Repetitive Stress Bulletin
August, 1997
MAJORITY AFFIRMED BENEFIT AWARD FOR
RSI's EVEN THOUGH DATE OF ACCIDENT WAS NINE MONTHS AFTER CLAIMANT LAST
WORKED FOR DEFENDANT
A majority
of the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District held that the
Commission's finding of a causal relationship between the claimant's
bilateral cubital and carpal tunnel syndromes was not against the
manifest weight of the evidence even though the date of injury was nine
months after the claimant's last day of work for the defendant. The
majority explained that prior to the date of diagnosis, the claimant had
never heard of such syndromes and did not know his problems were caused
by these conditions. The majority further held that the defendant's
contention that the issue of accident was waived simply because a box
was not checked on the preprinted "Petition for Review of Decision of
Arbitrator and Order for Transcript" form was clearly against the
overall intent of the Workers' Compensation Act.
The claimant
worked for the defendant as a bakery factory worker for eight years in
various capacities including tray stacker, bun slicer and checker
loader. His last position was that of a utility worker and his last day
of employment was Apr. 10, 1993. The claimant testified he first started
having problems with his elbows and wrists in 1994. He was diagnosed
with bilateral cubital and carpal tunnel syndromes and eventually
underwent surgery. The claimant's doctor opined that there was a causal
connection between the claimant's activities with the defendant and his
condition of ill-being which was aggravated by the construction work he
performed after leaving the defendant. The claimant settled with the
construction company for 5 percent loss of use of each hand.
The
arbitrator denied benefits finding that there was no accidental injury
and that claimant failed to give timely notice. The Commission reversed
and awarded benefits. The Circuit Court confirmed the decision of the
Commission.
A majority
of the Appellate Court held, first, that the defendant's contention that
the issue of accident was waived simply because a box was not checked on
the preprinted "Petition for Review of Decision of Arbitrator and Order
for Transcript" form was clearly against the overall intent of the W.C.A.
The majority explained that because evidence pertaining to the issue of
accident was on the record and such evidence was relevant to all other
issues raised, particularly notice and because the parties argued the
matter in their statement of exceptions and response thereto, the issue
was not waived and the Commission did not err in its decision.
Next, the
majority held that the Commission's finding of causal relationship was
not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The majority noted that
the Commission concluded the date of accident was Jan. 28, 1994, the day
the claimant was diagnosed by his doctor as suffering from bilateral
cubital and carpal tunnel syndromes. Prior to this date, the claimant
had never heard of such syndromes and did not know his problems were
caused by these conditions. The majority determined that the claimant's
injury could not have manifested itself until his condition was
diagnosed and he was made aware of his condition and the connection to
the repetitive nature of his former employment with the defendant. The
majority explained that the fact the claimant's condition was aggravated
by later construction work served to substantiate the treating doctor's
finding that the claimant's condition of ill-being was caused by his
repetitive work activities with the defendant. Also, the majority noted
that the treating doctor's testimony as to diagnosis, causal
relationship and date of injury was undisputed by any other medical
testimony.
Lastly, the
majority held that the Commission did not err in finding sufficient
notice, for the claimant never realized his problems were work-related
or even what his problems were until after seeking medical treatment and
his condition was diagnosed on Jan. 28, 1994. The majority noted that
the claimant filed his petition for benefits on Mar. 4, 1994 and that
the Commission notified the defendant of the claim on Mar. 8, 1994,
clearly within the 45-day notice period.
