2026 IL App (1st) 242584WC-U No. 1-24-2584WC Order filed January 16, 2026
NOTICE: 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).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
SOURCE ONE STAFFING, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Appellant, ) Cook County ) v. ) No. 24L4548 ) ) THE ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ) COMMISSION et al., ) Honorable ) Daniel P. Duffy, (Ciro Servin Cabrera, Appellee). ) Judge Presiding. _____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justices Mullen, Barberis, and Tailor concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 In November 2019, claimant, Ciro Servin Cabrera, filed an application for
adjustment of claim pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq.
(West 2018)), seeking benefits from his employer, Source One Staffing (employer), regarding
injuries to his neck, back, and shoulders he sustained from an October 14, 2019, accident.
¶3 Following a May 2023 hearing, the arbitrator found claimant’s accidental injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and his condition of ill-being was causally related
to the October 14 accidental injury. The arbitrator found claimant was temporarily and totally
disabled from November 4, 2019, through May 25, 2023, and therefore eligible for temporary and
totally disability (TTD) benefits during said period. The arbitrator also found claimant was entitled
to prospective medical care for a surgical procedure and related care, as recommended by his
treating physician, Dr. Matthew Ross. On review, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation
Commission (Commission) modified the arbitrator’s average weekly wage determination but
otherwise affirmed and adopted the arbitrator’s findings. Upon judicial review, the circuit court of
Cook County confirmed the Commission’s decision, finding it was neither contrary to law nor
against the manifest weight of the evidence. On appeal, employer claims the Commission’s
(1) ultimate decision, (2) causal finding, and (3) TTD award were against the manifest weight of
the evidence because the Commission relied on the opinions of a physician who completely
misunderstood the mechanism of injury.
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 A. Hearing Testimony
¶6 Claimant testified with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter at a hearing on May
25, 2023. He stated, on October 14, 2019, he worked for employer, an industrial staffing service,
wherein he was performing work for Greco & Sons (who is not a party to this appeal), a distribution
warehouse. He described his job as “pilling,” which required him to put pallets into various piles,
ten pallets high, so a forklift could eventually move them. The only personal protective equipment
he was required to wear was steel-toed shoes. On the date of the accident, at approximately 11
p.m., claimant recalled standing on a pallet when someone operating a “pallet jack” was “coming
too fast” and hit the pallet. This caused him to lose his balance and fall forward into a stack of
-2- pallets. The pallet jack continued moving and struck the pallet he was previously standing on,
which caused him to fall to the ground. He stated he immediately felt pain in his chest and back.
He stated his right shoulder became “twisted” and the right side of his head was against some
pallets. He recalled remaining stuck in this position for “12 or 15 minutes,” until his supervisor
arrived.
¶7 Claimant went to Saint Joseph Hospital at approximately 3 a.m., where he received
x-rays and prescription medication before being discharged. He stated he continued to feel unwell
and went to Physicians Immediate Care later that same day, wherein he received an “injection”
behind his “left shoulder.” He was given work restrictions. On October 16, 2019, he visited Tyler
Medical Services at the referral of employer. He remained on light-duty work and returned to Tyler
Medical Services for several follow-up appointments.
¶8 On November 4, 2019, claimant visited Dr. Mukeshchandra Patel, who ordered him
to take time off from work. He visited Dr. Ross on December 5, 2019, who continued to treat him
through the date of the hearing. Dr. Ross ultimately recommended claimant undergo neck surgery.
Dr. Ross also referred claimant to Dr. Steven Chudnik for issues related to his shoulders. Claimant
recalled being examined by Dr. Thomas Stanley in January 2020 and Dr. Joshua Alpert in October
2021 at the request of the insurance company. Claimant stated he did not have any injuries to his
neck, shoulders, head, or back prior to October 14, 2019. He stated he wanted to undergo the neck
surgery recommended by Dr. Ross to alleviate the pain from the middle of his neck down to his
lower back.
¶9 On cross-examination, claimant denied having any issues with his head, despite the
fact his medical records referenced a “chronic infarct” in his brain. Claimant denied being involved
in a “car accident.” The interpreter read into the record, in English, claimant’s written statement
-3- from an employee accident report submitted after the accident. The report stated,
“I was putting together pallets when a coworker was driving a pallet jack.
Accidentally, he hit the pallets. The pallets hit me on my feet, and I landed on top
of the pallets *** Before I lost—before getting up, he went around with a pallet
jack and then hit them again and I landed on the floor—and then I landed. I landed
on the floor.”
