The employee need not be reduced to total physical incapacity before a permanent total disability award may be granted. Ceco Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 95 Ill. 2d 278, 286-87 (1983). Rather, the employee must show that he is unable to perform services except those that are so limited in quantity, dependability, or quality that there is no reasonably stable market for them. City of Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 1089 (2007). ¶ 56 If the employee'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, he may qualify for "odd- lot" status.

¶ 48 A claimant can establish a permanent and total disability under the odd-lot category by presenting evidence of a diligent but unsuccessful job search, or by demonstrating that, because of her age, training, education, experience, and condition, she will not be regularly employed in a well-known branch of the labor market. Valley Mould, 84 Ill. 2d at 547; City of Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 1091, 871 N.E.2d 765 (2007). To prove such a claim, a claimant must initially establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she falls within the odd-lot category.

¶ 33 "An employee is totally and permanently disabled when he is unable to make some contribution to industry sufficient to justify payment of wages." City of Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 1089, 871 N.E.2d 765, 773 (2007). However, an employee need not be reduced to total physical incapacity before a permanent total disability award may be granted.

Once the employee establishes that he falls into the odd-lot category, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that some type of regular and continuous employment is available to the employee. City of Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 1091 (2007). ¶ 27 The Commission's determination regarding the extent and permanency of an employee's disability and whether he has met his burden of establishing that he falls into the odd-lot category present questions of fact. E.R. Moore & Co., 71 Ill. 2d at 361; City of Chicago, 373 Ill. App. 3d at 1092-93; Alano, 282 Ill. App. 3d at 538 (Colwell, J., specially concurring); Esposito v. Industrial Comm'n, 186 Ill. App. 3d 728, 737 (1989).

We will reverse only if an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. City of Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 1093 (2007). Due to the Commission's expertise in the area, we owe great deference to its decisions on medical issues.

Id. at 933-34, 598 N.E.2d at 1002. See also, City of Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 1095, 871 N.E.2d 765, 777-78 (2007) (employee was 54-year old high school graduate, worked his entire adult career as a pipefitter, could no longer work in that field of work, and possessed few transferable skills that would translate into a sedentary-type position). ¶ 52 Likewise, in the present case, for the reasons noted above, the evidence supports the Commission's finding that the claimant proved the unavailability of employment to a person in his circumstances. The testimony from his vocational expert, Pagella, was sufficient for the Commission to find in his favor on the nature and extent of his injury as Pagella opined that the claimant was unemployable and was likely to have difficulty finding a job even after extensive vocational rehabilitation.

Given that the Commission had a principled basis for rejecting Gustafson's opinions, we cannot say that an opposite conclusion to the Commission's is clearly apparent regarding Gustafson's credibility. Since claimant bears the burden of proving he falls within the odd-lot category (City of Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 373 Ill.App.3d 1080, 1090 (2007)), this finding would be enough to resolve this appeal adversely to claimant.

, In re Marriage of Schwartz, 131 Ill. App. 3d 351, 354 (1985) (setting forth "the burden of persuasion" on a "party seeking the injunction"). See also City of Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 1090 (2007) ("burden of persuasion, *** has been defined as '[a] party's duty to convince the fact-finder to view the facts in a way that favors that party' (Black's Law Dictionary 190 (7th ed.1999))"); Gupta v. Austrian Airlines, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1085 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (setting forth two elements in forum non conveniens inquiry and stating "defendants bear the burden of persuasion as to all elements"); People v. Hall, 311 Ill. App. 3d 905, 913 (2000) (distinguishing burdens). --------

Although odd-lot cases involve a burden-shifting analysis, "[w]hether the parties satisfy their respective burdens are questions of fact." City of Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 1093 (2007). Thus, "[w]hether a claimant falls into the odd-lot category is a factual determination to be made by the Commission, and that determination will not be set aside unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence."

When a claimant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he falls into the odd lot category, the burden shifts to the employer to show that a reasonably stable job market nevertheless exists for that employee. City of Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 1091 (2007).¶ 23 Whether the claimant is permanently and totally disabled, including whether he has established that he falls within the odd lot, and whether the employer has met the burden of proving that a reasonably stable labor market exists for the claimant are all questions of fact for the Commission to resolve, and its determinations regarding those matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence.