Opinion
2-21-0129WC
12-15-2021
EUCLID BEVERAGE, LTD., Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, et al., (William Long, 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 Kane County, No. 20-MR-1065 Honorable Kevin T. Busch, Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justices Hoffman, Hudson, and Barberis concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
CAVANAGH JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: By finding the employee had carried his burden of proving (1) he suffered a repetitive trauma work-related accident, (2) he provided timely notice of the accident, and (3) the existence of a causal connection between his work-related injury and his current condition of ill-being, the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission did not make findings that were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 On January 25, 2016, claimant William Long, filed an application for adjustment of claim pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2014)), seeking benefits for injuries to his left shoulder that were aggravated by "repetitive pushing, pulling, [and] lifting" while working for his employer, appellant Euclid Beverage, Ltd., a beer distributor. Claimant listed the date of accident as November 18, 2014. The disputed issues in this case are (1) whether Long suffered a compensable work-related accident and, if so, (2) whether he provided sufficient notice of injury to Euclid.
¶ 3 After an October 10, 2018, hearing, the arbitrator issued a written decision on December 11, 2018, (1) finding an accident had occurred during the course of Long's employment and that a causal connection existed between the accident and Long's current condition of ill-being; (2) awarding Long all medical expenses, temporary and total disability (TTD), and permanent total disability (PTD) benefits; (3) awarding Euclid a credit for $76,126.24 for medical bills paid by Euclid's group health insurance carrier; and (4) awarding Euclid a credit for $77,552.22 for short-term and long-term disability benefits paid by Euclid's group disability carrier. Euclid filed a petition for review.
¶ 4 On July 20, 2020, the Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission), over one commissioner's dissent, adopted the arbitrator's decision subject to modification. Specifically, the Commission adopted the arbitrator's decision with regard to accident, causation, the award of TTD and PTD benefits, the award of out-of-pocket medical bills in the amount of $1228.49, and the credit to Euclid for short-term and long-term disability benefits paid to Long in the amount of $77,552.22. The Commission modified the decision regarding the credit for medical bills awarded to Euclid. In its review of the record, the Commission discovered the medical bills in the amount of $76,126.24 were paid by Long's spouse's group health insurance carrier, not Euclid's. Euclid sought judicial review of the Commission's decision before the circuit court of Kane County. The court confirmed the Commission's decision in full. Euclid appeals.
¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 6 On October 10, 2018, the arbitrator heard the following evidence.
¶ 7 Long, age 65, began working as a full-time delivery truck helper for Euclid in 1999. As a beer delivery helper, he would rotate the stock, unload the delivery, build displays, and stock shelves. His duties also included opening the roll-top overhead bay doors for loading. He would move the stock around in his trailer at each stop. On a typical day, he would move between 800 and 1000 cases of beer. He delivered barrels weighing 150 to 170 pounds and cases weighing up to 35 pounds by hand cart. His job required substantial lifting over his head and general physicality.
¶ 8 Long testified he had prior surgeries on his left and right shoulders, resulting in two workers' compensation cases. He was not represented by counsel in those cases. He received a settlement of 20% loss of use of his right arm in his 2005 workers' compensation case and 25% loss of use of his left arm in his 2008 workers' compensation case. He received no medical treatment between his release from his past left shoulder condition until November 18, 2014.
¶ 9 Long testified that on November 18, 2014, he went to see Dr. Azir Saleem at Castle Orthopaedics for "shoulder problems." He believed he told his supervisor Don Muezelaar a few days before about the appointment and then talked to him again after the appointment. Don asked Long if "this was going to be a workman's comp claim," and Long said "no." According to Long, Muezelaar said," 'Get it fixed and come back when you're ready to go back to work.'" Long explained he did not think it was a workers' compensation claim because he was unable to pinpoint any one incident that injured him-it was an "ongoing thing." Because he had shoulder surgery in the past and had received compensation for it, he assumed he could not claim the injury again. He told Muezelaar his own insurance would "take care of it."