In another section of the report, claimant wrote,
“Before I lost, gotten up, the pallet jack turned around and hit them again, and I
ended up on the floor. I hit on the right side of my body, arm, right arm, head. I had
pain on my arm, on my right arm, pain in the head, and pain in my chest. I reported
it to [my supervisor]. He gave me time to sit down to see if the pain will go away.
The pain got worse. I asked for an ambulance. I asked for an ambulance because I
did not feel well to drive. He told me that they called the ambulance, but the
ambulance never came, and he told me that they could not transport me, could not
take me. I drove to Saint Joseph Hospital so they could see me, ER.”
¶ 10 B. Medical Records
¶ 11 1. Saint Joseph Hospital
¶ 12 Medical records from Saint Joseph Hospital from October 15, 2019, following the
accident, showed claimant complained of torso and head pain. Triage notes show claimant stated
he was “pushed by a fork lift driver” and fell backwards onto pallets before he lost his balance and
fell forward onto pallets. The treating physician’s notes stated claimant complained of chest and
back pain after he was “nudged and fell backwards and then forward to the right.” Claimant
reported a “minor head injury, his leg was bent beneath him, and his right shoulder/arm was twisted
-4- behind him.” The physician’s notes indicated no neck pain. Claimant complained of a mild
headache but denied any numbness or weakness.
¶ 13 2. Physicians Immediate Care
¶ 14 Medical records from Physicians Immediate Care from October 15, 2019, showed
claimant stated a forklift driver “hit him with some pallets 2 times,” which caused him to fall
forward and then toward his right side. Claimant’s chief complaint was back pain, which he rated
as 6 out of 10 for pain. He received a trigger point injection to his right scapula for pain. Claimant
was diagnosed with minor strains to the muscles and tendons of the back wall of his thorax,
shoulder, and upper left arm.
¶ 15 3. Tyler Medical Services
¶ 16 Medical records for Tyler Medical Services from October 16, 2019, showed
claimant complained of pain to the “right side of his face, left shoulder, and chest area.” No neck
pain was reported. The records indicated claimant stated he was struck by a pallet jack that caused
him to fall, striking the right side of his face, left shoulder, and chest area. He was diagnosed with
contusions to the right side of his face, left shoulder, and anterior chest. Records from October 28,
2019, showed claimant complained of “neck pain and numbness, tingling and weakness in the
upper extremities.”
¶ 17 4. Dr. Patel
¶ 18 Dr. Patel’s records from November 4, 2019, showed claimant was evaluated for
headache and neck and shoulder pain. Dr. Patel ordered claimant off work and referred him to
physical therapy and an orthopedic consultation.
¶ 19 5. Center for Diagnostic Imaging
¶ 20 On November 11, 2019, claimant underwent MRI imaging. The records showed he
-5- was seen for a forklift accident involving a fall, with pain in both shoulders and neck. Claimant
also complained of numbness, tingling, and weakness in his shoulders and neck. The MRI noted
degenerative disc disease with stenosis. There was “[i]ndentation of the spinal cord at the C4-C5,
C5-C6, and C6-C7 levels secondary to disc bulges.” Regarding claimant’s right shoulder, the MRI
showed moderate acromioclavicular hypertrophy with moderate edema, Type II acromion and
moderate fluid in the bursa with focal full-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon, and a
tear of the superior labrum extending into the posterior superior labrum. Claimant’s left shoulder
showed similar findings, with additional mild tendinosis of the intraarticular long head biceps
tendon.
¶ 21 6. Dr. Ross
¶ 22 Dr. Ross’s records from December 2019 showed claimant complained of neck,
back, bilateral shoulder, and chest pain following a work injury. The records indicated claimant
was struck by a motorized pallet jack that claimant estimated was traveling “approximately 20
[miles per hour].” Claimant indicated he was thrown chest first onto a pallet and then twisted onto
his side. He demonstrated full range of motion in his neck but significantly reduced range of
motion of his left shoulder. The records showed claimant exhibited “guarding” due to shoulder
pain that inhibited Dr. Ross’s ability to perform a full neurological exam. Dr. Ross suggested
claimant had “cervical radiculopathy and/or brachial plexus injury” in addition to shoulder
symptoms. Dr. Ross recommended claimant consult with an orthopedic surgeon regarding his
shoulders.
