page": "1028-29" }, { "page": "1028-29" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Ill. 2d 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3179453 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "530" }, { "page": "530-31" }, { "page": "530-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/115/0524-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1014, "char_count": 25305, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.22383782585142e-08, "percentile": 0.38507920732058126 }, "sha256": "a8cbeed84302cde97d23db72de8fd263ae71f97f4fcb60882f615cf74e56e72d", "simhash": "1:b1f43ec8bbceeb18", "word_count": 4108 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:02.423948+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "EDWARD HINES PRECISION COMPONENTS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Matthew Dearing, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nClaimant, Matthew Bearing, filed an application for adjustment of claim against the employer, Edward Hines Precision Components, seeking benefits under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2000)). An arbitrator found that claimant\u2019s injuries did not arise out of the course of his employment. The Illinois Industrial Commission (Commission) reversed the arbitrator\u2019s decision and entered an award for claimant. The circuit court of Kane County confirmed the Commission. On appeal, the employer raises the issue of whether the Commission\u2019s finding that claimant\u2019s condition was caused by repetitive trauma in the course of his employment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.\nFACTS\nOn June 6, 2001, claimant filed an application for adjustment of claim, stating that his upper extremities were injured due to repetitive trauma with a date of accident of May 14, 2001. On April 3, 2002, claimant filed another application, stating a date of injury of December 29, 2001. The applications were combined for arbitration.\nAt arbitration, claimant testified that prior to May 14, 2001, he had worked as a tractor/trailer driver for the employer for approximately five years. Claimant stated that he drove an 18-wheel, flatbed truck with a manual transmission an average of 200 miles a day. He shifted gears with his right arm and used his left arm to steer. Claimant delivered trusses that were secured to the flatbed with an average of 10 straps per load. The straps were tightened with either a manual wench or a pry bar. Claimant testified that tightening the strap required application of substantial force so that the load would not shift when the truck was moving. Claimant stated that some trailers were equipped with mounted wenches that required use of a pry bar approximately three feet long, weighing around 25 to 30 pounds. Claimant described and illustrated the act of tightening the straps. He testified that tightening the straps required more force than jacking up a car. According to claimant, in order to keep the load from moving, the straps would have to be tightened as much as possible. Claimant testified that he averaged two to four deliveries per day, and estimated that he tightened 35 to 40 straps per day. He stated he often would travel over rough roads and dirt roads to get to construction sites. Claimant testified that 9 out of 10 times he would stop between the yard and the construction site to resecure the load because it would loosen up. He submitted a series of photographs to illustrate. Claimant stated that he had an opportunity to view a videotape made by the employer in which the quality control manager illustrated the act of tightening the straps. Claimant criticized the videotape for failing to show the force necessary to secure a load. According to claimant, the tightening of a load as done in the employer\u2019s videotape would be insufficient to make travel safe on the roadway. Claimant also testified that in the videotape illustration, the quality control manager placed a ratchet in a reverse position where it would not even work.\nClaimant testified that in late 2000 through the spring of 2001, he began developing pain in his elbows that he had never experienced before. On May 14, 2001, claimant informed the employer\u2019s dispatcher, Bruce Janis, of his recurring pain and his desire to seek treatment. Jams advised claimant to seek medical treatment at Tyler Medical Services across the street from the truck yard. On May 14, 2001, claimant went to Tyler Medical Services and was prescribed medication and braces and an EMG was scheduled. After the EMG was reviewed, claimant was referred to Dr. Suchy, who prescribed braces and physical therapy. On July 24, 2001, claimant related continuing pain and Dr. Suchy recommended an injection and a second opinion. On August 14, 2001, claimant saw Dr. Thomas Atkins, who prescribed medication and an injection. On a visit of September 24, 2001, Dr. Atkins recommended surgery to the left wrist. Claimant testified that his condition worsened over the last half of 2001, but he continued to fulfill his job duties.\nClaimant testified that on June 4, 2002, Dr. Atkins issued a work restriction to lift no more than 10 pounds; however, the employer was unable to accommodate that restriction. Claimant stated that he continued to work for the employer, but had constant pain in his wrists and elbows while working. He testified that although he had been prescribed braces for his arms, he was unable to wear them at work because they prevented him from fulfilling his job duties.