¶ 10 On November 28, 2014, after he met with Dr. Saleem to review the latest magnetic resonance imaging scan (MRI), Long said Dr. Saleem recommended surgery and excused Long from work. As of the date of the hearing, Long had not worked since November 18, 2014.Dr. Saleem performed left shoulder surgery on January 12, 2015. Long attended physical therapy after surgery until August 11, 2015, when he quit because it "did not go well," as he was losing strength in his arm.
¶ 11 A subsequent MRI was performed on August 24, 2015, and showed another tear. Dr. Saleem told Long he was a "candidate for reversal," but he wanted to wait until Long was unable to tolerate the pain because the benefits from reversal surgery only lasted a few years. Long continued to experience pain and discomfort.
¶ 12 Euclid terminated Long on November 20, 2015. In September 2016, at a follow-up visit, Dr. Saleem recommended permanent lifting restrictions. Dr. Saleem told Long to follow up again when needed.
¶ 13 Long testified he received short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) benefits from Guardian, Euclid's carrier. At the time of the hearing, he was receiving social security disability benefits and "a small portion" of LTD benefits. Because Euclid did not offer light-duty work, Long met with a vocational rehabilitation specialist. Long discovered his hopes of finding gainful employment were limited given his age.
¶ 14 On cross-examination, Long acknowledged that the notes from his telephone interview with the adjuster at Guardian indicated he had answered he was injured as a result of an accident on "11/15/14 at home lifting a door." Long explained that either the Guardian employee misunderstood or Long misunderstood. He said it was possible he mentioned being first injured after lifting the door on the transporter, which was at work and is what led to his previous surgery. He thought maybe the adjuster misunderstood when he was explaining how he was injured originally.
¶ 15 Long testified: "I've told everybody that I cannot pinpoint any one instant that I could recall injuring the shoulder again. It's been a progressive pain, and it's been getting worse and worse until I had to go do something about it."
¶ 16 Muezelaar testified he had been the route supervisor at Euclid since 2005. He supervised the drivers and helpers and interacted with them every day. He said if "one of [his] subordinates, either drivers or helpers[, ] were injured or were in an accident, they would have to report it to [him], and [he] would proceed with the protocol under the policy-accident and injury policy." The "protocol" included gathering information and writing a report of injury. The employee would be transported to Tyler Medical Services for a drug screen and physical. The employees knew about this "protocol" and were updated on policies and procedures every Monday morning. However, several employees did not work on Mondays, including Long, so Muezelaar would meet with those employees on Tuesday mornings.
¶ 17 Muezelaar testified he had known Long since 2005. On the morning of November 18, 2014, Muezelaar recalled that Long called him and advised he would not be at work because he had an "illness and he needed to see a doctor." Muezelaar told Long to keep him posted. The next day, Long called again and said he could not work "because he was sick and he needed to go see his doctor and have some tests done." On November 20, 2014, Long went to Muezelaar's office and told him he was "having shoulder problems, and he needed to have an MRI done and have further tests done to see what the problem was." Muezelaar testified: "I asked him, 'Bill, how did you do this? Did you do it on the job?' He stated, 'No.' He did not do it at Euclid Beverage." Nevertheless, Muezelaar followed protocol, advised Long to contact human resources (HR), and advised the HR manager via e-mail that Long was reporting a personal injury. However, Muezelaar did not complete any paperwork. Long's timecard after November 20, 2014, was marked NWRD, meaning "Not Work-Related Disability." Muezelaar acknowledged Long began receiving STD benefits from Guardian.
¶ 18 Muezelaar also testified that, prior to November 2014, Long never complained or advised of any shoulder problem. He had not missed work or demonstrated an inability to perform his job duties. In November 2015, per the Teamster Union's protocol, Long was terminated because he had been off work for 12 months for a "non-work injury."
¶ 19 Long presented his medical records from Dr. Saleem and Castle Orthopaedics. A record dated November 18, 2014, indicated Long presented "with a complaint of shoulder pain," left worse than right, and that he had "been having problems going on for quite some time now." Dr. Saleem noted Long's shoulder surgery eight to nine years ago but indicated Long had been doing well up until last year. He then experienced "some increasing progressive pain with any overhead activity. He [had] difficulty with any lifting, pushing, pulling. He does deliver beer for [a] living and that has been aggravating it quite a lot." The doctor ordered an MRI.
