Scott v. Industrial Commission

Illinois Supreme Court

Scott v. Industrial Commission

390 N.E.2d 906, 76 Ill. 2d 183, 28 Ill. Dec. 547, 1979 Ill. LEXIS 295

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 1979

DocketNo. 51062

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 390 N.E.2d 906 (Scott v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott v. Industrial Commission, 390 N.E.2d 906, 76 Ill. 2d 183, 28 Ill. Dec. 547, 1979 Ill. LEXIS 295 (Ill. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE RYAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Ima Sue Scott filed a claim against her employer, Tee Pak, Inc., seeking compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.) for a back injury she contends arose out of and in the course of her employment. The arbitrator ruled that she had failed to prove that she had suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. The Industrial Commission, on review, heard additional evidence and affirmed the arbitrator. The circuit court of Cook County confirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission. The claimant contends in this court that the Commission’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

This case involves many of the time-worn issues, the resolution of which we have consistently stated lies within the province of the Industrial Commission. These include drawing inferences from the evidence, resolving conflicting testimony, determining the credibility of witnesses and deciding whether the claimant has met the burden of proof. It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence, which we have carefully reviewed. The decision of the Industrial Commission is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. We therefore affirm the circuit court of Cook County.

Judgment affirmed.

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

MR. JUSTICE RYAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Ima Sue Scott filed a claim against her employer, Tee Pak, Inc., seeking compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.) for a back injury she contends arose out of and in the course of her employment. The arbitrator ruled that she had failed to prove that she had suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. The Industrial Commission, on review, heard additional evidence and affirmed the arbitrator. The circuit court of Cook County confirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission. The claimant contends in this court that the Commission’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

This case involves many of the time-worn issues, the resolution of which we have consistently stated lies within the province of the Industrial Commission. These include drawing inferences from the evidence, resolving conflicting testimony, determining the credibility of witnesses and deciding whether the claimant has met the burden of proof. It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence, which we have carefully reviewed. The decision of the Industrial Commission is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. We therefore affirm the circuit court of Cook County.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 N.E.2d 906, 76 Ill. 2d 183, 28 Ill. Dec. 547, 1979 Ill. LEXIS 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-industrial-commission-ill-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack