Lukasik v. Industrial Commission

465 N.E.2d 528, 124 Ill. App. 3d 609, 80 Ill. Dec. 416, 1984 Ill. App. LEXIS 1871
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedMay 10, 1984
Docket1-84-0372WC
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 465 N.E.2d 528 (Lukasik v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lukasik v. Industrial Commission, 465 N.E.2d 528, 124 Ill. App. 3d 609, 80 Ill. Dec. 416, 1984 Ill. App. LEXIS 1871 (Ill. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

PRESIDING JUSTICE SEIDENFELD

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant, Albert Lukasik, appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County which confirmed the award of the Industrial Commission. The Commission had set aside an arbitrator’s award of temporary total disability and medical expenses for a certain period of time following the accident. Claimant contends that he was totally disabled after the date fixed by the Commission and that the subsequent medical care was necessary.

On December 20, 1978, the 20-year-old claimant, working as a dock man, was struck in the back by a forklift and a cart while loading freight for his employer, Associated Truck Lines, Inc.

Following the accident, the claimant was taken to MacNeal Hospital where X rays revealed no evidence of any fracture or abnormality. Medication for pain was prescribed and claimant returned home and remained in bed for the next three days, noticing pain in his upper and lower back.

Claimant was treated by the employer’s doctors from December 22, 1978, to January 16, 1979. He continued to complain of back discomfort and muscle spasms, and was referred to Dr. W. Patrick Smyth, who examined claimant on January 23, 1979. Dr. Smyth reported that claimant had received a “myofascial injury” and had a “significant functional overlay.” A physical therapy regimen was advised and claimant was told that no further care was required and that “he could return to work at any time he felt able without any restriction.”

In early February 1979, claimant sought further treatment from his family physician, Dr. Moltier, who referred him to Dr. Thomas Colmey, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Colmey, on examination, diagnosed the injury to be a “contusion/sprain of the thoracolumbar spine,” prescribed a muscle relaxant, placed claimant on physical therapy treatments of heat, massage, ultrasound and nerve stimulation, advised him to wear a back corset, and concluded claimant was unable to engage in his usual occupation at that time. On March 19, 1979, Dr. Colmey reexamined claimant and concluded that the “clinical picture at this time is becoming one of subjective complaints without objective findings.” Dr. Colmey then requested a second opinion from Dr. Marshall Matz and concluded that the patient would be “considered disabled pending receipt of this consultation. The patient is eligible for light work if such is available to him.”

Dr. Matz, a neurosurgeon, examined claimant on April 4, 1979, and found no objective abnormalities or neurologic derangement. In his opinion, claimant could return to work following his release by Dr. Colmey. Claimant testified that Dr. Matz released him to return to work.

Dr. Colmey reexamined claimant on April 23, 1979, and again found no objective abnormalities to substantiate claimant’s subjective complaints, but recommended a consultation from a pain clinic, if claimant’s employer was agreeable. Dr. Colmey concluded that claimant remained eligible for light work, if available. It was at this point that the employer cut off temporary disability.

Claimant testified that he never went to the pain clinic. He also did not return to college, where he had been a student at various times between 1976 and 1978. He stated that in May of 1979, he was told by an unidentified agent of the employer that it would not pay for any further medical treatments. Nevertheless, claimant returned to his family doctor, Dr. Moltier, in May and July of 1979, and continued taking medication four times a day as prescribed by Drs. Moltier and Colmey.

On October 23, 1979, claimant went to the emergency room of Northwest Community Hospital at his own direction, complaining of pain in his upper and lower back radiating to his buttocks and legs. He was given medication and referred to Dr. Bruce Ketel, a neurologist, who admitted him to Lutheran General Hospital on November 1, 1979. An initial physical examination revealed spasm in the lumbrosacral paraspinal muscles, a limited range of motion, and normal reflexes. Claimant was treated with bed rest, lower back traction, physical therapy, medication, and epidural lumbar injections. An electromyograph (EMG) revealed no abnormalities.

At Dr. Ketel’s request, Dr. Per Freitag, an orthopedic surgeon, examined claimant on November 5, 1979, and diagnosed his injury as “muscle spasm secondary to back injury.” A myelogram performed on November 16 was interpreted by Dr. Freitag as showing a herniated nucleus pulposus at the L5 — SI level with blunting of the nerve roots.

Dr. Sam Mulopulos, a radiologist at the hospital, found an essentially normal thoracic and lumbar myelogram with questionable defect of the root sheath at the fifth lumbar interspace.

Dr. Ketel’s discharge diagnosis of claimant included a “herniated nucleus pulposus at L5 — SI interspace with root involvement” and “thoracic and lumbrosacral muscle spasm and severe pain secondary to back injury.” Upon his November 20, 1979, discharge from the hospital, claimant was instructed to continue with physical therapy on an outpatient basis and to follow up with reevaluation by Dr. Freitag.

On January 28, 1980, Dr. Gail Belytschko, a neurologist from Dr. Ketel’s office, performed an EMG study on claimant which revealed that the left tibialis anterior muscle was being irritated, which is compatible with a mild L5 radiculopathy.

On February 1, 1980, Dr. Ho Min Lim of Dr. Freitag’s office examined claimant and recommended a chymopapain injection. Dr. Lim, finding that claimant could almost touch the floor, basically noted no neurological defects.

Dr. Freitag scheduled claimant for surgery on May 9, 1980. The surgery was canceled when claimant raised enough money to go to Canada for a chymopapain injection by Dr. John McCulloch of Toronto, scheduled for May 22. Upon examination of claimant, Dr. Mc-Culloch and his associate, Dr. R. R. Richards, found some abnormalities but “no clinical evidence of any objective nature” to warrant use of a chymopapin injection. Instead, Dr. McCulloch suggested a “conservative route” of treatment.

Claimant remained inactive and was using strong pain medication. When Dr. Freitag examined claimant on June 2, 1980, he had some lower back muscle spasm and a slightly diminished range of motion. He diagnosed the condition as “most likely *** a so-called slipped intervertebral disk [sic].” In Dr. Freitag’s opinion, claimant was not capable at that time of “any type of regular work.”

On June 4, 1980, Dr. Freitag readmitted claimant to Lutheran General Hospital. Subsequent lumbar X rays revealed a normal spine; a myelogram showed slight asymmetry but no gross deformity or obstruction; an EMG showed results compatible with a left L5 radiculopathy, similar to the EMG performed in January 1980; and an epidural venogram revealed no abnormalities.

The hospital records indicate that on June 21, 1980, claimant looked better, was more animated, and was ambulating well, but on June 22, he complained of pain in his left leg. The notes from the morning shift of June 23 show that claimant complained of leg pains, stating that on June 21 he had exercised doing pushups and handstands and may have injured himself.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Holocker v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n
2017 IL App (3d) 160363WC (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2017)
Sharwarko v. Illinois Workers Compensation Commisssion
2015 IL App (1st) 131733WC (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2015)
McDaneld v. Industrial Commission
718 N.E.2d 722 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1999)
Hallenbeck v. Industrial Commission
232 Ill. App. 3d 562 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1992)
P.T.O. Services, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
543 N.E.2d 1099 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1989)
Lusietto v. Industrial Commission
528 N.E.2d 18 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1988)
Boker v. Industrial Commission
489 N.E.2d 913 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1986)
Rambert v. Industrial Commission
477 N.E.2d 1364 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
465 N.E.2d 528, 124 Ill. App. 3d 609, 80 Ill. Dec. 416, 1984 Ill. App. LEXIS 1871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lukasik-v-industrial-commission-illappct-1984.