¶ 20 According to Dr. Saleem's office note dated November 28, 2014, the MRI showed "recurrent rotator cuff tear involving the supraspinatus tendon," a "partial tear of the subscapularis tendon," and a "biceps pulley lesion." Based on the MRI, Dr. Saleem recommended revision rotator cuff repair and Long agreed. On January 12, 2015, Long had arthroscopy surgery, which included revision left rotator cuff repair, decompression, distal clavicle excision, and biceps tenodesis.
¶ 21 In August 2015, Long was still experiencing discomfort and limitations. The physical therapist recommended a follow-up MRI. According to Dr. Saleem's review of the latest MRI, he noted "some persistent or recurrent rotator cuff tear," although it "actually look[ed] better than his original or preoperative MRI scan." He noted the tendon was obviously chronically damaged.
¶ 22 On December 3, 2015, Long visited Dr. Saleem in a follow-up visit with persistent pain and weakness. The doctor recommended no further treatment. He advised Long to consider a reverse shoulder replacement surgery, but he should do so only when he could no longer tolerate the symptoms. In January 2017, after reporting no change in Long's status or in his recommendation, Dr. Saleem found Long was at maximum medical improvement (MMI). He restricted Long permanently to no lifting over 25 pounds, occasional lifting of 11 to 25 pounds, frequent lifting of 6 to 10 pounds, no overhead or over shoulder lifting, no driving a manual transmission vehicle, and no heavy equipment operation. In Dr. Saleem's opinion, Long's work requirements of heavy overhead lifting repeatedly contributed to and aggravated his underlying shoulder condition.
¶ 23 Long introduced Dr. Saleem's July 12, 2018, deposition into evidence. Dr. Saleem testified he was a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, specializing in shoulder and elbow surgery with 70% of his practice on shoulders and 75% of his shoulder work involving rotator-cuff issues. He first saw Long on November 18, 2014, when Long presented with complaints in both shoulders, his left worse than his right. Long complained of having pain "for some time" prior to the visit. Long explained he had surgery eight to nine years prior and had been doing well "up until the year prior [.]" Long told him his pain was increasing, especially with overhead activity. He had difficulty lifting, pushing, or pulling. Long explained he delivered beer for a living and "that had been aggravating his shoulder at work." After his examination, Dr. Saleem took X-rays and found evidence of previous decompression and distal clavicle resection performed on both shoulders. Dr. Saleem diagnosed Long with a possible rotator cuff tear and ordered an MRI.
¶ 24 Dr. Saleem explained that a person who had prior surgical intervention was more susceptible to a tear because the repaired tendon would likely never be as strong as the original. Any increased stress over time could cause a recurrent tear.
¶ 25 Dr. Saleem recalled performing Long's surgery on January 12, 2015. He injected platelet-rich plasma to help the body heal. He said he performed a decompression to remove spurring, scraped some arthritis from the clavicle, performed a debridement of the joint lining, and performed an open biceps tenodesis. Dr. Saleem said he recommended physical therapy. Although revision surgery typically involved a recovery time of approximately eight months, Long was experiencing more pain than Dr. Saleem anticipated by June 2015. He recommended a follow-up MRI and explained the possibility of shoulder replacement surgery as a "last option."
¶ 26 In Dr. Saleem's opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Long's "physically demanding job" aggravated his underlying rotator cuff tear and increased his risk of subsequent tears.
¶ 27 On cross-examination, Dr. Saleem opined it was not "one particular tear that occurred at work." He explained Long's problem was "an acute-on-chronic-type problem," meaning if he" encounter[ed] increased activity or [did] something to aggravate it, it could make that problem worse." Dr. Saleem said he was not aware that Long injured his shoulder at home while lifting a door on November 15, 2014, or that Long had relayed that information to a disability adjuster on December 8, 2014. He said if that was true, he would have expected Long to include that as part of his history.