¶ 23 7. VNA Health Care
¶ 24 Medical records from VNA Health Care from December 2019 showed claimant
was examined for health reasons unrelated to his work accident. The records indicated a history of
-6- a motor vehicle accident. The records showed claimant had recently fallen at work and been
involved in a motor vehicle collision. “Motor vehicle collision” was listed as a diagnosis.
¶ 25 8. Dr. Chudnik
¶ 26 Dr. Chudnik’s records from January 2020, showed claimant complained of bilateral
shoulder and neck pain. Claimant indicated he was crushed between pallets that had been pushed
by a pallet jack, which caused him to fall and hit his head, neck, and shoulders. Dr. Chudnik
indicated claimant suffered from a pinched cervical nerve. Despite normal electromyography
(EMG) findings, Dr. Chudnik recommended bilateral shoulder surgery.
¶ 27 C. Evidence Depositions
¶ 28 1. Deposition of Dr. Chudnik
¶ 29 In June 2020, Dr. Chudnik testified he was a board-certified orthopedic surgeon
who primarily focused on injuries to shoulders and knees. He explained the mechanism of
claimant’s injury was that a pallet jack had pushed pallets toward claimant, causing him to be
crushed and fall. He diagnosed claimant with bilateral rotator cuff tears. He noted someone
claimant’s age would be susceptible to rotator cuff tears and attributed claimant’s tears to his work
accident. He explained rotator cuff tears can be caused without any specific trauma to the shoulder
and by “quick, abrupt moving of the arm which required the muscles to contract and pull violently
to capture themselves or brace themselves.” He stated a two-week delay in symptoms would not
be uncommon for a shoulder injury. He recommended claimant undergo surgical repair for his
shoulder injuries but deferred the treatment until claimant’s neck injuries were treated.
¶ 30 Dr. Chudnik disagreed with Dr. Stanley’s assessment regarding the age of the
rotator cuff tears and found them to be “acute and new and not preexisting.” He also disagreed
with Dr. Stanley that an individual with a rotator cuff tear would have difficulty removing clothing.
-7- He explained there were four muscles to the rotator cuff and tearing a portion of one of them would
not limit the ability to move the shoulder to take a shirt off. He further explained that old rotator
cuff tears are “retracted” and have “atrophy,” which was not present in claimant’s tears. He stated
the MRI did not suggest the tears were old.
¶ 31 2. Deposition of Dr. Stanley
¶ 32 In October 2022, Dr. Stanley testified he was a board-certified orthopedic surgeon
who has performed numerous surgeries on the neck and upper and lower back, as well as surgeries
to correct deformities and treat infections. He described claimant’s mechanism of injury as him
falling twice and hitting his right side. He stated claimant had blunt trauma to his shoulder from
the falls. He recalled his notes indicated claimant had injured his head, left shoulder, and chest
after being struck by a pallet jack. He stated claimant had positive Waddell signs and had failed
distraction tests, which indicated nonorganic pain. He opined claimant’s mechanism of injury did
not support acute bilateral rotator cuff tears, which he stated was consistent with MRI testing,
which had showed a chronic degenerative process. He concluded treatment to claimant’s shoulder
was unrelated to his work accident or blunt trauma. He stated claimant suffered from cervical
radiculopathy related to his work accident but noted claimant’s ongoing complaints of pain were
not cervical radiculopathy and were consistent with nonorganic pain. He opined claimant’s
shoulder contusion and cervical radiculopathy had resolved by the time he evaluated claimant in
January 2020. He conceded no other physician who had evaluated claimant indicated positive
Waddell signs and that claimant did not have any neck or upper extremity complaints prior to the
work accident.
¶ 33 3. Deposition of Dr. Ross
¶ 34 In June 2022, Dr. Ross testified he was a board-certified neurosurgeon who
-8- primarily treated patients with spinal issues. He explained claimant’s mechanism of injury as being
struck by a “loaded stand-up motorized pallet jack *** traveling approximately 20 miles an hour.”
He stated claimant was thrown chest first onto a pallet and then “twisted onto his side.” He noted
he could only partially make a diagnosis at claimant’s initial evaluation because of claimant’s
shoulder issues. He also noted claimant had preexisting arthritis in the neck but found no evidence
claimant was actively symptomatic from any neck arthritis prior to the work accident. He stated
claimant’s negative EMG indicated there was no brachial plexus injury and likely no cervical
radiculopathy. He interpreted an updated MRI from January 2021, which, in his opinion, showed
claimant had disk herniations and more severe spinal stenosis than the original MRI had shown.