\nOn cross-examination, claimant testified that the length of the flatbed trailers that he drove varied from 40 to 75 feet. Claimant stated that the law dictated that a strap be placed every four feet. He testified that the average number of straps per load was 10, but the actual amount of straps varied on the size of the load, not on the length of the trailer. Claimant was confronted with a photograph that apparently showed only three straps; however, claimant testified that the photograph showed only part of the trailer. Claimant stated that he used to smoke, but had not done so for nine years. He testified that his duties with the employer have changed and that now he is working as a truck driver/crane operator.\nJessie Albright, operations manager for the employer, testified that normally three to five straps are used to secure a load. Albright testified that he had observed the securing of loads on a daily basis for over a decade. On cross-examination, Albright admitted that he was not a truck driver and had never tied down a load. Albright testified that there are legal requirements for the amount of straps to be used, depending upon the length of the trailer. He stated that each trailer is supposed to have \u201cX\u201d straps for every so many feet of trailer, but that drivers do not put on as many as is required by law. Albright admitted that roof trusses have irregular shapes compared to other items, such as rolls of plywood, but that something with an irregular shape did not necessarily require more straps.\nDr. Atkins testified that he first saw claimant on August 14, 2001, on the referral of Dr. Suchy. Claimant complained of numbness in both hands, with the numbness being worse in the left than the right, for a period of approximately two years. Upon review of an EMG dated June 29, 2001, Dr. Atkins concluded there was evidence of median nerve entrapment in the left wrist, consistent with mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Atkins prescribed Vioxx. On September 24, 2001, claimant returned, still complaining of significant symptoms, with numbness more on the left than the right. Dr. Atkins recommended open carpal tunnel release on the left side. On June 4, 2002, claimant returned still complaining of numbness in his fingers and stating that his symptoms were made worse by work activities. Dr. Atkins placed the restriction of lifting no more than 10 pounds. Dr. Atkins described claimant\u2019s purported job history:\n\u201cQ. [Attorney for the employer:] And what complaints did [claimant] \u2014 or what history did you obtain on June 4, 2002?\nA. At that time[,] he was coming in for bilateral elbow pain. The numbness in his fingers was essentially unchanged from his last visit. His symptoms were made worse by activity.\nQ. Did [claimant] describe any job activity to you?\nA. [Claimant] described what he does at work including that he does a lot of gripping and pulling, more so at the time I saw him in June than he had previously been doing.\nQ. Did [claimant] describe to you this gripping and pulling activity that he did?\nA. Yes.\nQ. And what \u2014 how did [claimant] explain it to you?\nA. [Claimant] described tightening belts down that helps secure a load on his truck using, I think they call it, a pry bar.\nQ. And did [claimant] demonstrate to you how he did it?\nA. He may have. I\u2019m not \u2014 I don\u2019t recall for sure.\nQ. Okay. But did [claimant] \u2014 he told you on June 4th of 2002 that he was doing more of that gripping and pulling than previously?\nA. Yes.\u201d\nDr. Atkins rendered an opinion regarding causation. Dr. Atkins testified:\n\u201cQ. [Attorney for claimant:] *** Doctor, for the purposes of the following questions[,] I want you to assume that [claimant] tightens approximately 40, sometimes more, sometimes less, straps per day as described in those eight photographs, in addition to driving an 18-wheel truck approximately 100 miles per day, more than half of it in \u2014 in the city. His truck has seven or nine forward gears and he\u2019s required to drive with his left hand and shift with his right hand, and each of those activities require[s] him to keep the elbow in a steady flexed position.\nDoctor, knowing all that and based on your examinations and your review of the diagnostic tests, do you have an opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical and surgical certainty, as to whether or not there is a causal connection of ill-being which you found in the wrists and elbows of [claimant]? And let me add that he\u2019s performed this work activity for approximately five to six years before you first saw him.\n***\nA. I think that his tasks as demonstrated here can certainly contribute to his carpal tunnel syndrom and medial epicondylitis.\nQ. Can you explain your opinion, Doctor?\nA. Repetitive, forceful gripping demonstrated here of the assumed number of times per day can contribute to carpal tunnel syndrome and medial epicondylitis.\u201d\nDr. Atkins testified that there was no indication that claimant was suffering from diabetes or a thyroid condition that would have contributed to the carpal tunnel syndrome.\nQ. [Attorney for claimant:] *** The treatment \u2014 is there a causal \u2014 do you have an opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical and surgical certainty, as to whether or not there\u2019s a causal connection between the work activity as described and the need for surgery in the left wrist?