text:
    (No. 56778.
    DONALD EDWARDS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Royal Packing Company, Appellee).

      Opinion filed May 18, 1983.

      Jack Randall, of St. Louis, for appellant.
    William L. Rogers, of Keefe & De Pauli, P.C., of Fair-view Heights, for appellee.
   JUSTICE SIMON

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Donald Edwards, sought workmen’s compensation for a back injury that he allegedly suffered on October 18, 1976, while employed by the respondent, Royal Packing Company. The arbitrator found that claimant is permanently, partially disabled to the extent of 2% of the man as a whole. On an appeal by claimant to the Industrial Commission, the Commission modified the decision of the arbitrator and held that claimant is not entitled to any compensation because he “failed to prove he sustained any permanent disability as a result of the accident of October 18,1976 ***.”

Claimant appealed the Commission’s decision to the circuit court of St. Clair County and the court found that the Commission’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Claimant then brought a direct appeal to this court (87 Ill. 2d R. 302(a)) alleging that the Commission’s decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and is based solely upon improperly admitted evidence. We affirm the decision of the circuit court.

Three witnesses testified at the arbitration hearing on June 24, 1980: the claimant and two of respondent’s employees. Two other witnesses, both physicians, testified by way of deposition.

The claimant testified that on October 18, 1976, he was injured while working as a “beef lugger” in respondent’s plant. The injury occurred when he slipped and fell on a piece of fat as he was carrying a side of beef onto a truck. His tailbone hit the ground, and he injured his lower back.

The claimant testified that he promptly notified his supervisor of the accident and that he was sent to the company physician, Dr. Max Goldenberg, who gave him some pills and told him that he could go back to work. The claimant also testified that shortly after the accident he consulted his personal physician, Dr. Dioneda, for treatment of the back injury.

The claimant admitted that after taking several days off he came back to work for the respondent. After lugging the 250-pound sides of beef for another month, the claimant quit his job. He testified that his back injury made it impossible for him to continue lugging beef. Shortly after quitting that job with the respondent, the claimant returned to work for the respondent in another capacity but was discharged after working nearly a month.

After leaving his job with respondent the claimant traveled to Texas, where he worked as a floorman on an oil rig for six months, as a construction worker for about a year, as a dump-truck driver for three months, and as a dairy-truck driver for six months. At the time of the arbitration hearing claimant was employed in a sedentary job in St. Louis, Missouri, which he had held for seven months. The claimant testified that he had sought out this “light” employment because of his back injury even though the job paid one dollar less an hour than the beef-lugging job he had with the respondent in 1976.

The claimant testified that he has had considerable lower back pain since the 1976 accident. He has difficulty bending over and carrying heavy loads. Since the 1976 accident he has been unable to lift more than 100 pounds without pain, whereas before the accident he could lift as much as 400 pounds.

The claimant, however, admitted that on October 11, 1979, he was involved in a highway accident while working as a dairy-truck driver in Texas. In this accident claimant’s head went through the windshield of the truck. His injuries required that he be hospitalized for three days. The claimant maintains that this accident worsened the back injury that he had sustained in the 1976 accident at respondent’s plant. He claims that the pain he feels while bending or lifting became more acute after the Texas highway accident.

The claimant’s foreman at respondent’s plant, George Dietrich, testified that on October 19, 1976, claimant reported that he had hemorrhoids from lifting boxes, but did not mention anything about a fall while carrying a side of beef. On October 20, 1976, Mr. Dietrich filled out and signed a “Report of Employee Accident” form relating that claimant was injured while “loading boxes for freezer” and that the claimant “said he had hemorrhoid trouble picking up 100 lb. boxes.” Mr. Dietrich testified that the claimant never mentioned anything to him about a back injury and that if the claimant had complained of such an injury on or about October 18, 1976, it would have appeared in the accident report.

The foreman also challenged the claimant’s version of why he left his beef-lugging job with the respondent. Mr. Dietrich testified that the claimant quit his job after repeatedly being told that governmental regulations required that he wear hair protection of some kind while lugging the raw beef:

“Anytime you’re lugging beef your hair had to be covered, and several times [a government inspector] had got on me about [claimant] lugging beef without a hair net on .or something on his hair to keep it off the beef, so this morning why he got on me again and I told [claimant] several times, different times about lugging with something on his head. And, I told [claimant] on the next load he’d have to have something or else I’d have to have him quit loading so I walked back out and [claimant] didn’t have anything on his head and I said *** I told you to get something on your head. And, *** he got excited and threw his helmet down, took his coat off and a few choice words, whatever they were, and he walked out and that’s the way he walked out.”

The respondent’s vice-president for personnel and labor relations, Richard Chichohck, testified that the company’s time records show that on October 18, 1976, a Monday, the claimant worked a full day. The records also show that the claimant left work a few hours early on October 19, 1976, and that he took off the 20th and 21st, returning to work full time on the 22nd. After the week of the alleged accident the claimant worked full time until November 23, 1976, when he walked off the job after only three hours and five minutes.

At the arbitration hearing the parties also offered medical testimony detailing their versions of the claimant’s physical condition. The claimant offered the deposition of Dr. Joseph H. Morrow, Jr., an osteopathic physician and surgeon who examined the claimant for the first and only time on January 9, 1980, at the request of claimant’s counsel. Dr. Morrow testified that it was his opinion that the claimant suffered from both lumbosacral sprain and lumbar myositis. Dr. Morrow testified that these conditions would permanently cause the claimant some pain and limit his movement. Based on historical information given to him by the claimant, Dr. Morrow stated the opinion that the claimant’s back injury was the result of the 1976 accident at the respondent’s plant, and that the 1979 highway accident had aggravated the injury, but was not its principal cause.

The respondent offered the deposition of Dr. Max M. Goldenberg, the respondent’s company doctor who examined the claimant on January 23, 1980. Dr. Goldenberg testified that the claimant had told him that he had never had any back pain prior to the 1976 accident at the respondent’s plant. The claimant, however, admitted to Dr. Golden-berg that he had injured his neck and back in the 1979 highway accident and that he was given a corset for his back while in the hospital for that injury. The claimant also told Dr. Goldenberg that, after a month of treatment with a doctor in Texas, he has not had any treatment for the back injury.

As a result of his examination of the claimant, Dr. Goldenberg concluded that “[tjhere were no objective findings of residual of his injury consistent with his complaints. *** The manner in which he arched his back in examination replacing his shorts and performing a sit-up, speaks against his having any disability of the back at the time I examined him.” Dr. Goldenberg also expressed an opinion that the claimant could perform heavy work of any kind.

In addition to the testimony of Dr. Goldenberg, the respondent offered a medical report that allegedly came from the files of Dr. Dioneda, the claimant’s personal physician. The report states that the claimant visited Dr. Dioneda on October 19, 1976, for the treatment of an injury sustained while lifting boxes at work, but makes no mention of a back injury sustained in a fall. The respondent offered this document as evidence that there was no fall or back injury suffered on October 18, 1976. The claimant, however, objected to the admission of this report on the grounds that it was not authenticated as the document of Dr. Dioneda; that it was irrelevant to the question of whether the claimant suffered a back injury; and that no foundation had been laid for its admission as a business record. The arbitrator overruled these objections and admitted the report into the record.

The arbitrator found that the claimant suffers from a permanent partial disability and that he is entitled to compensation to the extent of 2% of the man as a whole. On review, the Commission determined that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. In explaining its decision the Commission relied on “Dr. Dioneda’s report and a lack of any medical evidence of treatment of the lower back until January 1980.”

The claimant argues that the Commission’s decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and based solely upon the report of Dr. Dioneda which was inadmissible. There may be some merit in the claimant’s contention that Dr. Dioneda’s report was inadmissible; however, we need not decide whether the report was properly admitted, because even if it was inadmissible, the Commission’s decision is adequately supported by the manifest weight of the other evidence in the record. Cf. Martin Young Enterprises, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 149, 156.

In reversing the arbitrator’s decision, the Commission did not rely solely on Dr. Dioneda’s report. The Commission found that, after the alleged injury, the claimant returned to his beef-lugging job with the respondent and that, contrary to claimant’s assertions, he left this job not because of the back injury, but because he refused to comply with governmental sanitation regulations. Moreover, the Commission found that after leaving his job with respondent the claimant had a series of jobs in Texas requiring heavy labor, but until his highway accident in October 1979 he apparently did not seek any medical treatment for the alleged back injury except for the visits to two doctors shortly after the accident. In fact, the only medical evidence that the claimant offered was the testimony of Dr. Morrow, which was based on an examination of the claimant in January 1980 in preparation for the arbitration hearing. By the claimant’s own admission Dr. Morrow’s examination occurred nearly three months after the highway accident in Texas in which the claimant suffered serious injuries.

The resolution of questions of fact and causation are the Industrial Commission’s responsibility (Odie v. Industrial Com. (1982), 88 Ill. 2d 514, 519), and the Commission’s factual evaluations will not be disturbed on review unless they are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Flores v. Industrial Com. (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 48, 55.) None of the Commission’s factual findings, noted above, are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

On the basis of these findings of fact, we hold that, even excluding Dr. Dioneda’s report, the Commission’s finding that the claimant did not suffer any permanent partial disability as a result of the accident of October 18, 1976, is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH

license: Public Domain

text:
    (No. 56902.
    QUINCY BROWN, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Ferris Steel Company, Appellee).

