Opinion
2-21-0273WC
04-06-2022
UNISTAFF, INC., Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. James Aldridge, Appellee.
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry County, No. 20-MR-1039, Honorable Thomas A. Meyer, Judge, Presiding.
HOLDRIDGE PRESIDING JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hoffman, Hudson, Cavanagh, and Barberis concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
HOLDRIDGE PRESIDING JUSTICE.
¶ 1 Held: The Commission's determination that the claimant suffered a work accident and was entitled to TTD benefits was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 The employer, Unistaff, Inc., appeals an order of the circuit court of McHenry County. The court confirmed a decision of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) finding that the claimant, James Aldridge, (1) suffered a work accident on December 29, 2017, and (2) was entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits pursuant to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2016)).
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 The following factual recitation is taken from the evidence presented at the arbitration hearing conducted on March 7, 2019, and the Commission's decision dated September 21, 2020.
¶ 5 A. Testimony
¶ 6 The claimant testified that he began working for Unistaff, a staffing agency, in August 2016. At the time he applied for his position, he advised Unistaff that he was under a 20-pound lifting restriction from a prior workers' compensation claim for an injury to his right ulnar nerve. The claimant testified that he had three prior workers' compensation claims, none of which involved his left hip or Unistaff, at issue in this case. Unistaff arranged for the claimant to work in quality control at the NuWave warehouse. The claimant stated that the job at NuWave was within his work restrictions. His duties included receiving and stocking LED lighting. The claimant worked the first shift, which started at 7 a.m. and ended at 3:30 p.m.
¶ 7 The claimant testified that, on December 29, 2016, he "was feeling fine." He was working at NuWave and operating a stand up forklift. The claimant stated that he was not assigned to a specific stand up forklift but just used one of the two that was available. While he operated the forklift, it was leaking gas and emitting fumes that effected his operation of the lift. The claimant was turning the forklift (in reverse toward the right) when he slipped off the back and was pinned between the forklift and a rack. He testified that the left rear of the forklift was touching his left groin area while he was pinned to the wall. The claimant explained that normally if he were to step off the brake, the forklift would stop automatically, but that the forklift was not working properly.
¶ 8 The claimant testified that he immediately felt burning pain in his left groin and hip area and the pain worsened within a half an hour. He reported the accident to Pedro Enriquez, the supervisor of the LED department. The claimant stated that he was advised to continue working on a sitting forklift. He stated that he could not continue working due to the pain, and Pedro advised him to go home. The claimant left work around 1:00 p.m. and did not return to work after that day. He stated he had not worked for any employer since the accident.
¶ 9 The claimant stated that he went to Unistaff offices that same day to advise of the accident. The claimant provided that he told "the ladies" in the office of the accident but he was not asked to complete any paperwork. He stated that nothing was done by Unistaff regarding the accident during his visit. The claimant testified that he returned to the Unistaff office on January 5, 2017, and again reported the accident and his injury. Unistaff then sent him to Concentra for medical care. The claimant filled out an "Employee Statement" and provided that the work conditions contributing to his injury were "forklift was leaking battery acid the smell" and described that he was "[d] riving forklift started gaging [sic] on fumes and made me loose [sic] control and ran into a rack got pinned between rack and forklift."
¶ 10 Enriquez testified that he worked for NuWave as the warehouse assistant manager. In 2016, he was the claimant's supervisor in the LED department and recalled the claimant working in his area at the end of December 2016. Enriquez stated that, on the last day the claimant worked, the claimant asked if he could leave early due to a family matter. He advised the claimant to ask permission to leave from the warehouse manager, and he did not see the claimant work after that date. However, Enriquez recalled that, on the same day the claimant asked to leave early, he sent the claimant to work in a different department to help, and the claimant was assigned to work on a sit down forklift. He also stated that because the claimant never advised him of an accident, he never filled out the required accident report.