He opined the disk herniations were caused by claimant’s work accident or became symptomatic
because of the work accident.
¶ 35 Dr. Ross disagreed with Dr. Stanley that claimant demonstrated signs of
malingering or nonorganic symptoms. On cross-examination, Dr. Stanley admitted he did not
know the details of claimant’s mechanism of injury. He explained, “[W]hen you’re dealing with
traumatized patients, getting that kind of specificity is sometimes difficult. It happens in a split
second and you’re asking them to try to reconstruct.” He went on to say, “It doesn’t matter whether
he lands on his right shoulder, his left shoulder, or his chest, if he’s now symptomatic, the
proximate cause is the trauma.” He explained the cervical spine condition would naturally and
progressively become worse. He confirmed the first time he diagnosed claimant with myelopathy
was in February 2021. He explained myelopathy meant claimant was having “trouble in his spinal
cord from the pathology in his neck” and that he needed intervention for the issue. He conceded
claimant may have potentially required surgery in the future for his disk degeneration but stated
the work accident caused it to happen much sooner. He noted claimant’s myelopathy “became
-9- clear in the fullness of time” and was significantly worse than his shoulder condition, “even though
in the beginning it seemed the reverse.” Regarding Waddell signs, he explained claimant’s primary
issue was a spinal cord injury and myelopathy, which “doesn’t follow a dermatomal pattern.”
¶ 36 4. Deposition of Dr. Alpert
¶ 37 In January 2023, Dr. Alpert testified he was a board-certified orthopedic surgeon
who primarily treated injuries to the shoulder and knee. He described claimant’s mechanism of
injury as being hit by a pallet jack, causing him to fall on top of a pallet pile. He stated claimant’s
foot got caught in a pallet and he fell onto his right side and hit the right side of his neck on the
pallet. Claimant’s right arm went behind his back, and his chest hit the floor. He agreed with Dr.
Stanley that blunt-force trauma would not cause claimant’s shoulder symptoms. He noted his own
examination showed inconsistent symptoms with rotator cuff tears and the MRI imaging did not
show any recent tears. He did not note any symptom magnification by claimant or malingering.
He had no opinion regarding claimant’s cervical spine or whether his symptoms of numbness or
tingling were shoulder- or cervical-related. He diagnosed claimant as having right shoulder pain
referred from cervical radiculopathy. Regarding whether the referred pain occurred as a result of
the work accident, Dr. Alpert stated, “I just don’t know.” He did not recommend surgical
intervention for either of claimant’s shoulders and stated claimant was at maximum medical
improvement for his shoulder conditions. He stated claimant’s shoulder condition did not inhibit
his ability to perform his full work duties.
¶ 38 Dr. Alpert conceded he was not aware of claimant’s work requirements. He also
conceded repetitious moving and stacking of pallets over a two-year period could aggravate or
accelerate a preexisting degenerative condition of the upper extremities. He agreed, regardless of
the causation of claimant’s injuries, he would be unable to perform the essential functions of his
- 10 - job with employer.
¶ 39 D. Procedural Posture
¶ 40 The arbitrator found claimant to be a credible witness and stated there were no
material contradictions between his testimony and the totality of the evidence that would make
him unreliable. The arbitrator noted the VNA Health Care records mentioned a motor vehicle
accident, but the arbitrator found no indication from any of the medical records or evidence
presented that a motor vehicle accident had ever occurred. The arbitrator noted claimant denied
being involved in a motor vehicle accident and suggested there could have been confusion as to
the forklift being considered a motor vehicle. Regarding any inconsistencies pertaining to
claimant’s mechanism of injury and his explanations to various medical providers, the arbitrator
found them to be insignificant and unintentional. The arbitrator attributed many of the
inconsistencies to claimant’s repeated explanations to several different providers over the years as
to the nature of the accident and the language barrier.
¶ 41 The arbitrator found the totality of the evidence and claimant’s unrebutted
testimony supported a traumatic accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on
October 14, 2019. The arbitrator noted claimant had no injuries involving his neck, back,
shoulders, or head prior to the October 14 accident and suffered no new accidents or injuries since
the accident. The arbitrator found Dr. Ross more credible than Dr. Stanley. The arbitrator noted
Dr. Stanley found claimant’s neck injury to be causally related to the work accident but claimed
the injury no longer existed at the time of his evaluation. The arbitrator noted Dr. Stanley relied
on Dr. Ross’s initial cervical radiculopathy suggestion but noted Dr. Ross later found claimant’s
condition was a spinal cord injury. The arbitrator noted Dr. Alpert did not render an opinion
regarding the causality of claimant’s spinal condition. The arbitrator noted, Dr. Alpert agreed with
- 11 - Dr. Ross’s recommendation for neck surgery. The arbitrator found Dr. Ross’s opinions to be more
persuasive and reliable. The arbitrator concluded claimant’s injuries to his neck, back, shoulders,
face, and chest were causally related to his October 14 work accident.