      Opinion filed May 18, 1983.

      Quincy Brown, of Chicago, pro se.

    Van Duzer, Gershon, Jordan & Petersen, of Chicago (Horace W. Jordan and Garry J. Giertuga, of counsel), for appellee.
   JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Industrial Commission awarded petitioner, Quincy Brown, compensation for the permanent loss of the use of 15% of his left foot for injuries sustained while in the employ of respondent, Ferris Steel Company. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review of the award under section 19(h) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 138.19(h)), and the Industrial Commission found that petitioner had permanently lost 25% of the use of his left leg. Petitioner filed a second 19(h) petition, and following a hearing the Industrial Commission increased the award to 55%. On certiorari to the circuit court of Cook County, the Commission’s decision was confirmed. Petitioner appealed to this court. 87 Ill. 2d R. 302(a).

The medical testimony adduced at the hearing on the second 19(h) petition was conflicting, and pursuant to section 19(c) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 138.19(c)), the Commission ordered an impartial medical examination. Dr. Irwin Rich examined petitioner, and in his evidence deposition testified concerning findings made during his examination.

Although there is no such statement in Dr. Rich’s deposition and the record contains no report from him, the Commission’s decision states:

“Dr. Rich’s impression was that Petitioner had a non-functioning triceps muscle of the left calf following laceration of the achilles tendon, with secondary atrophy of calf muscles, stiffness of ankle, and reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the left foot. Dr. Rich stated Petitioner was permanently disabled from work requiring anything but minimal standing and walking, and that Petitioner cannot climb, squat, kneel, run, or walk briskly.”

The Industrial Commission found that petitioner’s disability in his left ankle had increased to 55%. The Commission, citing A.M.T.C. of Illinois, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 482, ruled that since petitioner admitted that he had not looked for work and had failed to demonstrate that work was not available for someone with his disability, petitioner “failed to prove he was unable to return to work.” Noting that Dr. Rich had indicated that petitioner could perform some type of sedentary labor, the Commission declined to award petitioner permanent and total disability.

Petitioner’s pro se brief is somewhat unusual in form. Petitioner presents the issues for review as follows:

“Complete industrial loss of left foot.
Disfigurement of left leg.
Triple benefits.”

Although these issues, as presented, are somewhat vague, reference to the record in this case, and particularly petitioner’s pro se arguments before the circuit court, clarifies the legal arguments which petitioner is apparently attempting to present to this court.

Petitioner’s notice of appeal indicates that petitioner wishes to be excepted from “making a reasonable effort of looking for work for which I may be able to do.” The notice of appeal also indicates that petitioner is seeking an award for the “complete industrial loss of left foot.” The report of proceedings before the circuit court indicates that petitioner is not contending that the finding that he had lost 55% of the use of his left leg was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Rather, petitioner’s contention is that a laborer who is 55% disabled should be classified as unemployable. The problem, however, as noted by the Industrial Commission, is not whether petitioner is able to find work as a laborer, but whether petitioner proved that “no employment is available for a person with his disability.” (Intercraft Industries Corp. v. Industrial Com. (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 297, 300.) The only situation where a petitioner is excused from showing his unemployability is where it is obvious that the claimant’s injury renders him unemployable. (95 Ill. 2d 297, 300.) This record does not demonstrate petitioner’s obvious unemployability.

Petitioner also asks for “triple benefits.” Petitioner cites no statutory authority providing for “triple benefits,” and we are not aware of any such remedy. Also, we are unable to determine how any issue concerning “disfigurement” arises from the facts of this case.

The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.


author: JUSTICE UNDERWOOD

text:
    (No. 56985.
    C. D. TURNER & SONS, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Wayne Grisamore, Appellee).

      Opinion filed May 18, 1983.

      Armstrong, Winters, Prince, Featherstun & Johnson, of Decatur (Daniel L. Gaumer, of counsel), for appellant.
    Kenneth H. Holz, of Scheele, Serkland & Boyle, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee.
   JUSTICE UNDERWOOD

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant, Wayne Grisamore, fell and injured his lower back while working as a pile-driver foreman for respondent, C. D. Turner & Sons, Inc. An arbitrator for the Industrial Commission, after finding that claimant was totally disabled and that the condition was temporary and had not yet become permanent, awarded compensation in the amount of $253 per week for a period of 822/7 weeks under section 19(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.19(b)). In addition to all necessary medical, surgical, and hospital expenses, the arbitrator ordered respondent to pay for all treatment necessary for claimant’s physical, mental, and vocational rehabilitation pursuant to section 8(a) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.8(a)). Both parties sought review by the Commission, which also found that the claimant was temporarily totally disabled and entitled to vocational rehabilitation. The Commission increased the period for which benefits were payable to 113% weeks, and its decision was confirmed by the circuit court of Macon County. Respondent appeals directly to this court pursuant to our Rule 302(a). 73 Ill. 2d R. 302(a).

The evidence presented at the arbitration hearing consisted of claimant’s testimony, medical reports prepared by Dr. Lewis Adkins and Dr. Alain Menguy, and the evidentiary depositions of Dr. Joseph Ankenbrandt and Dr. Carlo Scuderi. On November 27, 1978, claimant fell three to four feet from a scaffold into a ditch, striking a metal barrel -with the lower part of his back as he landed. Claimant experienced severe pain in his lower back, hips and the upper part of his legs. Dr. Adkins, who was claimant’s family doctor, initially prescribed pain medication and muscle relaxants; when this treatment failed to relieve claimant’s complaints, Dr. Adkins hospitalized claimant for traction and physical therapy. After approximately one week, claimant was issued a back brace and released.

Because his condition had not improved, claimant was referred by Dr. Adkins to Dr. Menguy, an orthopedic surgeon. In his initial medical reports, Dr. Menguy noted that claimant’s movements were restricted. After a myelogram in March 1979 indicated a possible defective disc, Dr. Menguy performed a laminectomy and prescribed post-operative treatment of pain medication and a set of exercises. After examining claimant approximately once a month from May through November, Dr. Menguy informed claimant on November 12 that he could return to unrestricted work on December 10.

Claimant testified that his condition did not change after surgery, and he suffered continued pain at the time that Dr. Menguy informed him that he could return to work. Because of his pain, claimant was unable to perform more than light household chores and was unable to sleep more than four hours per night. Several months before the hearing, claimant suffered “excruciating pain” when he attempted to lift a 45-pound bale of hay. Although Dr. Menguy had directed claimant to walk up to four miles per day, claimant testified that he was unable to walk more than half a mile because of the pain. At the review hearing held before the Commission in January 1981, claimant testified that his condition had worsened and that he was unable to perform the prescribed exercises as well as he formerly had.

Claimant also presented evidence concerning his occupational history. He testified that he was a construction-grade carpenter and that the foreman’s position which he occupied at the time of his injury was not a general supervisory job, but rather required him to work along with the other carpenters. Prior to his employment by respondent, claimant said his two most recent jobs involved climbing and working atop a 375-foot-high scaffold while constructing a power plant, and installing hardwood floors. Claimant also testified that his work had required him to wear a 30-pound tool belt and to assist in moving planks and forms which weighed as much as 200 pounds. Claimant’s formal education had terminated when he left school in the ninth grade. Before becoming a carpenter, he served in the armed forces, where he had passed a high school diploma equivalency test; he also had held several factory jobs involving physical labor.

Although claimant continued to pay his union dues for a number of months, he did not return to construction work after he was authorized to do so by Dr. Men-guy. As a union carpenter, claimant testified he was not allowed to initiate contact with potential employers. Unless contacted by a former employer, he had to report to the local union hall for work assignments. Claimant did not report to the union hall and did not receive any offers of employment. He indicated, however, that if he had been offered a “nonworking” supervisory position, he would have accepted it. He did secure employment for one and a half days stocking grocery shelves but found the work too painful. He also sought work through an employment agency, applying unsuccessfully for work at a marina and for a job repairing storm doors and windows at a lumber yard. Prior to the arbitration hearing, claimant contacted a vocational rehabilitation center. When testifying before the Commission, claimant stated that he was interested in pursuing a recommendation by the center that he become a realtor.

Claimant was examined by Dr. Ankenbrandt in November 1979 and May 1980. On both occasions, Dr. Ankenbrandt observed claimant’s range of motion to be impaired, with little improvement by the time of the second visit. Nevertheless, Dr. Ankenbrandt considered the end result of Dr. Menguy’s surgery to be excellent, stating that he thought claimant had not fully demonstrated his range of motion. Dr. Ankenbrandt agreed that Dr. Menguy’s decision to release claimant to return to carpentry work was appropriate, adding that the vast majority of patients with conditions similar to claimant’s could return to unrestricted activities. When questioned by claimant’s attorney, however, Dr. Ankenbrandt stated that he thought that scar tissue resulting from surgery had attached to nerve roots in claimant’s lumbar spine area. Dr. Ankenbrandt agreed that this condition could produce pain, but asserted that the degree of impairment demonstrated in his examination of claimant was not enough to interfere with claimant’s ability to work as a carpenter.