\nA. I believe that the work activity can contribute to his problem which can require surgery.\nQ. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not it\u2019s more likely than not that the work activity contributed to the carpal tunnel syndrome and the medial epicondylitis?\nA. Yes. I believe it\u2019s more likely than not that it contributed.\nQ. And that opinion is based upon a reasonable degree of medical and surgical certainty?\nA. Yes.\u201d\nOn cross-examination, Dr. Atkins admitted that both carpal tunnel syndrome and medial epicondylitis can develop without repetitive trauma. He testified that, in this case, both the frequency and amount of force used in performing the activities contributed to his conclusion of causation.\nDr. Michael Vender, a hand surgeon, was retained by the employer to examine claimant. Dr. Vender\u2019s examination included a review of a videotape and written job analysis. Dr. Vender did not notice any muscle wasting or atrophy in either the forearms or the hands. A review of an EMG dated October 19, 2001, revealed findings consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome on the left side, whereas on the right side the indications were borderline right carpal tunnel syndrome without a definitive diagnosis. Dr. Vender had a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome left greater than right. Dr. Vender was of the opinion that claimant could continue to perform his work activities, as there was no reason he would need restrictions based upon mild carpal tunnel syndrome and also because he had continued to perform his work activities. Dr. Vender testified that surgical intervention could be considered relative to claimant\u2019s complaints about his left wrist. He was of the opinion, however, that there was no causal relationship between claimant\u2019s work activities and the development of carpal tunnel syndrome.\nDr. Vender stated that he based his opinion on the fact that claimant did not perform the tasks persistently. He believed that the forceful activities performed by claimant were of a more \u201cintermittent ex-ertional nature and would not be persistently performed during the workday.\u201d Dr. Vender testified that his opinion was based upon the videotape and written job analysis:\n\u201cQ. [Attorney for the employer:] Reviewing your December 19, 2001[,] report marked [the employer\u2019s] Deposition Exhibit No. 4 for identification, what pertinent information did you find in the written job analysis and the videotape?\nA. I think most important was the job analysis on the videotape. That is, in it showed what would be considered forceful activities, such as cinching down straps or buckles, and how this was performed.\nIt also demonstrated that as force was required, rather than doing it by hand, a bar was utilized to get better leverage, which is a protective mechanism, so there was an ergonomic aspect to this.\nAnd it coincided or substantiated what my initial impressions were, that were activities of a forceful nature.\nHowever, these were not performed regularly. This would be more of an intermittent exposure rather than a regular exposure.\u201d Dr. Vender testified that the fact that the tasks were performed intermittently allowed claimant a recovery or rest period. On cross-examination, Dr. Vender stated that the other possible causes of claimant\u2019s carpal tunnel were his being overweight and having been a smoker.\nThe arbitrator found that claimant had failed to prove a causal relation between his condition and his employment activities. He concluded:\n\u201c[Claimant] failed to establish that his employment tasks are repetitive so as to cause bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and medial epicondylitis. [Claimant] spends 90% of his shift operating a truck equipped with a manual transmission and power steering. There was no evidence of any malfunction or defect in the truck creating excessive vibration. Also, he uses his right hand to shift gears. If this activity were a cause of his symptoms, it is reasonable to infer the carpal tunnel syndrome would be worse on the right than on the left. Second, [claimant] only ties down loads 5 to 15 minutes, using 3 to 12 straps, each shift. While this activity requires force, it does not require persistent repetitive force. Thus, by definition this activity is not repetitive. Third, Dr. Atkins assumed [claimant] tied down 40 straps each shift, a fact not in evidence. The [arbitrator notes that Dr. Vender appears to have had a more detailed and accurate understanding of the [claimant\u2019s] job activities than did Dr. Atkins, thus, the [a]rbitrator adopts the testimony of Dr. Vender in determining the issue of compensability.\u201d\nThe Commission reversed the decision of the arbitrator and found:\n\u201cBased upon the credible testimony of [claimant], the opinions of Dr. Atkins, the medical records[,] and the sequence of events[,] the Commission finds a causal relationship exists between [claimant\u2019s] repetitive work and the development of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome which manifested itself on May 14, 2001. Dr. Atkins testified that [claimant\u2019s] work tasks could certainly contribute to [claimant\u2019s] carpal tunnel syndrome. While Dr. Vender testified that there was no causal relationship[,] he could not say what caused [claimant\u2019s] condition and conceded [claimant\u2019s] job required forceful use of his hands. Dr. Vender placed part of the blame on [claimant\u2019s] history of smoking. However, [claimant] testified he had not smoked in nine years. The Commission finds the opinions of Dr. Atkins, the treater, to be more credible than the opinions of Dr. Vender. Dr. Delis\u2019 medical record for May 14, 2001[,] noted [claimant] began noticing sore pain in the bilateral wrists with his normal job responsibilities. The Commission finds that [claimant\u2019s] symptoms arose while he performed his duties on behalf of [the employer].