¶ 11 Enriquez testified that the stand up forklifts are also known as reach forklifts. He did not recall that the claimant ever reported an accident while working on a forklift, and no one ever reported to him that a stand up forklift was leaking battery acid. Enriquez explained that if someone was to fall off a forklift, the lift would completely stop due to the safety brake, which kicks in if the foot on the lift pedal is taken off the pedal.
¶ 12 Eddie Dettling testified that he worked for Unistaff, and NuWave was his customer. He first became aware of the claimant's claim around January 4 or 5, 2017, when the claimant came into the office and filled out an accident report. Dettling stated that the claimant's timecards indicated that the claimant's last day of work for NuWave was on December 20, 2016, when he worked for six hours then left early. He stated that the claimant officially reported his injury directly to Unistaff on January 5, 2016. Dettling testified that he was not aware of any earlier visit made by the claimant to Unistaff to report an injury. He stated that he was not in the office on December 29, 2016, but that two women office managers, Yolanda and Grace, were present in the office at that time. Dettling provided that he was not aware that the claimant stopped by the office on that date or spoke to the women in the office.
¶ 13 Dettling testified that Unistaff policy requires work injuries to be reported immediately by NuWave directly to Unistaff. In less severe cases, injured parties are asked to come into Unistaff's office and fill out an accident report and the employee is asked if they want to see a doctor for medical care. Dettling stated that the claimant filled out the accident report in the office, and either Yolanda or Grace helped him fill it out. Dettling stated that he went to the NuWave warehouse to investigate the incident. Enriquez took Dettling around the warehouse, and Enriquez was not aware of any incident involving the claimant until Dettling advised him of the claim. Dettling stated that he did not (1) speak with or interview the claimant on January 5, 2016, in the Unistaff office even though he was present in the office or (2) review the claimant's statements before visiting the NuWave warehouse.
¶ 14 B. Medical Evidence
¶ 15 Concentra records from January 5, 2017, reflected an injury date of December 29, 2016. The claimant complained of left hip injury with symptoms in the left groin and left thigh. The pain radiated to the inner thigh, lower left leg, and left foot with numbness on the inner left thigh. The claimant described the symptoms as constant, sharp, and 8/10 level. He reported that he was driving a forklift while trying to prevent himself from falling and twisted his left hip and the forklift hit his left groin. At Concentra, he filled out a form providing that the accident occurred on December 29, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. in the LED department. He described: "while driving forklift I became nauseous [sic] from a leaking battery which made me gag and loose [sic] control of forklift at which time I was tossed from forklift and it backed into my leg/groin."
¶ 16 An x-ray of the claimant's left hip was normal. He was diagnosed with a left groin contusion and left hip sprain, prescribed Naproxen, and recommended a course of physical therapy. He was placed on work restrictions, which included no climbing, squatting, kneeling, occasional lifting, pushing, and pulling up to 20 pounds, and frequent changes of position with 90% seated work. Unistaff was unable to accommodate these restrictions. The claimant followed up on January 10, 2017, reporting that his symptoms were not resolving. He also attended physical therapy without relief. The claimant was referred to Dr. Kris Alden at Hinsdale Orthopedics. On February 9, 2017, the claimant presented to Dr. Alden and reported being hit directly in the groin with the end of a forklift that pinned him against the wall. Findings from an MR arthrogram suggested an underlying labral tear. Dr. Alden recommended surgery to repair the tear and referred him to Dr. Benjamin Domb. Dr. Alden took the claimant off work entirely.