Dr. Scuderi, who examined claimant in March 1980, found that claimant lacked a normal range of motion and that certain of claimant’s back muscles had atrophied from disuse. Although Dr. Scuderi also considered the end result of claimant’s surgery to be excellent, the doctor believed claimant “has justification for what he is complaining of.” When asked whether he thought claimant was malingering, he responded: “No, I thought he was perfectly honest.” While acknowledging that a difference of opinion existed among orthopedic surgeons, Dr. Scuderi stated that the more experienced surgeons believed that persons with claimant’s condition were subject to a high risk of recurring injury if they returned to unrestricted activities and that claimant should undertake a more sedentary occupation than that of a carpenter.

Respondent argues that the Commission erred in finding that claimant remained temporarily totally disabled and entitled to vocational rehabilitation following Dr. Menguy’s authorization to return to work. Central to respondent’s argument is the assertion that in order to determine whether a claimant has fulfilled his burden of proving temporary total disability, we should follow the rule articulated in Valley Mould & Iron Co. v. Industrial Com. (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 538, which allocated the burden of proof in cases involving permanent total disability. We there stated that “if the claimant’s disability is limited in nature so that he is not obviously unemployable, or if there is no medical evidence to support a claim of total disability, the burden is upon the claimant to establish the unavailability of employment to a person in his circumstances.” 84 Ill. 2d 538, 546-47.

Instead of finding that claimant was a carpenter, respondent contends that the Commission should have characterized claimant as a supervisory foreman. Respondent, pointing to claimant’s failure to report to the union hall or to contact respondent directly about obtaining a position as supervisory foreman, also challenges the Commission’s finding that claimant had demonstrated an inability “to obtain employment within his capabilities.” In our judgment, however, the Commission’s conclusions are not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and do not contravene the Valley Mould rule. It is well settled that making factual determinations is a primary function of the Commission and that we will not overturn its findings unless they are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (See, e.g., Brinkmann v. Industrial Com. (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 462, 467; United Airlines, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 85, 95.) There was no evidence that claimant was qualified to work as a supervisory nonworking foreman on the larger construction jobs which employ individuals in such capacities. Too, claimant’s unrebutted testimony, which established that he worked primarily as a carpenter required to join in the labor of his pile-driving crew, provided ample evidence for the Commission’s finding that claimant was a carpenter.

The necessary result of accepting Dr. Scuderi’s testimony, which the Commission apparently did, is that claimant cannot safely return to carpentry work, the trade for which he is best qualified and at which he has spent most of his commercially employed life. Claimant testified that he was trying to arrange for training as a real estate salesman, a type of occupation Dr. Scuderi had approved. While we agree that claimant could have sought employment more diligently than he has, when his lack of qualifications for any occupation other than the one to which he cannot safely return is considered, we believe the Commission’s finding that claimant was unable to obtain employment within his capabilities is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Cf. Kropp Forge Co. v. Industrial Com. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 226, 232; Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Com. (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 257, 262-63; Martin Young Enterprises, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 149, 153-54.) Although the medical evidence concerning claimant’s capabilities differed, resolving conflicting medical testimony is within the province of the Commission. See, e.g., Morgan v. Industrial Com. (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 524, 527; Inland Steel Coal Co. v. Industrial Com. (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 61, 65.

We note that the orders of both the arbitrator and the Commission concerning the payment of rehabilitation costs were couched only in the general language of the statute. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.8(a).) The record reflects that claimant had not enrolled in a real estate training program or any other course of vocational rehabilitation. Any dispute concerning rehabilitation programs will, of course, properly be the subject of a future hearing before the Industrial Commission. Kropp Forge Co. v. Industrial Com. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 226, 229-30. Cf. Hunter Corp. v. Industrial Com. (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 489.

The judgment of the circuit court of Macon County is accordingly affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.


author: JUSTICE MORAN

text:
    (No. 57109.
    THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Mary E. Perry, Appellee).

      Opinion filed May 18, 1983.

      Patricia J. Whitten, of Chicago (William J. Quinlan and Robert A. Wolf, of counsel), for appellant.
    Discipio, Martay & Caruso, of Chicago (Francis M. Discipio, of counsel), for appellee.
   JUSTICE MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Petitioner, Mary E. Perry, sought compensation for the death of her husband, a window washer for the respondent employer, the Chicago board of education. The arbitrator found petitioner’s husband had suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment which contributed to his death. He awarded claimant $173.33 per week for life, $8,184.70 in medical expenses, and $1,750 for funeral expenses. The Industrial Commission affirmed and the circuit court of Cook County confirmed the decision. Respondent contends the Commission’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

On March 29, 1977, petitioner’s decedent, Walter Perry, was assigned to wash windows with a co-worker at one of respondent’s schools. To facilitate washing the first floor windows, two other employees removed several large protective wire screens from the window openings and leaned them against a fence. The screens were approximately four feet by eight feet in size and weighed 35 to 40 pounds each. Two of the screens, caught by a gust of wind, struck decedent, knocking him down with the screens landing on top of him.

A co-worker, Bryon Granville, testified that while on a ladder he heard a scream. He turned and saw Perry’s head on the pavement and a ladder under his legs. Perry was holding his shoulder and the right side of his head. When decedent removed his hand from his face, Gran-ville stated his face was red. Another of respondent’s employees testified he saw one of the screens strike Perry, but did not see him fall. This employee said he had had coffee earlier that morning with decedent and that at that time he appeared sluggish and more pale than usual.

Decedent was taken to a hospital emergency room and X rays of his shoulder were taken. There was no mention in the hospital record of a head injury. He returned to the school that afternoon, signed an accident report, and then drove home. There was no mention in the accident report of a head injury.

Petitioner and her daughter, who both lived with decedent, testified he was physically and mentally active prior to March 29, 1977, often engaging in bicycle riding, skateboard riding, basketball, hunting, fishing and football with his daughter and grandson. He also performed general tasks around the home. However, after the accident, he became forgetful, staggered and stumbled while walking, occasionally grabbed his head and grimaced as if in pain and no longer engaged in sports or other activities.

Granville also testified to changes in decedent’s condition after the accident. He said when Perry returned to work he appeared pale, forgetful, and weak and his hands would shake; that during lunch breaks Perry would fall asleep; that he would often return to rewash the same windows; and that he would fail to completely wash other windows. He indicated their work output dropped from approximately 50 windows per day prior to the accident, to about 25 to 30 thereafter. Granville also stated Perry appeared off balance, nervous and shaky and that he stumbled and nearly fell while walking on occasion. Because of this, Granville no longer permitted decedent to climb ladders.

On August 25, 1977, Granville heard a noise from a classroom in which Perry was working. He found him lying on the floor holding the right side of his head and crying. Perry told him he had fallen off the 21/2- to 3-foot heating vent which window washers customarily stood on to wash the windows. Decedent left the school shortly thereafter and never returned to work.

On September 1, 1977, Perry’s physician tentatively diagnosed an “intracranial lesion, probable space occupied” on the right side of Perry’s head. In October, Perry underwent a craniotomy, and a malignant brain tumor was found on the right side of his brain. He remained hospitalized from this time until his demise in March of 1978.

Perry’s attending physician testified neither the March 29 nor the August 25 accidents caused the tumor per se. He asserted there was no way to pinpoint exactly how long or if the tumor had existed prior to March 29, 1977, primarily because he had not examined Perry until September 1, 1977. However, in response to a hypothetical question, he indicated a bump on the head could cause hemorrhage into a brain tumor which could aggravate it. In his opinion, it would be medically significant if an individual who was symptom free prior to head trauma became symptomatic after the incident. He admitted he found no hemorrhage during Perry’s craniotomy, but stated that sufficient time had elapsed for any hemorrhage to be absorbed and no special effort was made to determine whether there was evidence of an old hemorrhage. He noted some edema at the time of surgery, but attributed it to the tumor itself. However, he thought it was possible the fall in August might have brought about the edema.

Respondent’s physician testified neither of the accidents was related to Perry’s death. He said decedent’s symptoms fit the natural progression of such a tumor’s growth. However, he admitted that trauma to the area of a brain tumor might aggravate the condition and stated that immediate signs and symptoms following the trauma could be significant evidence of aggravation.

Respondent acknowledges aggravation of a preexisting condition may be compensable but argues the aggravation must be traceable to a definite time, place and cause. (International Harvester Co. v. Industrial Com. (1973), 56 Ill. 2d 84, 89.) Respondent maintains there is no evidence in the instant case of a preexisting brain tumor or a head injury aggravating the tumor.

While there is no direct testimony decedent struck his head on the pavement, the Commission inferred, primarily from Granville’s testimony, that he did sustain a head injury in the March 29, 1977, accident. It is well established that “[t]he Commission is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from both direct and circumstantial evidence” (County of Cook v. Industrial Com. (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 10, 19), and this court will not set aside the Commission’s decision or disregard permissible inferences merely because other inferences could be drawn (Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1983), 93 Ill. 2d 507, 515). It is the Commission’s function to resolve disputed questions of fact and evidentiary conflicts, and the Commission’s findings must be upheld unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Speetor Freight System, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1983), 93 Ill. 2d 507, 514.