¶ 28 On redirect examination, Dr. Saleem explained:
"I think that the patient has some chronic rotator cuff pathology, period, and that based on his MRI, that's what I saw. It was a chronic rotator cuff tear. And whether that
chronic rotator cuff tear was aggravated by a repetitive activity or by lifting something, it could be possible. But I don't see *** any evidence of an acute rupture of a tear with an acute tear that had been just recently repaired, if that makes sense."
¶ 29 On December 11, 2018, the arbitrator issued a decision, in which he found Long had sustained a work-related injury, timely notice was given to Euclid, and Long's current condition of ill-being was causally related to his injury. The arbitrator awarded Long TTD benefits, PTD benefits, and medical expenses and awarded Euclid two credits: one for disability benefits paid by Guardian and one for medical bills already paid.
¶ 30 On July 17, 2020, the Commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's decision subject to modification, over one commissioner's dissent. The modification related to the arbitrator's award of credit to Euclid for already-paid medical expenses. The Commission found the medical expenses had been paid by Long's spouse's group insurance provider, not Euclid's.
¶ 31 On February 16, 2021, the Kane County circuit court confirmed the Commission's decision.
¶ 32 This appeal followed.
¶ 33 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 34 A. Sufficiency of Notice
¶ 35 Euclid claims the Commission's finding that Long provided sufficient notice of his work-related injury was in error.
¶ 36 Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the employee (1) shall provide notice to the employer of the accident "as soon as practicable, but not later than 45 days after the accident," (2) shall include the approximate date and place of the accident, if known, and (3) may provide notice orally or in writing. This section also provides that "[n]o defect or inaccuracy of such notice shall be a bar to the maintenance of proceedings on arbitration or otherwise by the employee unless the employer proves that he is unduly prejudiced in such proceedings by such defect or inaccuracy." 820 ILCS 305/6(c) (West 2014).
¶ 37 This notice requirement applies to employees who suffer repetitive trauma injuries. Three "D" Discount Store v. Industrial Comm'n, 198 Ill.App.3d 43, 48 (1989). In such cases, the employee must allege and prove a single, definable accident. Id. The date of such an accident, from which notice must be given, is the date when the injury "manifests itself." Peoria County Belwood Nursing Home v. Industrial Comm'n, 115 Ill.2d 524, 531 (1987). The phrase "manifests itself" signifies "the date on which both the fact of the injury and the causal relationship of the injury to the claimant's employment would have become plainly apparent to a reasonable person." Id. As to notice, the statutory element of undue prejudice to the employer is pertinent only where some notice is given in the first place. White v. Workers' Compensation Comm 'n, 374 Ill.App.3d 907, 910 (2007). The purpose of the notice requirement is to enable the employer to investigate the employee's alleged work-related accident. Id. at 910-11.
¶ 38 The date on which the employee notices a repetitive-trauma injury is not necessarily the manifestation date. Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 176 Ill.App.3d 607, 611 (1988). Rather, the date on which the employee became unable to work, due to physical collapse or medical treatment, helps determine the manifestation date. Id. "[C]ourts considering various factors have typically set the manifestation date on either the date on which the employee requires medical treatment or the date on which the employee can no longer perform work activities." Durand v. Industrial Comm'n, 224 Ill.2d 53, 72 (2006). The determination of the manifestation date is a question of fact to be resolved by the Commission. Id. at 65.
¶ 39 We will not reverse the Commission's factual determinations unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. at 64. "Fact determinations are against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent-that is, when no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the agency." Id. The appropriate test is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commission's determination, not whether this court would have reached the same conclusion. Benson v. Industrial Comm'n, 91 Ill.2d 445, 450 (1982).
¶ 40 Long filed his application for adjustment of claim alleging an accident date of November 18, 2014. On that date, according to both Long and Muezelaar, Long advised Muezelaar he would not be at work that day because Long was sick and was going to the doctor. On November 20, 2014, Long advised he was having shoulder problems and needed an MRI. Muezelaar asked if the problems were work related. Long said they were not because, according to him, he could not pinpoint any one incident that caused the problem, as it was ongoing, and he had already received workers' compensation benefits for his shoulder approximately eight years earlier.
