Gallego v. Industrial Comm'n

5 Citing cases

  1. Global Products v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

    392 Ill. App. 3d 408 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 28 times

    We see no evidence (and respondent provides no record citation to such evidence) that claimant smoked cigarettes for the purpose of retarding his recovery. In fact, Gallego v. Industrial Comm'n, 168 Ill. App. 3d 259, 268-69 (1988), which respondent cites, is distinguishable on this basis, for in that case there was evidence that the claimant was binding his hand in a deliberate attempt to impair circulation and prolong recovery. In this case, it appears the claimant smoked in spite of its potential impact on his recovery, not because of it.

  2. Hatten v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2018 Ill. App. 5th 160234 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    Dr. Soudah's ultimatum that the claimant lose 30 pounds in 6 months or he would declare her to be at MMI is nowhere supported by objective criteria. ¶ 58 This court has interpreted section 19(d) of the Act in terms of whether the claimant engaged in the alleged injurious practice purposely with intent to "imperil or retard" recovery. Gallego v. Industrial Comm'n, 168 Ill. App. 3d 259, 268-69 (1988) (claimant intentionally wrapped his hand in cloth in a deliberate attempt to impair circulation and delay recovery). I would find our holding in Global Products particularly instructive in this matter.

  3. Ceska v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2016 Ill. App. 150473 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission on questions of credibility. Gallego v. Industrial Comm'n, 168 Ill. App. 3d 259, 270 (1988).¶ 62 Here, the Commission did not believe the claimant when he testified that he injured his neck at work on August 27, 2012, while driving over potholes and speed bumps.

  4. Dibella v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2014 Ill. App. 3d 130867 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    is not our province to substitute our judgment for that of the Commission on questions of credibility." Gallego v. Industrial Comm'n, 168 Ill. App. 3d 259, 270, 522 N.E.2d 692, 699 (1988).¶ 53 The Commission did not believe the claimant when he testified that he injured his ankle in May 2005 while working for the employer.

  5. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n

    228 Ill. App. 3d 288 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 203 times

    We also find unpersuasive the employer's argument that because the repetitive trauma suffered by claimant caused swelling and bleeding, it could not have been minor or insignificant. It must be remembered, however, that Dr. Beckenbaugh never stated that it was the repetitive trauma that caused the swelling or bleeding. What Dr. Beckenbaugh did say was that minor, repetitive trauma such as banging the hand against a door or even a book was sufficient to perpetuate the swelling and bleeding caused by the initial injury. While employer cites Gallego v. Industrial Comm'n (1988), 168 Ill. App.3d 259, 522 N.E.2d 692, we do not find it to be of any assistance. In Gallego, the only Illinois case we have been able to find involving Secretan's disease, the record contains substantial credible evidence to the effect that the claimant's injury was self-induced.