\u201d\nClaimant was awarded medical expenses and the employer was ordered to authorize the surgery prescribed by Dr. Atkins. 820 ILCS 305/8(a) (West 2000). The employer timely appealed.\nANALYSIS\nThe employer contends that claimant failed to prove he suffered repetitive trauma from work. The employer asserts that claimant spent less than 10%, and probably closer to 2%, of his workday tying down loads.\nThere is no legal requirement that a certain percentage of the workday be spent on a task in order to support a finding of repetitive trauma. The Commission often categorizes compensable injuries into two types \u2014 those arising from a single identifiable event and those caused by repetitive trauma. See Peoria County Belwood Nursing Home v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 115 Ill. 2d 524, 530, 505 N.E.2d 1026, 1028 (1987). An employee who alleges injury from repetitive trauma must still meet the same standard of proof as other claimants alleging accidental injury. Three \u201cD\u201d Discount Store v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 198 Ill. App. 3d 43, 47, 556 N.E.2d 261, 264 (1989). The employee must still show that the injury is work related and not the result of a normal degenerative aging process. Gilster Mary Lee Corp. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 326 Ill. App. 3d 177, 182, 759 N.E.2d 979, 983 (2001).\nThe phrase \u201crepetitive trauma\u201d was developed in order to establish a date of accidental injury for purposes of determining when limitations statutes, and notice requirements, begin to run. See Belwood Nursing Home, 115 Ill. 2d at 530-31, 505 N.E.2d at 1028-29. The date of injury in repetitive trauma cases is the date on which the injury manifests itself, meaning the date on which the fact of injury and the causal relation to work would have become plainly apparent to a reasonable person. Three \u201cD\u201d Discount Store, 198 Ill. App. 3d at 47, 556 N.E.2d at 264. The categorization of an injury as due to repetitive trauma and the corresponding establishment of an injury date are necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Act to compensate workers who have been injured as a result of their employment. Belwood Nursing Home, 115 Ill. 2d at 530-31, 505 N.E.2d at 1028-29. The recognition of such a date allows an employee to be compensated for injuries that develop gradually, without requiring the employee to push his body to a precise moment of collapse. Castaneda v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 231 Ill. App. 3d 734, 737, 596 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (1992). There is no requirement that a certain percentage of time be spent on a task in order for the duties to meet a legal definition of \u201crepetitive.\u201d\nThe issue at hand is causation. The question before the Commission was whether the job activity was repeated sufficiently to cause the injury. Accordingly, both parties\u2019 arguments regarding the Commission\u2019s use of the phrase \u201ccumulative trauma\u201d are misplaced. The Commission unequivocally found that claimant\u2019s employment was a causative factor in his condition of ill-being. The use, or nonuse, of the terms \u201crepetitive trauma\u201d and \u201ccumulative trauma\u201d by the Commission is irrelevant because the dates of manifestation were not questioned. The employer does not question the manifestation dates and a glance at the record reveals that claimant\u2019s alleged dates of manifestation reasonably correlate to his medical treatment. The repetitious nature of the tasks performed by claimant is relevant only to the question whether the tasks caused claimant\u2019s condition. Causation is at issue, and the Commission found that claimant\u2019s employment caused his condition. See Fierke v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 309 Ill. App. 3d 1037, 1040, 723 N.E.2d 846, 850 (2000)\nThe employer presented testimony from Dr. Vender to support its position. Dr. Vender conceded that claimant had carpal tunnel syndrome that was stronger on the left than on the right. Dr. Vender, however, attacked claimant\u2019s assertion that his employment was the cause, specifically his strapping in loads. Dr. Vender testified that the strapping in of loads was only a small portion of claimant\u2019s workday and that the task was not persistent, as claimant had time between loads to rest his body such that there would be no permanent effect.\nClaimant raises several questions about Dr. Vender\u2019s testimony. First, claimant points out that Dr. Vender based his opinion, at least in part, on the employer\u2019s videotape of the job, which claimant criticized for showing improper technique and not showing the force needed to secure a strap. Dr. Vender relied on the employer\u2019s written job description for the amount of straps secured by claimant. Furthermore, claimant raised questions as to whether his body was truly resting while driving loads after securing straps.\nFinally, as the Commission pointed out, Dr. Vender\u2019s alternative explanations for claimant\u2019s condition appear suspect. Although the employer argued before the Commission that claimant\u2019s condition was caused by his working with horses, Dr. Vender never testified about other manual activities by claimant, and there is no indication that such activities were significant enough to contribute to claimant\u2019s condition. See Fierke, 309 Ill. App. 3d at 1040, 723 N.E.2d at 851. Dr. Vender testified that claimant\u2019s weight and his being a smoker were alternative causes. Claimant was 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighed 220 pounds. Dr. Vender admitted, however, that weight is not an absolute factor. Dr. Vender\u2019s other proposed cause, smoking, is even more questionable given that claimant testified he had not smoked for nine years.\nClaimant relies on the testimony of Dr. Atkins, which supports a finding of causation. The employer contends that there was a lack of proper foundation for Dr. Atkins\u2019 opinion, arguing that \u201cthe claimant never described any employment tasks as a cause of his symptoms\u201d and that \u201cDr. Atkins was not provided with any depiction or description of the claimant\u2019s employment tasks during his medical examinations.\u201d However, Dr. Atkins testified that during the course of treatment, claimant gave a description of strapping down a load, as shown by the quoted testimony regarding the June 4, 2002, visit. The employer also contends that Dr. Atkins\u2019 testimony lacks proper foundation because he was not provided with the videotape job analysis made by the employer. Nonetheless, the Commission was presented with testimony disparaging the videotape, and Dr. Atkins did review the still photographs created by claimant.\nThe employer points out that Dr. Atkins was asked to assume that claimant \u201ctightens approximately 40, sometimes more, sometimes less, straps per day as described in those eight photographs.\u201d The employer asserts that \u201cthere is simply no credible lay testimony to suggest that claimant tightened down 40 straps per shift.\u201d This ignores claimant\u2019s estimate that he tightened 35 to 40 straps per day and often stopped in route of delivery to check on and retighten the straps. The employer presented opposing testimony from its operations manager, but the Commission was entitled to evaluate the differing estimates. Furthermore, Dr. Atkins ruled out other causes for claimant\u2019s condition, such as diabetes and thyroid problems. Claimant laid a proper foundation for Dr. Atkins\u2019 opinion and the Commission was free to accept this testimony. See Electro-Motive Division, General Motors Corp. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 240 Ill. App. 3d 768, 774-75, 608 N.E.2d 162, 163-164 (1992) (Commission is free to give more weight to testimony of a treating physician).\nThe resolution of this case was essentially based on the Commission\u2019s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. In resolving questions of fact, it is within the province of the Commission to resolve conflicts in the evidence, draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and assess the credibility of the witnesses. Kirkwood v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 84 Ill. 2d 14, 20, 416 N.E.2d 1078, 1080 (1981).\nA finding of fact by the Commission will be set aside only if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Inter-City Products Corp. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 326 Ill. App. 3d 185, 193-94, 759 N.E.2d 952, 959 (2001). The Commission has the function of deciding questions of fact, judging credibility of witnesses, and resolving conflicting evidence, including medical evidence. O\u2019Dette v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 79 Ill. 2d 249, 253, 403 N.E.2d 221, 223 (1980). In order for a finding of fact to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, an opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 228 Ill. App. 3d 288, 291, 591 N.E.2d 894, 896 (1992). In this case, the Commission\u2019s finding of causation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nAccordingly, the order of the circuit court confirming and adopting the decision of the Commission is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcCULLOUGH, P.J., and HOFFMAN, CALLUM and HOLD-RIDGE, 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": "JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael E Doerries, of Wiedner & McAuliffe, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.", "Raymond M. Simard, of Raymond M. Simard, PC., of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "EDWARD HINES PRECISION COMPONENTS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Matthew Dearing, Appellee).\nSecond District (Illinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission Division)\nNo. 2\u201404\u20140608WC\nOpinion filed March 24, 2005.\nMichael E Doerries, of Wiedner & McAuliffe, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.\nRaymond M. Simard, of Raymond M. Simard, PC., of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0186-01", "first_page_order": 204, "last_page_order": 214 }