¶ 42 The arbitrator found claimant was entitled to prospective medical care by Dr. Ross
and again pointed to Dr. Alpert’s testimony. Regarding TTD, the arbitrator found claimant became
temporary and totally disabled on November 4, 2019, when Dr. Patel placed him off work. The
arbitrator noted Dr. Chudnik’s descriptions of the mechanism of injury included errantly stating
claimant had been pinned between two pallets but noted Dr. Chudnik primarily indicated
claimant’s shoulder injuries were the result of falling and bracing himself rather than being pinned
between pallets. The arbitrator noted, Dr. Alpert opined claimant could not perform the essential
functions of his job with employer. The arbitrator concluded claimant had not reached maximum
medical improvement and was entitled to TTD benefits through the date of the hearing.
¶ 43 The Commission modified the arbitrator’s average weekly wage award downward,
noting an errant calculation regarding overtime pay, but otherwise affirmed and adopted the
remainder of the arbitrator’s findings. The circuit court confirmed the Commission’s decision.
¶ 44 This appeal followed.
¶ 45 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 46 On appeal, employer claims the Commission’s (1) ultimate decision, (2) causal
finding, and (3) TTD award were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the
Commission relied on the opinions of a physician who completely misunderstood the mechanism
of injury.
¶ 47 The purpose of the Act is to protect an employee from any risk or hazard which is
peculiar to the nature of the work he is employed to do. Hosteny v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation
- 12 - Comm’n, 397 Ill. App. 3d 665, 674 (2009). To recover compensation under the Act, an employee
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence all elements of his claim, including a causal
connection between the injury and his employment. Boyd Electric v. Dee, 356 Ill. App. 3d 851,
860 (2005). An occupational activity 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). It is the function of the Commission to decide questions of fact, judge
the credibility of witnesses, and resolve conflicts in the evidence. Hosteny, 397 Ill. App 3d at 674.
The resolution of conflicts in medical testimony is also within the province of the Commission.
Sisbro, 207 Ill. 2d at 206. The Commission’s credibility determinations and other factual findings
will not be disturbed on review unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Shafer
v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2011 IL App (4th) 100505WC, ¶¶ 35-36. For a
finding of fact to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, an opposite conclusion must be
clearly apparent. Id. ¶ 35. The appropriate test as to whether the record contains sufficient evidence
to support the Commission’s decision is not whether a reviewing court might reach the same or a
different conclusion. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago v. Illinois
Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1010, 1013 (2011).
¶ 48 Employer concedes claimant was “knocked to the ground while at work” on
October 14, 2019. Employer disputes this was the basis for the Commission’s ultimate
determination. Employer concedes claimant was credible at the hearing. However, employer
argues claimant was not credible when describing his work accident to various evaluating
physicians he visited after the accident. Employer points specifically to claimant’s statement to
Dr. Chudnik that he was crushed between pallets and his statement to Dr. Ross that he was struck
by a loaded forklift traveling 20 miles per hour.
- 13 - ¶ 49 Employer argues the totality of the evidence shows claimant was nudged, which
caused him to lose his balance before falling against a stack of pallets and then to the ground.
Employer notes this is consistent with his statements given to Saint Joseph Hospital immediately
following the accident. Employer contends the Commission erroneously cited claimant’s language
barrier as an explanation for his inconsistent statements to treating physicians. Employer notes the
medical records do not indicate any communication barriers between medical providers and
claimant. Employer argues claimant consistently escalated the nature of his work accident to
subsequent providers following the initial work accident.
¶ 50 While we recognize the medical records show various discrepancies in the nature
of claimant’s work accident, there is no dispute, even from employer on appeal, that one occurred.
Dr. Chudnik, for example, may have reported that claimant was initially pinned between two
pallets, but he also noted claimant eventually fell. As the Commission properly noted, Dr.
