" ( Walker v. IndustrialCom. (1978), 72 Ill.2d 408, 413; see also Lambert v. Industrial Com. (1952), 411 Ill. 593.) A finding by the Commission "will not be set aside unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence * * *." C.S.T. Erection Co. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 251, 257; Walker v. Industrial Com. (1978), 72 Ill.2d 408, 413; Motor Wheel Corp. v. Industrial Com. (1979), 75 Ill.2d 230. Though the Commission may consider corrected or uncorrected vision in finding a disability, it cannot apply both standards simultaneously to the same claimant for the same alleged injury.
When that industrial value is destroyed by the loss of "normal use" of the eyes, "permanent loss" has been sustained even if artificial means allow for some restoration of use. ( Heaps v. Industrial Com. (1922), 303 Ill. 443, 447. Accord, C.S.T. Erection Co. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 251, 257.) This policy consideration is articulated fully in Lambert:
Questions of fact, including the resolution of conflicts in medical testimony, are within the province of the Industrial Commission ( Long v. Industrial Com. (1976), 62 Ill.2d 289, 292; Seay v. Industrial Com. (1976), 62 Ill.2d 241, 244), even where the Commission's findings differ from those of the arbitrator and no further evidence has been taken by the Commission ( Crane v. Industrial Com. (1974), 57 Ill.2d 158, 164). The Commission's decision will not be disturbed by a court unless it can be said to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, although the court might have drawn other inferences from it. ( C.S.T. Erection Co. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 251, 257; Chicago Transit Authority v. Industrial Com. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 78, 85; Martinez v. Industrial Com. (1974), 59 Ill.2d 258, 260.) We cannot say the Commission's finding here was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and accordingly we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County confirming that finding.
Thus, in this jurisdiction the extent of loss of the use of an eye is a question of fact and the finding of the Industrial Commission on it will not be disturbed on review unless the finding is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. ( Santiago v. Industrial Com. (1977), 66 Ill.2d 356, 359; C.S.T. Erection Co. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 251, 257; Lambert v. Industrial Com. (1952), 411 Ill. 593, 607-08. See generally W. Schneider, Workmen's Compensation secs. 2346(d), (e), at 727-37 (3d ed. 1957); 2 A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation sec. 58.13 (1976).
Alternatively, claimant contends that he has, at least, suffered a loss of vision of 20% in his left eye and that the Commission's award of 10% loss is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Claimant relies upon prior decisions which have held that total loss of vision is not required to sustain a finding of industrial blindness to support his claim for an award for 100% loss of use of his left eye. ( C.S.T. Erection Co. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 251, 257; Central Waxed Paper Co. v. Industrial Com. (1965), 32 Ill.2d 154, 155.) Claimant maintains that as a result of his alleged condition of double vision he has suffered such an industrial blindness.
[Citations.]'" See also C.S.T. Erection Co. v. Industrial Com., 61 Ill.2d 251; Allen v. Industrial Com., 61 Ill.2d 177; Keystone Steel Wire Co. v. Industrial Com., 42 Ill.2d 273. The claimant here made his claim under section 8(e), and though he did offer evidence that he had by his injury been required to take a lower paying job assignment, he offered extensive evidence that he had suffered a loss of use of his legs, a loss compensable under section 8(e). The arbitrator's award in favor of the claimant was made under the provisions of section 8(e), and this award as to the extent of the claimant's disability was the award affirmed by the Commission.
Nevertheless, the Illinois Supreme Court has affirmed the Commission's decision to award concurrent permanency benefits in cases where the claimant suffered distinct injuries in a single accident. See, e.g., C.S.T. Erection Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 61 Ill. 2d 251, 335 N.E.2d 419 (1975); R.C. Mahon Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 45 Ill. 2d 480, 259 N.E.2d 274 (1970); J.J. Grady Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 46 Ill. 2d 471, 263 N.E.2d 809 (1970).
Wagner Castings Co., 241 Ill. App. 3 d at 595. Loss of a member is complete when the normal use of the member has been taken away. ( C.S.T. Erection Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1975), 61 Ill.2d 251, 257.) A claimant's testimony, standing alone, may support an award when all of the facts and circumstances do not preponderate in favor of the opposite conclusion. ( Seiber v. Industrial Comm'n (1980), 82 Ill.2d 87, 97.
The loss of a member is complete when the normal use of the member has been taken away. C.S.T. Erection Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1975), 61 Ill.2d 251, 335 N.E.2d 419. • 2 In the instant case, the record is devoid of any evidence to support a finding of 100% loss of the use of the claimant's right hand.