It is undisputed that at least one heavy screen struck and knocked decedent to the pavement. Given this fact and Granville’s testimony, we cannot say the Commission’s inference that Perry sustained a head injury in the March 1977 accident is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The record reveals no direct medical evidence establishing Perry had a brain tumor prior to the March 1977 injury. However, the evidence does show that he enjoyed relatively good health and was active both physically and mentally right up to the date of injury. Immediately thereafter, however, his ability to work and his physical and mental condition deteriorated.

Proof of good health prior to an accidental injury, and a subsequent condition of ill-being which develops immediately after the accident, create an issue of fact as to the causal relationship between the injury and the condition of ill-being. (Brooks v. Industrial Com. (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 150, 154-55. See Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1983), 93 Ill. 2d 507, 513-14; Dixon v. Industrial Com. (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 126, 131; Board of Education v. Industrial Com. (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 307, 311; Macon County Coal Co. v. Industrial Com. (1940), 374 Ill. 219, 224; Ralph H. Simpson Co. v. Industrial Com. (1929), 337 Ill. 454, 459.) Whether a claimant’s disability is attributed to a degenerative condition or, because of an accident, to an aggravation or acceleration of a preexisting condition is a question of fact to be decided by the Industrial Commission. (Azzarelli Construction Co. v. Industrial Com. (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 262, 266.) This court has said that the Commission’s finding on this issue should be given substantial deference because of the expertise acquired by the Commission in this area. (Long v. Industrial Com. (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 561, 566.) And, “[i]f the injury is a contributing factor, compensation will be allowed even if natural degenerative change or other factors *** contributed to claimant’s disability.” Azzarelli Construction Co. v. Industrial Com. (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 262, 267.

In the instant case, both doctors testified immediate signs and symptoms following head trauma could be significant. Furthermore, there was ample testimony establishing Perry’s immediate and progressive deterioration. Under these circumstances, the Commission could well have drawn a permissible inference that there was a causal relation between Perry’s March 1977 injury, his progressive deterioration, and his ultimate death. We cannot say the Commission’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.


text:
    (No. 57153.
    WALTER D. WILKEY et al., Appellees, v. THE ILLINOIS RACING BOARD, Appellant.

      Opinion filed May 18, 1983.

      Tyrone C. Fahner and Neil F. Hartigan, Attorneys General, of Springfield (Kathleen M. Lien, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel) for appellant.
    Edward J. Egan, of Chicago, for appellees.
   JUSTICE UNDERWOOD

delivered the opinion of the court:

Various sanctions were imposed by the Illinois Racing Board upon plaintiffs, Walter Wilkey, who is a licensed veterinarian, Terry Gabriel, Dennis Neylon and Jake Morreale, who are licensed as owners-trainers of racehorses, and John Van, Jr., in connection with the alleged drugging of four horses scheduled to race at Arlington Park. Plaintiffs sought administrative review in the circuit court of Cook County, and that court reversed the Board’s orders and remanded each of the causes for a hearing de novo. The Board filed notices of appeal, and the causes, which resulted from a single investigation, were consolidated by the appellate court. On plaintiffs’ motion, the appeal was dismissed, presumably because of the absence of a final, appealable order. We granted the Board’s petition for leave to appeal.

As indicated in the circuit court’s recitation of the facts, the Racing Board commenced an investigation into the suspicious circumstances surrounding the inability of four scheduled entrants to participate in a 1978 Labor Day horse race at the Arlington Park Racetrack. Board members Angelo Ciambrone and Ray Garrison were appointed to conduct the investigation; they were assisted by attorneys from the law firm of Friedman & Koven, which was hired as special counsel. As a result of the investigation, the Board entered orders against plaintiffs and others, directing them to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed in connection with charges that they had conspired to affect the outcome of the race in question.

Prior to the Board’s adjudicatory hearing on March 6, 1980, plaintiffs moved that the investigating Board members recuse themselves in the hearings. Mr. Garrison did so, but Mr. Ciambrone participated in the hearing. Plaintiffs were found not guilty of conspiracy, but Dr. Wilkey was found guilty of giving false information to the Board, and in addition to a $5,000 fine, his license to practice veterinary medicine at Illinois racetracks was suspended for six months. Jake Morreale’s owner-trainer license was concurrently suspended for 10 years and 90 days for providing false information to the Board and fading to guard one of the horses involved. Terry Gabriel and Dennis Neylon were found guilty of failing to adequately guard their horses, and their owner-trainer licenses were suspended for 90 days. The Board also imposed a $5,000 fine upon Gabriel. After finding that he had provided false information during the investigation, the Board permanently barred John Van, Jr., from obtaining an owner or trainer’s license, or attending an Illinois racetrack.

Plaintiffs filed complaints for administrative review, and the circuit court, citing our appellate court’s decision in Kraut v. Rachford (1977), 51 Ill. App. 3d 206, held that Mr. Ciambrone’s participation in the adjudicatory phase of the proceedings violated plaintiffs’ due process rights. After ordering the causes reversed and remanded for a de novo hearing before the Board, the circuit court denied the Board’s motion to finalize the court’s judgment by striking the remanding clause. As earlier noted, the appellate court subsequently dismissed the Board’s appeal.

Because of its jurisdictional significance, we consider first the issue of the appealability of the circuit court’s judgment. Under section 13 of the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110, par. 276) “[a] final decision, order or judgment of the Circuit Court, entered in an action to review a decision of an administrative agency, is reviewable by appeal as in other civil cases.” Our 1970 constitution guarantees litigants the right to appeal a circuit court’s final judgment to the appellate court located in the same judicial district, but appeals from nonfinal judgments are governed by rules promulgated by this court. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, sec. 6.

The Board first argues that the circuit court’s order was substantively final and thus appealable. We agree that the finality of an order is not necessarily determined by its form and that ordering a remandment does not invariably render a judgment nonfinal. As this court has previously noted, “[i]f, upon remandment, the trial court has only to enter a judgment or decree in accordance with the directions of the reviewing court, or to conduct further proceedings on uncontroverted incidental matters, then, irrespective of the remanding clause in the judgment order, the judgment of the Appellate Court is final and reviewable.” (Cory Corp. v. Fitzgerald (1949), 403 Ill. 409, 414.) In Cory Corp., however, this court carefully qualified that rule with an additional statement:

“On the other hand, where a cause is remanded for a new trial or other further proceedings involving disputed questions of law or fact, the judgment of the Appellate Court is not of a final character. [Citations.] The ultimate question to be decided in each case is whether the judgment fully and finally disposes of the rights of the parties to the cause so that no material controverted issue remains to be determined.” (403 Ill. 409, 414-15.)

(See also People ex rel. Scott v. Silverstein (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 167, 171; Relph v. Board of Education (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 436, 441; Deckard v. Joiner (1970), 44 Ill. 2d 412, 416-17, cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 941, 27 L. Ed. 2d 244, 91 S. Ct. 232, rehearing denied (1971), 400 U.S. 1025, 27 L. Ed. 2d 637, 91 S. Ct. 579; South Chicago Community Hospital v. Industrial Com. (1969), 44 Ill. 2d 119, 121-22; Larson v. Larson (1960), 19 Ill. 2d 200, 204; Village of Niles v. Szczesny (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 45, 48.) This court adheres to the same definition of finality in the context of administrative review. See Ahlers v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 259, 266; J. M. Jones Co. v. Industrial Com. (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 368, 370; Stockton v. Industrial Com. (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 120, 124-25; South Chicago Community Hospital v. Industrial Com. (1969), 44 Ill. 2d 119, 121-22; Downey v. Industrial Com. (1969), 44 Ill. 2d 28, 29.

We cannot agree with respondent that the sole effect of the circuit court’s order would be a repetitious hearing which differs from the first only in that one formerly participating Board member would be absent. Section 12 of the Administrative Review Act empowers the circuit court to reverse and remand the entire cause in order to allow further proceedings on all of the questions, as was done here. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110, par. 275(f).) Because the order remanded the cause for a new hearing and we cannot assume that the result will be identical, it is obvious that the rights of the parties have yet to be fully and finally adjudicated.

The Board also urges us to characterize the circuit court’s order as appealable on the basis of the policy underlying a former statute which provided a means to appeal from an order granting a new trial. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 110, par. 75(2)(c).) Section 75 of the Civil Practice Act provided that a party whose judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial could, by filing a motion accompanied by an affidavit waiving a new trial and asserting that he would be unable to adduce any additional evidence at a new trial, compel the appellate court to finalize its judgment by striking the remandment portion of the order. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 110, par. 75(2)(c). See Bowman v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 186, cert. denied (1957), 355 U.S. 837, 2 L. Ed. 2d 49, 78 S. Ct. 63.) In our opinion, the circuit court properly denied the Board’s motion to finalize the court’s judgment. Section 75 of the Civil Practice Act was repealed in 1965, and appellate jurisdiction has since been governed by the constitution and our implementing rules. (See Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 110, par. 75 (Smith-Hurd 1968); Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, secs. 4, 6.) It was this court’s considered judgment that appeals from a circuit court’s order granting a new trial were generally to be allowed only in the discretion of the appellate court upon a petition for leave to appeal. (73 Ill. 2d R. 306.) We are not persuaded that the rule should be otherwise in the context of administrative review. The Board apparently elected not to file such a petition. We note, too, that this cause does not fall within the parameters of the other limited circumstances in which our rules provide for an interlocutory appeal in civil cases. See 73 Ill. 2d Rules 304, 307, 308.