Chudnik’s assessment findings were primarily based on claimant falling. Dr. Ross’s testimony
explained the exact mechanism of claimant’s injury was not necessary to determine the nature and
extent of his injuries. Furthermore, we find it eminently plausible that claimant’s language barrier
could have accounted for some of the discrepancies regarding the exact mechanism of the injury.
It was abundantly clear from the hearing testimony that the attorneys took great care during direct
and cross-examination to elicit from claimant his testimony regarding the details of his accident.
¶ 51 On appeal, employer, as the appellant, carries the burden of showing the
Commission erred. ABF Freight System v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2015 IL App
(1st) 141306WC, ¶ 19. “It is not our role to reweigh evidence and substitute our judgment for that
of the Commission.” Id. Employer’s arguments regarding discrepancies in the mechanism of injury
precisely ask this court to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the
- 14 - Commission. Employer correctly notes the Commission’s decision must be supported by the
record and not based on speculation or conjecture. See Sisbro, 207 Ill. 2d at 215. The record and
hearing testimony in this case adequately support the conclusion claimant fell while at work and
as a result suffered injuries to his head, neck, back, and shoulders. Accordingly, we disagree with
employer’s arguments that discrepancies in the mechanism of injury undermine the credibility
determinations and weight of the evidence afforded by the Commission.
¶ 52 Employer next argues the Commission erred when finding claimant’s injuries were
causally related to his work accident.
¶ 53 Whether a causal relationship exists between a claimant’s employment and his
condition of ill-being is a question of fact. Certi-Serve, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 101 Ill. 2d 236,
244 (1984). 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). This is especially true with respect to medical issues, wherein
we grant substantial deference to the Commission because of the expertise it possesses in the
medical arena. Long v. Industrial Comm’n, 76 Ill. 2d 561, 566 (1979). We will not reverse the
Commission’s decision unless its findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Durand
v. Industrial Comm’n, 224 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2006). “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. When the evidence is sufficient to
support the Commission’s causation finding, we must affirm. Pietrzak v. Industrial Comm’n, 329
Ill. App. 3d 828, 833 (2002).
¶ 54 Employer again points to various discrepancies in the medical records regarding
claimant’s mechanism of injury. Employer contends the Commission erred when finding Dr. Ross
- 15 - more credible than Dr. Stanley. Employer argues Dr. Ross’s opinions were influenced by
claimant’s exaggerations of the nature of his work accident. Employer also contends the
Commission errantly dismissed Dr. Stanley’s opinions without providing an adequate basis for
doing so.
¶ 55 As we noted earlier, it is not the role of a reviewing court to substitute its judgment
for that of the Commission simply because an alternative inference from the evidence could be
reached. The evidence from this record shows claimant was working on October 14, 2019, when
he suffered an accident. This is not in dispute. The record also shows claimant had no injuries or
complaints to his head, neck, shoulders, or back prior to the work accident. Furthermore, no new
injuries or accidents to claimant’s head, neck, shoulders, or back occurred after the work accident.
Numerous physicians opined as to the cause of claimant’s condition of ill-being. The Commission
found Dr. Ross to be more credible. Dr. Ross did not need to know the exact mechanism of
claimant’s accidental injury to determine the cause of his complaints. The Commission found Dr.
Stanley’s testimony was not credible. While Dr. Stanley did not dispute a work accident, he stated
claimant was no longer suffering from his accidental injury at the time he had evaluated claimant.
Additionally, Dr. Ross’s and Dr. Alpert’s testimonies contradicted Dr. Stanley’s opinion
claimant’s pain was nonorganic. Accordingly, we find the Commission’s decision finding
claimant’s condition of ill-being was causally related to his work accident was not against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 56 Lastly, employer points to its previous contentions regarding the Commission’s
misunderstanding of claimant’s mechanism of injury to argue its award of TTD was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. However, employer’s arguments misconstrue Dr. Ross’s
testimony. Dr. Ross testified he was not able to provide a complete diagnosis of claimant when he
- 16 - originally evaluated him in December 2019 because claimant’s shoulder pain had caused him to
be guarded. Dr. Ross later evaluated claimant and determined claimant’s complaints were related
to myelopathy due to disk herniations putting pressure on his spinal cord. The award of TTD and
prospective medical care were due to these spinal injuries, not because of radiculopathy or a
brachial plexus injury, which Dr. Ross determined were not the cause of claimant’s pain.
Accordingly, the Commission’s TTD award and prospective medical care were not against the
¶ 57 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 58 For the reasons stated, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment confirming the
decision of the Commission.
¶ 59 Affirmed.
- 17 -