Workers’ Compensation Law

Widow filed claim for benefits, under Occupational Diseases Act and Workers' Compensation Act, for death of employee, President and COO of company, due to alleged exposure to Neisseria meningitides, resulting in bacterial meningitis, while on business trip to Brazil, where he had stayed for one full day. Commission found opinions of two physicians, who testified as to prevalence of meningitis in Brazil and incubation period, were more persuasive than employer's two expert physicians, who testified that it iwas impossible to determine whether he was exposed before or during trip to Brazil. Commission awarded death benefits, burial expenses, and reasonable medical expenses. Commission's function is to judge credibility and resolve conflicts in medical opinion evidence, and decision was not against weight of evidence. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and HARRIS, concurring.)

Claimant, a union laborer, filed workers' compensation claim for accident occurring in 2005 while he was moving and placing large rip rap rocks along an embankment. No witnesses to accident, and employer disputed that accident occurred. Commission, rather than arbitrator, is the finder of fact, to whom deference is given as to findings of fact under manifest weight of evidence standard. Commission noted that inconsistencies in claimant's testimony, and found that medical records in general support a work-related accident. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and HARRIS, concurring.)

Section 6(d) of Workers' Compensation Act, which sets forth three-year statute of limiiations to file workers' compensation claims, does not act as a bar to presentation of evidence of work activities that occurred more than three years prior to date of accident, or manifestation date, of a repetitive-trauma injury. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON,K and STEWART, concurring.)

When an employee who was injured on the job and is unable to return to work as a result of workers' compensation carrier's delay in approving medical treatment, his claim for lost wages falls within exclusivity provision of Worker's compensation Act, and cannot be recovered in subsequently-filed retaliatory discharge claim. (WELCH and GOLDENHERSH, concurring.)When

Employee filed for workers' compensation benefits for right shoulder injuries sustained while employed for landscaping company. Circuit court erred in finding that Commission's award of temporary total disability benefits and past and future medical care was against manifest weight of evidence. Commission's finding that condition of ill-being is causally related to employment is not contrary to manifest weight of evidence. Commission found credible medical evidence supporting causation, and although did not expressly find claimant credible, its description of his testimony reveals that it found him credible. (HOFFMAN, HUDSON, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

Where a risk is distinctly associated with a claimant's employment, it is not a neutral risk. When claimant was performing acts employer might reasonably have expected him to perform incident to and in fulfillment of his assigned duties, injury occurring during performance of those acts arose out of work and was causally connected to his work. (HOLDRIDGE and HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and STEWART, concurring.)

Commission's decision that claimant was not permanently and totally disabled is not against manifest weight of evidence, given Functional Capacity Evaluation report and physician testimony. As claimant requested alternate relief of, and did not explicitly waive his right to, a wage differential award, Commission was obliged to resolve that issue. (HOLDRIDGE, HUDSON, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)