Because the circuit court’s order was nonfinal, it follows that the appellate court properly dismissed the Board’s appeal. The Board’s petition for leave to appeal having been improvidently granted, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

WARD and SIMON, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    (No. 57208.
    GERALD KLOSS, Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE VILLAGE OF MUNDELEIN et al., Appellants.

      Opinion filed May 18, 1983.

      Charles F. Marino, of Rosing, Magee & Applehans, Ltd., of Waukegan, for appellants.
    Robert W. Brown, Jr., of Dunlap & Brown, Ltd., of Libertyville, for appellee.
   JUSTICE UNDERWOOD

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Gerard Kloss, was discharged by the defendant board of fire and police commissioners from his position as a Mundelein police officer on the basis of charges filed by defendant Arthur Glitz, chief of police for the village of Mundelein. On administrative review, the circuit court of Lake County reversed the board’s findings and ordered plaintiff reinstated with back pay. Defendants appealed, and our appellate court, in a divided opinion, remanded the cause for imposition of a sanction less severe than discharge. (108 Ill. App. 3d 8.) We granted defendants’ petition for leave to appeal. 87 Ill. 2d R. 315.

Plaintiff’s discharge stemmed from an incident which occurred at his apartment building on the evening of October 9, 1978. Although the record does not permit a detailed reconstruction of the events, the following facts were presented in testimony before the board. Officer Raymond Newman, a neighbor and co-worker of plaintiff, heard a disturbance in the corridor of the apartment building and found plaintiff’s fiancee, Debbie Guthrie, in a hysterical state. She told Officer Newman that plaintiff, who was still within his apartment, was threatening to commit suicide. After she had partially regained her composure, Miss Guthrie and Officer Newman went to plaintiff’s apartment, but when they tried to enter, plaintiff slammed the door shut, shouting that he wanted to be left alone. Miss Guthrie returned to Officer Newman’s apartment while Officer Newman continued to attempt to speak with plaintiff. Plaintiff entered the corridor and Officer Newman observed that he “was not acting himself.” Although he was shouting when he entered the hallway, plaintiff became relatively calm after Officer Newman held him against a wall. After a moment, however, he again became agitated and, after breaking free, ran back into his apartment. Officer Newman returned to his own apartment, where he discovered that his wife had called either the police or the fire department rescue squad.

Shortly thereafter, the rescue squad arrived to find plaintiff standing in the corridor. Being acquainted with plaintiff, and not knowing why they had been called, the paramedics asked plaintiff what the problem was. After shouting that he wished to be left alone, plaintiff kicked open the door to his apartment and entered it. One of the paramedics started to follow plaintiff but withdrew after observing that plaintiff, who was dressed in a bathrobe, was holding a gun in his pocket. Another paramedic had approached Miss Guthrie, who was also in the hallway, and was told that two children were in plaintiffs apartment.

At that time, several Mundelein police officers arrived and plaintiff’s superior officer, Sergeant Edward Sindles, pushed plaintiff’s door open. Plaintiff, who was holding in his left arm one of his daughters by a former marriage, rushed to the door and slammed it shut. The door latch did not catch, and when Sergeant Sindles began to enter the apartment, plaintiff began screaming at him to leave. Sergeant Sindles testified that when he had fully entered the apartment, plaintiff, who was still holding his daughter, drew a handgun from his pocket and pointed it at Sergeant Sindles, shouting that he would kill Sindles if he did not leave. Repeating that he wanted to talk with plaintiff, Sergeant Sindles continued to advance into the apartment. Plaintiff’s other daughter ran to plaintiff, who then pocketed the gun, picked her up in his right arm, and told Sergeant Sindles to take the gun from his pocket.

Other officers then entered the apartment and attempted to calm plaintiff down. Sergeant Sindles testified that plaintiff’s behavior alternated between periods of relative calmness and irrationality, during which he was crying and screaming, and had to be physically restrained. At one point, plaintiff picked up his nightstick and hurled it at a sliding glass door, shattering the glass. The officers did not arrest plaintiff, but instead persuaded him to go to a hospital. When they were leaving the apartment, plaintiff saw his ex-wife with his two children and again had to be restrained when he acted as if he was going to attack her. Plaintiff then became limp and, while lying on the corridor floor, began to scream obscenities. After being placed on a stretcher, plaintiff was taken to a hospital for treatment.

Plaintiff testified in his own behalf, stating that on the day of the incident he had argued with his ex-wife over the issue of custody and support of their two children and that he was left with a “dull feeling of hopelessness.” Although he had not had any alcohol for two years prior to that day, plaintiff drank a beer at home following that argument. He then proceeded with his fiancee to several taverns, where they priced liquor for their wedding reception. While visiting the various taverns, plaintiff drank four more beers and had a meal. When asked what happened after they visited the Buck Two Tavern, plaintiff responded: “I recall nothing. I had a beer in there and I felt very strange and the next thing I can tell you about is bits and pieces. I can remember me crying and I can remember me waking up in the hospital. Outside of that I could not tell you what happened.” Plaintiff also stated that he was being treated for bleeding ulcers at that time and had taken several prescribed medications, which he characterized as barbiturates. In addition, plaintiff testified that he first joined the police force in 1969, but that a work-related injury in 1972 caused him to undergo surgery to receive two artificial hip joints and to leave the department. In 1976, after receiving a release from his doctor, plaintiff renounced his disability pension and resumed his duties as a patrolman.

Randall Justus, one of the attending paramedics, testified that ingesting a combination of alcohol and barbiturates could have a synergistic effect which would differ from person to person, causing the ingredients to produce a stronger reaction than would otherwise occur. Although Sergeant Sindles testified that he had smelled beer on plaintiff’s breath and paramedic Justus tentatively agreed that plaintiff had been drinking, they, along with the other witnesses, were unable to state that plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the incident.

On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the board found that plaintiff had violated its regulations because he was guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer, disorderly conduct, aggravated assault, unlawful use of a weapon, and directing coarse and profane language at fellow officers and citizens. In its order reversing the board, the circuit court found that there was no substantial evidence that plaintiff had either threatened Sergeant Sindles with his weapon or engaged in any “willful maltreatment of a person or willful insubordination or disrespect toward a superior officer.” Our appellate court held that the circuit court had erred in finding that the board’s decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (108 Ill. App. 3d 8.) Nevertheless, because it considered plaintiff’s misconduct to be “unrelated to the requirements of service” (108 Ill. App. 3d 8, 13), that court found that plaintiff’s actions did not constitute cause for discharge.

When reviewing an administrative proceeding which resulted in a party’s discharge, this court engages in a two-step analysis. (Walsh v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 101; Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities v. Civil Service Com. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 547, 550-51. See Sutton v. Civil Service Com. (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 404.) Initially, this analysis requires an inquiry into whether the administrative agency’s findings of fact are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence (see Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities v. Civil Service Com. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 547, 550; Paglini v. Police Board (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 233, 239-40; Basketfield v. Police Board (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 351, 358), and those findings are accorded great weight. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110, par. 274; Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities v. Civil Service Com. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 547, 550.) “This court, however, will not hesitate to grant relief when the record does not disclose evidentiary support for the agency’s determination.” (Basketfield v. Police Board (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 351, 359. See also Kerr v. Police Board (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 140, 146; Harrison v. Civil Service Com. (1953), 1 Ill. 2d 137, 154.) While the record does not contain a copy of the board’s regulations, it is apparent that the circuit court considered the standard employed when evaluating conduct to be that of wilfullness, and that standard is not disputed here. Although plaintiff became lucid at times during the incident, the conduct for which he was discharged occurred during intervals which all of the witnesses agreed were characterized by irrational behavior; indeed, the police officers who responded to the incident considered plaintiff’s demeanor so irrational that they did not arrest him but instead took him to the hospital. We agree with the circuit court that the record does not support a finding that plaintiff was guilty of wilful misconduct; accordingly, the board’s determination was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

Were it not for the unusual circumstances presented, we would consider the board’s decision to fall within the scope of its discretion, for if an administrative agency’s determination is not arbitrary or unreasonable, and does not involve the imposition of discipline unrelated to the needs of service, it will stand even if this court considers another sanction more appropriate. (Sutton v. Civil Service Com. (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 404, 411. See also Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities v. Civil Service Com. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 547, 552. Accord, DeGrazio v. Civil Service Com. (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 482, 489.) As we recently noted:

“A police officer hardly can commit a more serious offense than misuse of his gun. Nothing can undermine public confidence in the ability and good judgment of police officers more than the misuse of firearms. Common sense requires that each officer show considerable care and maturity in handling and using his service revolver, for he has ready access to this weapon every day of his career. An officer must never display his gun in a way that unnecessarily threatens other persons.” (Walsh v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 101, 106.)

Accordingly, we cannot agree with our appellate court’s determination that plaintiff’s behavior and the type of discipline selected were unrelated to the needs of the police force or the village of Mundelein.