¶ 17 On October 3, 2017, the claimant underwent a section 12 exam with Dr. William Sterba at Northwestern Medicine per Unistaff s request. Dr. Sterba noted that the claimant had "an exaggerated stiff leg gait going from the chair to the exam table but was able to walk out of the exam with an improvement in that, though still with a stiff legged gait." Dr. Sterba believed that the claimant had left hip pain of exaggerated degree and that the pain behavior prevented an adequate evaluation and determination of appropriate medical treatment. He agreed that the medical imaging showed a small labral tear but that it did not provide an explanation for the degree of symptoms that the claimant experienced. In other words, Dr. Sterba believed that the claimant's symptoms were out of proportion to what would be expected for a tear of this type. However, he did agree that the hip injury was causally related to the reported work accident and mechanism of injury based on the medical records. Also, Dr. Sterba opined that given the claimant's demonstrated exaggeration, he did not agree with the surgical recommendation to repair the tear. He suggested a more thorough work up from a neurologic standpoint as the claimant's complaints of constant pain was inconsistent with the pathology detected on the MRI.
¶ 18 On February 21, 2018, the claimant presented to Dr. Alden complaining that his groin pain was significant and worse with activity. The claimant had a diminished range of motion and pain with internal and external rotation of his left hip. Dr. Alden continued to recommend surgery. The claimant was referred again to Dr. Domb and saw him for the first time on March 15, 2018. Dr. Domb noted symptoms of locking and catching with worsening hip pain. He recommended hip surgery to repair the labral tear. Dr. Domb also opined that the hip injury was related to the December 2016 accident given the temporal onset of symptoms and mechanism of injury. At the time of the hearing, the claimant was off work pending surgery. Dr. Domb continued to keep the claimant off work. The claimant testified that he wants the surgery, and he has hip pain and difficulty walking and sitting. He stated he can only stay in one position for about 5 to 10 minutes before the hip pain flairs.
¶ 19 C. Findings
¶ 20 Unistaff disputed that the alleged accident at NuWave occurred. The arbitrator disagreed, finding that the claimant sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on December 26, 2019. The arbitrator acknowledged some discrepancies regarding the claimant's description of the mechanism of injury and accident, but noted that they were not so persuasive to prevent a finding of accident based on the record in its entirety. The arbitrator gave greater weight to the claimant's testimony because it was better corroborated by the medical evidence and accident reports. The arbitrator made specific mention of Enriquez's testimony where he denied knowledge of the claimant's accident but also recalled that, on the last day the claimant worked, he sent the claimant to work in another department on a sit down forklift. The arbitrator also found that Dettling's testimony lacked credibility as he did not review the accident statement or speak with the claimant prior to his inspection at the NuWave warehouse, where he was guided by Enriquez, who was not even aware that an accident occurred. The arbitrator also found that the claimant's condition of ill-being was causally related to the injury, medical services provided were reasonable and necessary, the claimant was entitled to prospective medical care (surgery recommended by Dr. Domb), and the claimant was entitled to TTD from January 5, 2017, through March 7, 2019, for a total of 113-1/7 weeks.
¶ 21 Unistaff sought review of the arbitrator's decision before the Commission. The Commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's decision. Unistaff then sought review before the circuit court of McHenry County, which confirmed the Commission's decision.
¶ 22 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 23 Unistaff raises two arguments on appeal. First, the claimant failed to prove that he suffered a work accident because the accident could not have happened as described and no evidence supported the claimant's account. Second, the award of TTD benefits was not supported by the evidence. We address each of these contentions in turn. To obtain compensation under the Act, a claimant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered a disabling injury that arose out of and in the course of his employment. Baggett v. Industrial Comm 'n, 201 Ill.2d 187, 194 (2002). It was the claimant's burden to prove all elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence before the Commission. Hosteny v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 397 Ill.App.3d 665, 674 (2009). Here, it is Unistaff's burden, as the appellant, to demonstrate error warranting reversal. See TSP-Hope, Inc. v. Home Innovators of Illinois, LLC, 382 Ill.App.3d 1171, 1173 (2008).
