Young v. Industrial Commission

619 N.E.2d 773, 248 Ill. App. 3d 876, 189 Ill. Dec. 72, 1993 Ill. App. LEXIS 1215
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedAugust 6, 1993
Docket3 — 92—0783WC
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 619 N.E.2d 773 (Young 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
Young v. Industrial Commission, 619 N.E.2d 773, 248 Ill. App. 3d 876, 189 Ill. Dec. 72, 1993 Ill. App. LEXIS 1215 (Ill. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

JUSTICE RARICK

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant, Roger Young, sought benefits pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 138.8 et seq.) (the Act) for a work-related hearing loss. Young was employed by Caterpillar Tractor Co. as a welder. The parties stipulated to all of the evidence, including the fact that this was a hearing-loss case and that Young’s hearing loss was causally related to his employment. The parties also stipulated that the only issues were the nature and extent of Young’s hearing loss and the proper application of the formula for determining hearing loss. Also introduced into evidence by stipulation were various audiograms.

An audiogram taken by Caterpillar on May 11, 1967, disclosed the following hearing loss in the left ear: 10 decibels at 1,000 HZ; 10 decibels at 2,000 HZ; and 20 decibels at 3,000 HZ. In the right ear, the losses shown were: 5 decibels at 1,000 HZ; 10 decibels at 2,000 HZ; and 25 decibels at 3,000 HZ.

An audiogram by respondent on June 4, 1979, disclosed the following hearing loss in the left ear: 15 decibels at 1,000 HZ; 20 decibels at 2,000 HZ; and 55 decibels at 3,000 HZ. In the right ear the losses shown were: 10 decibels at 1,000 HZ; 10 decibels at 2,000 HZ; and 50 decibels at 3,000 HZ.

Other audiograms of Young’s hearing taken at work on June 26, 1984, September 10, 1985, and November 17, 1986, showed continued deterioration of his hearing, especially at upper frequencies.

On September 14, 1987, an audiogram was taken at Young’s request by Joliet Audio Vestibular Laboratories. This audiogram disclosed the following hearing loss in the left ear: 20 decibels at 1,000 HZ; 40 decibels at 2,000 HZ; and 65 decibels at 3,000 HZ. The hearing loss in the right ear was: 20 decibels at 1,000 HZ; 25 decibels at 2,000 HZ; and 60 decibels at 3,000 HZ.

Another audiogram was taken by Joliet Audio Vestibular Laboratories on June 1, 1989. The results indicated the following hearing loss in the left ear: 25 decibels at 1,000 HZ; 40 decibels at 2,000 HZ; and 70 decibels at 3,000 HZ. In the right ear the losses were: 25 decibels at 1,000 HZ; 20 decibels at 2,000 HZ; and 60 decibels at 3,000 HZ.

The arbitrator determined that Young had sustained a hearing loss of 9.1% in the right ear and 27.3% in the left ear, based on the June 6, 1989, audiogram. The arbitrator also ruled that the only audiogram prior to 1975, which was taken on May 11, 1967, disclosed no hearing loss for which Caterpillar Tractor would be entitled to credit. The credit to which the arbitrator referred arises because of a provision in the Act which provides that an employer will not be liable for any hearing loss occurring prior to July 1, 1975.

On review before the Industrial Commission (the Commission), Caterpillar Tractor argued that it was entitled to credit for any pre1975 hearing loss, regardless of whether such loss would have been compensable under the Act. Young maintained that Caterpillar would be entitled to credit for any pre-1975 hearing loss only if such loss would have been compensable under the Act. The Commission agreed with Caterpillar, reasoning that section 8(d)(16)(d) of the Act did not include the term “compensable.” The Commission determined .that Young had sustained a 3.09% compensable hearing loss in his left ear, and no compensable hearing loss in his right ear.

The circuit court confirmed the decision of the Commission, finding the rules of the Industrial Commission and the statute were correctly applied, and that the Commission’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

On appeal, Young argues that the Commission erred in determining that Caterpillar was entitled to credit for any hearing loss Young suffered prior to July 1, 1975. Specifically, Young maintains that Caterpillar is entitled to credit only for compensable hearing loss occurring prior to July 1, 1975.

Section (8)(d)(16) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 138.8(d)(16)) provides in pertinent part:

“For the permanent partial loss of use of a member or sight of an eye, or hearing of an ear, compensation during that proportion of the number of weeks in the foregoing schedule provided for the loss of such member or sight of an eye, or hearing of an ear, which the partial loss of use thereof bears to the total loss of use of such member, or sight or eye, or hearing an ear.
(a) Loss of hearing for compensation purposes shall be confined to the frequencies of 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 cycles per second. Loss of hearing ability for frequency tones above 3,000 cycles per second are not to be considered as constituting disability for hearing.
(b) The percent of hearing loss, for purposes of the determination of compensation claims for occupational deafness, shall be calculated as the average in decibels for the thresholds of hearing for the frequencies of 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 cycles per second. Pure tone air conduction audiometric instruments, approved by nationally recognized authorities in this field, shall be used for measuring hearing loss. If the losses of hearing average 30 decibels or less in the 8 frequencies, such losses of hearing shall not then constitute any compensable hearing disability. If the losses of hearing average 85 decibels or more in the 3 frequencies, then the same shall constitute and be total or 100 percent compensable hearing loss.
(c) In measuring hearing impairment, the lowest measured losses in each of the 3 frequencies shall be added together and divided by 3 to determine the average decibel loss. For every decibel of loss exceeding 30 decibels an allowance of 1.82% shall be made up to the maximum of 100 percent which is reached at 85 decibels.
(d) If a hearing loss is established to have existed on July 1, 1975 by audiometric testing the employer shall not be liable for the previous loss so established nor shall be liable for any loss for which compensation has been paid or awarded.” (Emphasis added.)

Sections 7130.20 and 7130.30 of the Industrial Commission rules provide in pertinent part:

“(a) The Industrial Commission shall use the following rebuttable presumptions to determine percentage loss of hearing in cases where the hearing loss was caused by exposure between July 1, 1975, and September 15, 1980:
The percentage loss of hearing shall be calculated using the average, in decibels, of the thresholds of hearing for the frequencies of one thousand, two thousand and three thousand cycles per second. If such losses of hearing average thirty decibels American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or less in the three frequencies, such losses of hearing shall not constitute any hearing disability. If the losses of hearing average eighty-five decibels (ANSI) or more in the three frequencies, such losses of hearing shall constitute total loss of
hearing. Every average decibel loss exceeding thirty decibels (ANSI) shall constitute 1.82 percent of loss of hearing.

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

Related

S&H Floor Covering, Inc. v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission
870 N.E.2d 821 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2007)
In re Application of the County Treasurer
835 N.E.2d 175 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2005)
John Deere Harvester Works v. Industrial Commission
629 N.E.2d 834 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
619 N.E.2d 773, 248 Ill. App. 3d 876, 189 Ill. Dec. 72, 1993 Ill. App. LEXIS 1215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-industrial-commission-illappct-1993.