Plaintiff contends that the board’s decision to discharge him was arbitrary and unreasonable because it was made without the benefit of more complete medical evidence which could have been obtained by the board under its authority to order medical and psychological examinations. The evidence presented to the board raised the strong possibility that plaintiff’s irrational behavior stemmed from an inadvertently induced adverse reaction to his medication. A further indication of the board’s awareness of potential psychological problems is apparent from the fact that it granted a continuance of approximately three weeks from the time the hearing was originally scheduled. This continuance was granted, at least in part, because plaintiff’s attorney advised the board that plaintiff’s doctor had stated that undergoing a hearing then would be detrimental to plaintiff’s emotional health. In view of plaintiff’s otherwise unblemished record, it was unreasonable for the board to discharge him without availing itself of the opportunity to examine in greater detail the medically related aspects of the basis for his discharge.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the appellate court is reversed. In the circumstances presented here we must also vacate the circuit court’s order reinstating plaintiff without requiring any further inquiry into his capacity to serve. We consider it more appropriate to remand the matter to the board so that it may, on the basis of further action not inconsistent with this opinion, determine a proper disposition. Cf. Kreiser v. Police Board (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 27, 31; Basketfield v. Police Board (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 351, 361.

Appellate court reversed; circuit court vacated; cause remanded, with directions.


author: JUSTICE SIMON

text:
    (No. 57230.
    JEROME LAWLESS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Arends Brothers, Inc., Appellee).

      Opinion filed May 18, 1983.

      Ronald N. Hanley, of Hanley, Traub & Hanley, of Fair-bury, for appellant.
    Moore & Associates, of Champaign, for appellees.
   JUSTICE SIMON

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Industrial Commission found that the claimant, Jerome Lawless, did not suffer an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment, and the circuit court of Ford County confirmed this ruling. Lawless, in this appeal, contends that the Industrial Commission’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Lawless worked for respondent, Arends Brothers, Inc., as a mechanic on farm tractors and was also a part-time farmer. Sometime in July 1979 he felt a lump in the groin region and consulted Dr. Somchai Supawanich, who found a bilateral inguinal hernia. Dr. Supawanich recommended surgery to repair the hernia, but Lawless decided not to have the surgery at that time, as he felt no pain. He continued working as he had before he consulted the doctor. On December 12, 1979, he felt a pain in his right groin area while at work for respondent installing a 150-pound wheel weight on a tractor. About three weeks later Lawless visited Dr. Supawanich and underwent surgery to repair the inguinal hernia; he remained off work until March 10, 1980, and had no subsequent symptoms.

The only significant piece of medical evidence introduced before the arbitrator or the Industrial Commission was a report by Dr. Supawanich dated February 1, 1980. This report attributed the pain of which Lawless complained to the hernia which he had found earlier, and stated: “To the best of my knowledge, because of having ‘Direct’ bilateral inguinal hernia, which is an acquired type hernia, I believe he developed [it] from physical lifting during employment within the year or sp; not from any one recent injury as claimed of December 12, 1979.” Lawless argues that because this report states that the hernia was caused by “physical lifting during employment” and his own undisputed testimony establishes that he first felt the pain while lifting a 150-pound weight for his employer, the only conclusion that is permitted by the evidence is that lifting on the job exacerbated a preexisting hernia, thereby entitling him to compensation.

It is unclear from the copy of Dr. Supawanich’s report found in the record whether, in stating that Lawless “developed [it] from physical lifting,” Dr. Supawanich was referring to the hernia or the pain. The word “[it]” is illegible, having apparently been pencilled in by Dr. Supawanich to replace the typed words “prominent discomfort” which he had crossed out. However, in speculating as to what might have caused what Dr. Supawanich referred to as “it,” he stated that “it” arose “within the year or so; not from any one recent injury as claimed of December 12, 1979.” (Emphasis added.) Inasmuch as Dr. Supawanich noted elsewhere in his report that he had discovered the hernia in July 1979 and that the date December 12, 1979, was significant in that it marked the onset of pain, it would not be unreasonable for the Industrial Commission to have interpreted “[it]” to refer to pain rather than to the hernia.

If interpreted in this way, Dr. Supawanich’s report could be taken as evidence that the pain Lawless experienced was not prompted or accelerated by any one specific accident but by accumulated stress over time. In addition, while the report stated “during employment,” there is nothing in the record either to indicate that Dr. Supawanich was aware that Lawless also worked part-time as a farmer, or to show that farming required less heavy lifting than the job Lawless performed for respondent. Even though respondent introduced no evidence to show that Lawless did such lifting on the farm, Lawless presented no evidence to dispel the reasonable and natural inference that the farming of land might involve exertion of this sort. Without such evidence it would appear just as possible that the lifting “during employment” to which Dr. Supawanich referred occurred while Lawless was farming as that it occurred while he was working for respondent. Although the fact that pain is caused by a preexisting condition does not preclude a workers’ compensation award if the condition is aggravated or accelerated by the employment (Williams v. Industrial Com. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 117, 122; County of Cook v. Industrial Com. (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 10, 17), the claimant bears the burden of showing that the condition was in fact aggravated by the employment (Williams v. Industrial Com. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 117) and that the aggravation was attributable to a specific time, place and cause rather than to the effects of prolonged stress on the body (Lyons v. Industrial Com. (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 198, 203; Lambert v. Industrial Com. (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 243, 247; International Harvester Co. v. Industrial Com. (1973), 56 Ill. 2d 84, 90). Based on this reading of Dr. Supawanich’s report, the Industrial Commission could have concluded that Lawless failed to make either of these showings.

Even if the word “[it]” in Dr. Supawanich’s report were interpreted as a reference to the preexisting hernia rather than to pain, thus depriving the report of its evidentiary weight concerning the cause of the pain, we would still not find the fact that Lawless first felt pain after a lifting incident at work a sufficient reason in itself to reverse the determination of the Industrial Commission. The record contains no other evidence, medical or otherwise, that the lifting incident caused the pain, and while it is true Lawless claims that the weight he was lifting weighed 150 pounds, the record does not disclose whether other workers were helping him lift the weight or whether he had lifted any comparable weights the previous day while farming. As this court said in A. O. Smith Corp. v. Industrial Com. (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 510, 513: “It is true there was testimony that claimant first suffered pain in his back after the accident, but we cannot, without more, equate that pain with a back injury, or the aggravation of an existing condition, occurring at the time of the accident.”

Although we might have reached a different conclusion on the evidence in this record had we been the trier of fact, we can reverse a factual finding of the Industrial Commission only if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Greene v. Industrial Com. (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 1.) We do not find that this is the case, and so we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Judgment affirmed.


text:
    (No. 57267.
    GRANITE CITY MOOSE LODGE NO. 272, Appellee, v. JOHN D. KRAMER, Secretary of Transportation et al. (John D. Kramer, Appellant).

      Opinion filed May 18, 1983.

      Tyrone C. Fahner and Neil F. Hartigan, Attorneys General, of Springfield (Roy E. Frazier, Assistant Attorney General, and R. Eric Robertson, Special Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellant.
    Dailey & Walker, of Granite City, for appellee.
   JUSTICE MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Granite City Moose Lodge No. 272, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel John D. Kramer, Secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation (State), and the city of Granite City, to institute eminent domain proceedings to compensate plaintiff for the alleged taking and damaging of its property. Pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the State and the city, the circuit court of Madison County dismissed the petition. A divided appellate court, in a Rule 23 order (87 Ill. 2d R. 23), affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s petition against the city, but reversed the dismissal as to the State. (107 Ill. App. 3d 1173.) We granted the State leave to appeal.

The issue is whether, under the circumstances of this case, a writ of mandamus may properly lie to compel the State and city to institute eminent domain proceedings.

Plaintiff owns a parcel of real estate, improved with a building, which is located at the intersection of Nineteenth and Adams streets in the city. On September 24, 1979, the State and the city executed an agreement for the construction of an overpass along Nineteenth Street. The overpass extends approximately from the corner of Nineteenth and Benton streets on the east, to Rock Road on the west, and elevates the roadway over a number of railroad tracks. During the course of the construction a concrete wall was erected which extends, at one point, beyond the height of plaintiff’s building. According to the agreement, the purpose of the improvement was “to facilitate the free flow of traffic and insure safety to the motoring public.”

Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandamus alleges that, as a result of the construction, it has been deprived of all access to Nineteenth Street and that its access to Adams Street has been impaired. It is further alleged that the lateral support of plaintiff’s building has been impaired; that, during construction, the entrance to the building was barricaded; that defendant trespassed upon the property; and that the property was improperly used as a storage area. Finally, plaintiff claimed that construction of the overpass substantially reduced the fair market value of its property.

Article I, section 15, of the 1970 Illinois Constitution provides that “[p]rivate property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.” (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 15.) This constitutional guarantee is codified in “An Act to provide for the exercise of the right of eminent domain.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 47, par. 1 et seq.) Plaintiff essentially contends that both the State and the city have taken or damaged its property within the meaning of these provisions, and may therefore be compelled to institute eminent domain proceedings. In particular, it is argued that the deprivation of access to a public street is a property right, the damaging of which requires payment of just compensation.