¶ 24 In resolving disputed issues of fact, it is within the exclusive purview of the Commission to assess the credibility of witnesses, draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, determine the weight to be given to evidence, and resolve conflicting evidence. Shafer v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm 'n, 2011 IL App (4th) 100505WC, ¶ 38. A factual finding by the Commission will not be set aside on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. City of Springfield v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 388 Ill.App.3d 297, 312 (2009). A finding of fact is against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Gross v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 2011 IL App (4th) 100615WC, ¶ 21. The appropriate test for our review is whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to support the Commission's determination-not whether this court or another tribunal might have reached an opposite conclusion. Pietrzak v. Industrial Comm 'n of Illinois, 329 Ill.App.3d 828, 833 (2002).
¶ 25 Unistaff points to various reasons to support its contention that the accident did not occur and the Commission's decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence: (1) the claimant testified that he fell off the right side of the forklift, which contradicted other aspects of the record, and the Commission mistakenly concluded that he fell off the back of the forklift; (2) the forklift would have stopped if the claimant's foot was taken off the pedal; (3) the claimant had no visible injury; (4) the claimant did not seek medical treatment for a week; and (5) Enriquez denied ever being aware of the accident.
¶ 26 Unistaff largely relies on its position that the accident did not and could not occur as described by the claimant. It points to pages in the record where the claimant testified regarding how he was operating the machine at the time of the accident. Unistaff concludes that the claimant testified that he fell off the right side of the forklift, instead of the back, which would contradict his other testimony, injury, and medical records. However, we disagree with Unistaff's understanding of the claimant's testimony. The claimant clearly stated that he fell off the back of the forklift. He explained that he was going backwards on the forklift, turning to the right. There was some confusion about the direction the claimant was turning as he was operating the machine in reverse. However, he clarified," [m]y left leg slipped off as I was going backwards to the right. I fell off going to the right." Thus, there was sufficient testimony for the Commission to conclude that the claimant was operating the forklift "going to the right" but that he fell off the back of the forklift, which caused him to be pinned between the forklift and a rack.
¶ 27 Regarding other factual issues Unistaff raises, we decline its request to reweigh the evidence in its favor. We reiterate that the task of weighing the evidence presented is within the exclusive purview of the Commission. Hosteny, 397 Ill.App.3d at 678-79. Although this discretion is not absolute, our review of the record demonstrates there was ample evidence to support the Commission's decision. We agree with the Commission that the claimant's testimony was more credible than the other testimony presented. For example, Dettling testified that he went to the NuWave warehouse to investigate the accident but did not have any of the relevant information reported by the claimant. Additionally, although Enriquez denied ever being told of the accident, he recalled the last day the claimant worked and corroborated the claimant's testimony that he was directed to use a sit down forklift rather than the stand up forklift. We also note that any variation in the claimant's account of the accident in his testimony, accident report, and report to medical providers was negligible. Also, the medical records supported the claimant's account and reported mechanism of injury. Both Drs. Sterba and Domb opined that the claimant's injury was causally related to the work accident and that the mechanism of injury could cause the labral tear. Thus, the Commission's finding that the claimant suffered a work accident on December 29, 2016, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 28 As a final matter, Unistaff argues that the Commission's award of TTD benefits was not supported by the evidence. The entirety of Unistaff's argument provides:
"Defendant failed to prove that he suffered a work accident as claimed. Defendant introduced only one oof-work [sic] note dated[.]"
¶ 29 Unistaff provides no developed argument or explanation as to its position. Since the only recognizable argument Unistaff raises is that that the claimant failed to prove that he suffered a work accident as claimed, and therefore, he is not entitled to TTD benefits, we need not engage in any further analysis as we have already rejected that argument. Any other contention raised by Unistaff is vague and not properly presented before the court. Issues merely included in a vague allegation of error are not "argued" and fail to satisfy the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016). Lake County Grading Co., LLC v. Village of Antioch, 2014 IL 115805, ¶ 36. Therefore, Unistaff has forfeited any other argument as it relates to the claimant's award of TTD benefits.
¶ 30 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 31 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County, which confirmed the Commission's decision.
¶ 32 Affirmed.