¶ 41 Given the above, there is no dispute that Long notified Euclid of his shoulder injury. The question is whether the notice was sufficient or whether it was defective. Timeliness is not an issue. The Commission found Long's notice to Euclid on either August 18 or 20, 2014, was defective under the Act because Long did not report a work-related injury. He reported only an injury. Therefore, this notice was considered defective. However, a claim is only barred if no notice whatsoever was given. See Silica Sand Transport, Inc. v. Industrial Comm 'n, 197 Ill.App.3d 640, 651 (1990). "If some notice has been given, but the notice is defective or inaccurate, then the employer must show that he has been unduly prejudiced." Id. The Commission found Euclid failed to demonstrate any prejudice by any delay in reporting of the claim. Euclid presented no evidence tending to show it was somehow at a disadvantage due to Long's representation that his injury was not work-related. Whether prejudice occurred because of a defective or inaccurate notice is a question of fact subject to the manifest-weight standard discussed above. As such, we find the Commission's factual determination that Euclid failed to demonstrate prejudice was not erroneous.
¶ 42 Further, because Long received employer-sponsored disability benefits, his notice in the form of the January 2016 application for adjustment of claim was sufficient. Section 8(j) of the Act extends the 45-day notice requirement if the injured employee receives employer-sponsored benefits. In that case, the notice period begins to run after termination of those benefits. See 820 ILCS 305/8(j) (West 2014). The Commission found Long was still receiving LTD benefits at the time of the hearing and thus, the notice period had not expired at the time Long filed his application for adjustment of claim in January 2016. We find no grounds to disturb the Commission's factual finding on this issue.
¶ 43 B. Work-Related Injury
¶ 44 Next, Euclid argues the Commission's decision that Long suffered from a work-related accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Euclid claims Long's own statements contradict his claim for benefits because he told the disability claim adjuster he had injured himself at home while lifting a door. However, Long testified that was either a misstatement or a misunderstanding. Either way, he denied injuring his shoulder at home. Euclid argues that Long's denial is suspicious when he had also told Muezelaar in August 2014 that he had not been injured on the job. Given these contradictions between Euclid's view of the facts and Long's statements, it was the Commission's duty to make a credibility determination and decide whether, based on the evidence, an accident arising out of and in the course of Long's employment occurred.
¶ 45 An employee who alleges injury based on repetitive trauma must show that the injury is work related and not the result of a normal degenerative aging process. Belwood, 115 Ill.2d at 530. Here, Long testified about the physical demands of his job and the specific body mechanics involved in his daily duties. He testified he had suffered the same injury eight or nine years ago and had undergone surgical repair. He did not describe any non-work-related activity that would have caused his shoulder problem. He explained that his symptoms began when he lifted a door at work eight or nine years ago. He explained that his description of his prior injury might have led to the confusion during his interview with the adjuster. He testified he never injured his shoulder at home. He also explained why he had told Muezelaar that his most recent shoulder problem was not work related. He said he had erroneously assumed that, because he could not pinpoint one particular incident and, because he had already been compensated for his rotator cuff problem, he was precluded from further workers' compensation benefits.
¶ 46 The Commission found Long's testimony credible and unrebutted. Indeed, it is the province of the Commission to judge the credibility of witnesses, draw reasonable inferences from testimony, and determine the weight to be given testimony. S & H Floor Covering, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 373 Ill.App.3d 259, 266 (2007). Based on the record before us, we find no reason to disturb the Commission's credibility determination or the Commission's finding that Long suffered a repetitive trauma injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.
