Will County Forest Preserve District v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission 2012 III. App. (3d) 110077WC 
  

Petitioner sustained an injury to his right shoulder while employed by the Forest Preserve District of Will County on June 2, 2008. Petitioner had surgery, physical therapy and work hardening. On November 24, 2008, Dr. Harry Fuentes released petitioner to work fullduty, without limitations and he had no additional medical treatment to his right shoulder. On May 12, 2009, petitioner was examined by Dr. Jeffrey Coe, at the request of his attorney, who opined that the right shoulder injury caused “permanent partial disability to the right arm.” The Arbitrator awarded 25% personasawhole under subpart three of Section 8(d)(2) of the Act because petitioner sustained injuries which “partially incapacitate him from pursuing the duties of his usual and customary line of employment but do not result in an impairment of earning capacity.” The Commission adopted the decision of the Arbitrator and the Circuit Court confirmed the decision of the Commission. The employer appealed.

On appeal, the employer argued that an award for a personasawhole under Section 8(d)2 was improper because the petitioner failed to establish that this incapacity prevented him “from pursuing the duties of his usual and customary line of employment” because the petitioner returned to work full duty resuming all prior job activities, was under no medical restrictions and had not sought any additional treatment for his right shoulder and therefore, the Commission should have awarded benefits for a scheduled injury to the arm as set forth in Section 8(e)(10) of the Act.

The Appellate Court affirmed the Commission decision to award benefits to petitioner under Section 8(d)(2) but held that the benefits were proper only under the first subpart of Section 8(d)2, and not, as the Commission concluded, under subpart three of Section 8(d)2, because it was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

In its reasoning, the Court noted that since the petitioner had returned to work fullduty, had not sought any additional medical treatment and was not under any medical restrictions then the Commission decision to award benefits under subpart three of Section 8 (d)2 was not proper.

The Court also rejected the employer’s argument that petitioner’s shoulder injury should be compensated as a scheduled loss to the right arm under Section 8(e)(10) because the plain meaning of the statute establishes that the arm and the shoulder are distinct parts of the body and since petitioner sustained an injury to his shoulder, then an award for a scheduled loss to the arm under Section 8(e)(10) would be improper.

The Court further reasoned that the evidence clearly established an injury to the shoulder, not to the arm and while the injury to the right shoulder may impact the use of his arm, the initial injury was to his shoulder, and a scheduled award for the loss of use of the right arm would therefore be inappropriate. Thus, the Court found the first subpart of Section 8(d)2 to be applicable since that provision provides for a person asawhole award where the petitioner has sustained serious and permanent injuries not covered by Section 8(c) or 8(e) of the Act.

Finally, the Court also rejected the employer’s argument that the shoulder is not an arm for purposes of the statutory schedule had been waived because the claimant did not raise the issue “at trial level.” The Court noted that although the issue was not raised before the Commission, it was raised in front of the Circuit Court and noted it may override considerations of waiver in furtherance of a just result.

Upcoming Events

LegetøjBabytilbehørLegetøj og Børnetøj