The State contends that it cannot be required to institute eminent domain proceedings because the city, rather than the State, actually benefited from, and was authorized to construct, the overpass. It is further argued that, even if the State was authorized to participate “in a taking or damaging of plaintiff’s property,” a writ of mandamus should not issue because plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, against the city, for damages.

We need not determine whether plaintiffs ability to obtain damages from the city bars recovery against the State, because we find that the State did not sufficiently participate in the alleged taking of the property. The agreement between the State and the city, by which plaintiff seeks to hold the State liable, was entered into for the benefit of the city. The right-of-way necessary for construction of the project was acquired in the city’s name, and it had the primary responsibility concerning the details of construction. Further, it is the city’s responsibility to maintain “the entire improvement,” and regulate its use.

Although plaintiff alleges that Nineteenth Street eventually connects with a State highway, this fact does not indicate that the purpose of the improvement was to benefit the State. (Nor was this fact alleged in plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandamus.) Our review of the agreement indicates that the State was involved in the project to the extent that it acted as a “contracting agent” in securing construction bids, provided general supervision of the construction and necessary “guidance,” and aided the city in funding the project. Significantly, with the exception of an amount received in Federal-Aid Urban Funds, the city is required to reimburse the State “for all costs of the improvement.”

We note parenthetically that, even if the State were to be held responsible for the alleged condemnation, it is certainly questionable whether a writ of mandamus would be the appropriate remedy. Plaintiff cites two cases for the proposition that it may properly file a mandamus action, rather than pursue a common law action for damages. (Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Wilson & Co. (1975), 62 Ill. 2d 131; People ex rel. Haynes v. Rosenstone (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 513.) In Wilson & Co., the State instituted eminent domain proceedings. The property owner did not attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus, and the propriety of this remedy was not at issue.

In Rosenstone, this court determined that a property owner could seek a writ of mandamus compelling the State to institute eminent domain proceedings. However, at the time that case was decided, there was no other remedy against the State for the taking or damaging of private property. The State could not be responsible in an action for damages because of sovereign immunity. Because of immunity, the legislature has provided that the State may be sued for damages in the Court of Claims. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 127, par. 801; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 439.1.

Further, in Rosenstone, there was no other party involved against whom the property owner could seek a remedy. The significance of this fact is evident from this court’s opinion in People ex rel. Pratt v. Rosenfield (1948), 399 Ill. 247. There, as in the instant case, the appellants, property owners, sought a writ of mandamus against both a city and the State. In denying the writ as to the State, this court reasoned:

“Appellants seek the writ of mandamus against all of the appellees, saying that there is no other form of proceeding in which they may have relief against the three. Much reliance is placed by them upon the cases of People ex rel. First Nat. Bank v. Kingery, 369 Ill. 289, and People ex rel. Omeara v. Smith, 374 Ill. 286. The writ was allowed in those cases because a suit for damages could not be maintained against the Director of the Department of Public Works and Buildings and there was no other party against whom damages could be recovered. In the case at bar appellants allege liability against each appellee and say that each of the appellees has money available for the purpose of paying the consequential damages. The reason, therefore, existing in the Kingery and the Smith cases does not apply here.” 399 Ill. 247, 250.

Our holding that the State may not be compelled to institute eminent domain proceedings does not foreclose plaintiff from obtaining any relief. Recovery may properly be sought against the city, for whose benefit the improvement was constructed. Plaintiff contends that a writ of mandamus against the city is the appropriate remedy. The appellate court, however, determined that plaintiff must pursue a common law action for damages. (The city has not appealed this ruling.) We agree with the appellate court.

There is no question that a property owner suffers compensable damages if his access to an abutting street is taken or materially impaired. (E.g., Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Wilson & Co. (1975), 62 Ill. 2d 131; Barnard v. City of Chicago (1915), 270 Ill. 27.) However, a loss or impairment of access does not involve an actual physical invasion of the property, and it therefore constitutes a “damaging,” rather than a “taking,” of the properly. (See Department of Transportation v. Shaw (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 342; Barnard v. City of Chicago (1915), 270 Ill. 27; Rigney v. City of Chicago (1881), 102 Ill. 64; Department of Transportation v. Rasmussen (1982), 108 Ill. App. 3d 615.) “We have repeatedly held that an abutting property owner is not entitled to have condemnation proceedings instituted to determine damages to his property occasioned by a public improvement where no part of his property is physically taken and that the city or other authorized sovereign constructing such improvement is not required, under the constitution or the Eminent Domain Act or any other law or statute, to institute condemnation or other proceedings to ascertain such damages.” Horn v. City of Chicago (1949), 403 Ill. 549, 556, citing People ex rel. Pratt v. Rosenfield (1948), 399 Ill. 247; People ex rel. Tyson v. Kelly (1942), 379 Ill. 297; County of Mercer v. Wolff (1908), 237 Ill. 74. See also Kane v. City of Chicago (1945), 392 Ill. 172; Department of Transportation v. McGovern (1982), 103 Ill. App. 3d 461; No. 3 Oakland Suburban Heights, Inc. v. Bekermeier (1968), 94 Ill. App. 2d 67.

We have been referred to only one case which implied that a writ of mandamus may issue requiring a municipality to institute eminent domain proceedings. (Grunewald v. City of Chicago (1939), 371 Ill. 528.) Grunewald involved a common law action for damages; any reference therein to a mandamus action as an available remedy against the municipality was purely dicta. As this court subsequently stated, “the language [in Grunewald] was unnecessary to the decision of that case, was therefore obiter dictum and, furthermore, as applied to municipalities, was wrong.” People ex rel. Tyson v. Kelly (1942), 379 Ill. 297, 302.

As previously related, plaintiff also argues that it is entitled to recovery for the damage to the lateral support of the building, and for various improper uses of its property during the period of construction. These allegations clearly refer to temporary and consequential damages, not a taking, and are recoverable in an action at law. (See, e.g., Chicago National Bank v. City of Chicago Heights (1958), 14 Ill. 2d 135; Kane v. City of Chicago (1945), 392 Ill. 172; Chicago Flour Co. v. City of Chicago (1909), 243 Ill. 268.) As plaintiff therefore has an available remedy at common law for damages against the city, we hold that issuance of a writ of mandamus is neither necessary nor proper.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the judgment of the appellate court holding that a writ of mandamus may issue against the State is reversed; the judgment upholding the dismissal of plaintiff’s petition against the city is affirmed; and the judgment of the circuit court of Madison County is affirmed.

Appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part; circuit court affirmed.


text:
    (No. 57431.
    THE PEOPLE ex rel. BRUCE W. BLACK, State’s Attorney, Appellant, v. DENZIL L. DUKES, Appellee.

      Opinion filed May 18, 1983.

      G. Edward Orr, of Pekin, for appellant.
    Knuppel, Grosboll, Becker & Tice, of Petersburg (Homer J. Tice, of counsel), for appellee.
   JUSTICE SIMON

delivered the opinion of the court:

The State’s Attorney for Tazewell County petitioned the circuit court for that county for a writ of quo warranto holding that it was illegal for the defendant, Denzil L. Dukes, to hold simultaneously the offices of trustee of the South Pekin village board of trustees and member of the South Pekin Grade School board of education. The amended complaint alleged that on April 8, 1978, Mr. Dukes was elected to fill an unexpired term on the school board; on July 10, 1978, he was appointed to the village board; on April 10, 1979, he was reelected to a four-year term on the village board; and on April 14, 1979, he was reelected to a three-year term on the school board. The complaint further alleged that because the village and school board were given authority by the Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, sec. 10(a)) to contract with each other and the village board was authorized by statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 85, par.' 611 et seq.) to grant financial assistance to the school district, simultaneous membership on both boards is inconsistent and legally incompatible. The quo warranto petition recited that because Mr. Dukes was serving as a member of the village board when elected to the school board on April 14, 1979, he is to be treated in law as having resigned from the village board at that time and prayed for a judgment of ouster against Mr. Dukes from his membership on the village board. Mr. Dukes, for his part, sought to remain on both boards. As far as the record discloses, neither the State nor Mr. Dukes ever sought any other form of relief.

On June 25, 1981, the circuit court allowed the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment declaring that by his election to the school board on April 14, 1979, Mr. Dukes had ipso facto resigned as a member of the board of trustees of the village. Mr. Dukes appealed from this summary judgment and declaratory judgment order, and on September 7, 1982, the appellate court filed an opinion, with one judge dissenting, reversing the judgment of the circuit court (108 Ill. App. 3d 965).

The State’s Attorney filed a petition for leave to appeal which this court allowed. He filed no further briefs in this court and did not appear for oral argument when this appeal was heard by this court on April 7, 1983. The defendant, Mr. Dukes, filed an answer to the petition for leave to appeal and a brief and argument in this court, and his attorney was present when the case was called for oral argument.

It now appears that Mr. Dukes submitted his resignation as a member of the village board on September 6, 1982, and the resignation was accepted by the village board on the same date. The record does not show whether this resignation was ever called to the attention of the appellate court, although the resignation was effective the day before the opinion of the appellate court was filed.