¶ 47 C. Causation
¶ 48 Euclid further argues the Commission's decision that Long's condition was causally related to his work was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
¶ 49 To obtain compensation under the Act, a claimant must prove that some act or phase of his employment was a causative factor in his ensuing injuries. Land & Lakes Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 359 Ill.App.3d 582, 592 (2005). A work-related injury need not be the sole or principal causative factor, as long as it was a causative factor in the resulting condition of ill-being. Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 207 Ill.2d 193, 205 (2003). Even if the claimant had a preexisting degenerative condition which made him more vulnerable to injury, recovery for an accidental injury will not be denied as long as he can show that his employment was also a causative factor. Id. A claimant may establish a causal connection in such cases if he can show that a work-related injury played a role in aggravating or accelerating his preexisting condition. Id. at 204-05.
¶ 50 An employee who alleges injury based on repetitive trauma must "show[ ] that the injury is work related and not the result of a normal degenerative aging process." Belwood, 115 Ill.2d at 530. In repetitive-trauma cases, the claimant "generally relies on medical testimony establishing a causal connection between the work performed and claimant's disability." Nunn v. Industrial Comm'n, 157 Ill.App.3d 470, 477 (1987).
¶ 51 Whether an accident aggravated or accelerated a preexisting condition is a factual question to be decided by the Commission. Sisbro, 207 Ill.2d at 205. Where the claimant alleges accidental injuries caused by a repetitive trauma, it is for the Commission to determine whether a claimant's disability is attributable solely to a degenerative condition or to an aggravation of a preexisting condition due to a repetitive trauma. Cassens Transport Co. v. Industrial Comm 'n, 262 Ill.App.3d 324, 331 (1994). As stated, in resolving disputed issues of fact, including issues related to causation, it is the Commission's province to assess the credibility of witnesses, draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, determine what weight to give testimony, and resolve conflicts in the evidence, particularly medical opinion evidence. Hosteny v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 397 Ill.App.3d 665, 674 (2009). A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission on these issues merely because other inferences from the evidence may be drawn. Berry v. Industrial Comm 'n, 99 Ill.2d 401, 407 (1984). As earlier stated, we will overturn the Commission's finding only when it is against the manifest weight of the evidence, i.e., only when the opposite conclusion is "clearly apparent." Durand, 224 Ill.2d at 64. The test is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the Commission's finding, not whether this court or any other tribunal might reach an opposite conclusion. Pietrzak v. Industrial Comm 'n, 329 Ill.App.3d 828, 833 (2002). When the evidence is sufficient to support the Commission's causation finding, we must affirm. Id.
¶ 52 Here, Dr. Saleem opined there was a causal connection between the claimant's symptoms, i.e., the current condition of his ill-being and his employment. The doctor specifically found Long's duties of heavy lifting and specifically, heavy lifting overhead, placed Long at an increased risk of injury. The job duties also increased the risk of recurrent tears of an already-torn rotator cuff. Based on Long's history of shoulder problems, Dr. Saleem was confident, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Long's job duties exacerbated his symptoms. The Commission found Dr. Saleem's opinions credible and persuasive.
¶ 53 As previously noted, to establish causation in a repetitive-trauma case, a claimant must present medical testimony establishing a causal connection between the work performed and claimant's disability (Nunn, 157 Ill.App.3d at 477), and must show that the injury is work related and "not the result of a normal degenerative aging process." Belwood, 115 Ill.2d at 530. Because Long's medical records reveal that he suffered from prior rotator-cuff issues, and because Dr. Saleem opined that the increase in the severity of Long's symptoms were likely caused by his work duties, the Commission believed Long's testimony that his symptoms gradually become worse as he continued to work.
¶ 54 Based on the record before us, we are unable to conclude that the Commission's reliance upon Dr. Saleem's causation opinions and its conclusion that Long sufficiently proved that his current condition of ill-being was causally related to his employment were against the manifest weight of the evidence, as an opposite conclusion is not clearly apparent. Long is entitled to recover benefits if he can show that his employment played any causal role in the aggravation of shoulder problem. Dr. Saleem's opinion arguably makes that showing.
¶ 55 Given that we have found no reason to disturb the Commission's finding on notice, accident, or causation, we likewise find no reason to disturb the Commission's award of benefits.
¶ 56 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 57 Based on the above, we affirm the circuit court's judgment, which confirmed the Commission's decision.
¶ 58 Affirmed.