Mr. Dukes now holds office only as a member of the school board, and that was his status when the appellate court reached its decision. The State did not contend that Mr. Dukes had forfeited this office by operation of law, but rather alleged that he had forfeited his position of village trustee, the office which he resigned. As a result, there remains no present controversy between the State and Mr. Dukes for which a pronouncement by either this court or the appellate court could provide a remedy. The issues raised by the parties are therefore moot, and the cause should have been dismissed without opinion by the appellate court had it known of Mr. Dukes’ resignation. We do so now.

The courts of this State should not decide a case where “[a]ny judgment [they] could render would be “wholly ineffectual for want of a subject matter on which it could operate”’” (Madison Park Bank v. Zagel (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 231, 235, quoting Brownlow v. Schwartz (1923), 261 U.S. 216, 217, 67 L. Ed. 620, 621, 43 S. Ct. 263, 264) and could have advisory effect only. This is true even where leave to appeal has been granted after the cause became moot. (Madison Park Bank v. Zagel (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 231, 236.) A principal reason for this well-established rule of justiciability is the fear that the parties to a dispute which for practical purposes has ceased to exist will lack the “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy [which serves] to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult *** questions” (Baker v. Carr (1962), 369 U.S. 186, 204, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663, 678, 82 S. Ct. 691, 703; see County of Los Angeles v. Davis (1979), 440 U.S. 625, 59 L. Ed. 2d 642, 99 S. Ct. 1379; DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974), 416 U.S. 312, 40 L. Ed. 2d 164, 94 S. Ct. 1704) and the desire to avoid binding later courts which may be better informed on the legal issue to a precedent announced by an earlier court with less reliable information. See generally Brilmayer, The Jurisprudence of Article III: Perspectives on the “Case or Controversy” Requirement, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 297 (1979).

This court is no longer faced with the simultaneous holding of two offices which might involve a conflict of loyalty, nor with the continued holding by Mr. Dukes of an office which the State has charged he has earlier forfeited by operation of law. The parties in this appeal stand to gain, at most, “a precedent or guide [to] future litigation” (Madison Park Bank v. Zagel (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 231, 235, citing authorities), which our courts are not at liberty to give.

While we observed in Madison Park Bank that Illinois courts have occasionally made exceptions to the mootness doctrine in cases where the magnitude or immediacy of the interests involved warranted action by the court (People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz (1952), 411 Ill. 618; Environmental Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Board (1980), 88 Ill. App. 3d 71) or where the issues were likely to recur but unlikely to last long enough to allow appellate review to take place because of the intrinsically short-lived nature of the controversies in which they could arise (August H. Skoglund Co. v. Department of Transportation (1978), 67 Ill. App. 3d 276; see Sosna v. Iowa (1975), 419 U.S. 393, 399-400, 42 L. Ed. 2d 532, 540-41, 95 S. Ct. 553, 557 (one-year residency requirement)), we find nothing in this case to justify making such an exception here. Mr. Dukes has not attempted to reassert a claim to a position on the village board since he resigned from it, nor has South Pekin or any other village or municipality made any claim to us that seats on its village or school boards would go.unfilled for want of qualified candidates should this appeal not be decided. There is no reason to fear that other cases presenting the issue at bar here would become moot before reaching this court. We cannot assume or speculate that all people who are sued to enjoin their simultaneous holding of positions on a village and a school board will resign from one of those positions before resolution of the lawsuit, as Mr. Dukes has done.

We therefore dismiss the cause as moot. To prevent the appellate court’s resolution of the issues presented to it from standing as precedent for future cases, we vacate the judgments of both the appellate and circuit courts without comment on the merits. Madison Park Bank v. Zagel (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 231; People ex rel. Newdelman v. Weaver (1972), 50 Ill. 2d 237; LaSalle National Bank v. City of Chicago (1954), 3 Ill. 2d 375.

Judgments vacated; cause dismissed.


text:
    (No. 57497.
    DEAN EDWARDS, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Blaw Knox Company, Appellee).

      Opinion filed May 18, 1983.

      Ray Moss, of Clinton, for appellant.
    Stephen L. Corn and Rochelle A. Funderburg, of Craig & Craig, of Mattoon, for appellee.
   JUSTICE MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant, Dean Edwards, sought workmen’s compensation for an injury which he sustained while in the employ of respondent, Blaw Knox Company. An arbitrator awarded claimant compensation for temporary total disability and permanent partial disability to the extent of 2½% loss of use of the left foot. On review, the Commission reversed the arbitrator and the circuit court of Coles County confirmed the decision of the Commission. Claimant brought a direct appeal to this court. 73 Ill. 2d R. 302(a).

The sole issue is whether the Commission’s finding, that claimant failed to prove he is temporarily or permanently disabled, is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

At the hearing before the arbitrator, claimant testified that he has been employed by respondent as a welder and electrician for the past 25 years. On September 27, 1978, a machine part that he was cleaning fell on his left foot. He stated that he experienced severe pain in his foot and ankle and consulted the plant nurse. She examined the affected area but did not render any medical treatment.

On October 2, 1978, claimant consulted Dr. Mack Hollowell. He X-rayed claimant’s foot and prescribed pain medication. Claimant continued to see the doctor every two weeks until March 21, 1979. On that date, he telephoned Dr. Hollowell, requesting a note allowing him to resume light-duty work.

Claimant further testified that the employees at respondent’s plant went on strike on September 27, 1978, the date of his accident. The strike ended on March 21, 1979, the same day on which he sought a note allowing him to return to work. Claimant stated that, during the strike, he performed picket-line duty. He actually walked the picket line on some occasions, but primarily sat in his car.

Claimant indicated that he has worked regularly since March 21, 1979, and performs the same duties as he did prior to his alleged accident. He “occasionally” wears an elastic bandage on his ankle and sometimes takes pain medication.

During cross-examination, claimant testified that no one at the plant observed his accident. He further stated that he has not sought medical treatment since April 2, 1979.

Claimant also introduced into evidence the deposition testimony of Dr. Hollowell. He stated that he examined claimant on October 2, 1978, at which time his ankle was swollen and painful. An X ray indicated that there was no fracture or dislocation. The witness diagnosed claimant’s condition as a sprain in the left foot and a torn ligament. He stated that this could result in weakness and pain in his foot, “or it may be none of these.” The only pain medication prescribed was aspirin.

Dr. Hollowell examined claimant on six subsequent occasions. Other than some limitation in motion and a decreased swelling of the left foot, he made no objective findings. Because claimant complained of persistent pain, the witness wrapped his foot in an Ace bandage and continued to prescribe aspirin. On April 2, 1979, he examined claimant, found his condition improved, and discharged him from treatment.

During cross-examination, respondent introduced into evidence an insurance report prepared by someone in Dr. Hollowell’s office. The report, dated October 13, 1978, indicated that claimant’s injury was not permanent, and that he could perform the same duties that he did prior to the alleged accident. Dr. Hollowell stated that he was uncertain as to whether he ever saw the report, or whether the statements contained therein accurately reflected his prognosis for claimant’s recovery.

On further cross-examination, Dr. Hollowell testified that he never issued a release-from-work slip, and could not recall whether claimant requested one. He was also unable to recall if he ever restricted any of claimant’s activities. However, he stated that he would probably advise against walking “long distances or for protracted periods.” Except for a minimal swelling, he stated that there were no objective findings to support claimant’s subjective complaints. Finally, Dr. Hollowell agreed that the sprain may not result in any permanent damage.

Respondent also introduced into evidence a doctor bill submitted by the witness. The bill indicated that claimant was examined on October 16, 1978, and that the sprain was healed. No additional evidence was produced at the hearing before the Commission.

Claimant contends that the decision of the Commission is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues that the only medical evidence produced indicates that he is disabled due to a work-related injury which may have caused permanent damage. It is further implied that compensation was improperly denied because of the strike which occurred during the period of alleged disability.

We agree with claimant that there is no evidence contradicting his claim that he sustained a work-related injury. However, there was evidence from which the Commission could reasonably infer that he suffered no disability in connection with the accident.

As previously related, his symptoms were primarily subjective. During the time of his alleged disability he performed picket-line duty, which entailed some walking. A document which originated from Dr. Hollowell’s office indicated that claimant’s injury was healed in October of 1978. Another document stated that the injury was not permanent and that claimant could resume his regular employment. Although the doctor testified that claimant may have sustained a permanent injury, he also stated it “was equally true” that there may be no permanent damage. He was unable to recall if he placed any restrictions on claimant’s ability to return to work, and claimant performs the same duties as he did prior to the injury

Finally, we perceive of no reason why the Commission could not consider the fact that claimant’s alleged inability to work coincided exactly with the duration of the strike. This circumstance could be coincidental, as claimant suggests, but it may also serve to cast doubt upon the nature and extent of his alleged disability.

It is, of course, the function of the Commission “to judge the credibility of witnesses and to draw reasonable inferences from the testimony even where the Commission’s findings differ from those of the arbitrator and no further evidence has been taken by the Commission.” (Seiber v. Industrial Com. (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 87, 97, citing Forrest v. Industrial Com. (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 86, 92-93.) The Commission’s decision will not be disturbed unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. See, e.g., Spector Freight System, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1983), 93 Ill. 2d 507; Flores v. Industrial Com. (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 48.

On the record before us, we are not prepared to say that the Commission’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Coles County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.