Illinois Cases August 04, 2023: Durable Packaging v. The Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

Case Description

1

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. Nos. 21 L 50497, 21L 50498 Honorable Daniel P. Duffy, Judge, Presiding.

BARBERIS, JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justices Hoffman, Mullen, and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

BARBERIS, JUSTICE

2

¶ 1 Held: We affirm the circuit court's order confirming the decisions of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission where the Commission's findings on the issues of accident and causal connection were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 Employer, Durable Packaging, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County, which confirmed the decisions of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) awarding claimant, Rosalba Soto, benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq . (West 2012)) for two separate injuries she sustained while working for employer. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. Background

¶ 4 Claimant filed an application for adjustment of claim, alleging that she sustained an injury to her right arm and shoulder while working for employer on January 11, 2013 (13 WC 11146). Claimant subsequently filed an amended application, alleging that her injury occurred on February 11, 2013. Claimant later filed a separate application, alleging that she sustained a second injury while working for employer on June 17, 2014 (14 WC 29673). The arbitrator consolidated the claims for hearing on October 25, 2019. The following factual recitation was taken from the evidence adduced at the hearing.

¶ 5 Claimant testified that she worked for employer, a company that manufactures aluminum trays and pans, for several months prior to her first injury. Her job duties required her to "receive," label, and box the trays and pans. Claimant's job required her to lift 10 to 15 pounds, although the individual trays and pans weighed less than one ounce each.

¶ 6 Claimant testified that she sustained an injury to her right arm and neck at work on February 11, 2013,

3

when boxes filled with trays fell off a skid from a height of five or six feet and struck her right arm. As the boxes fell, claimant moved her neck to the left and attempted to stop more boxes from falling with her left hand. Claimant felt immediate numbness and tingling in her right arm and hand. Claimant could not recall how much the boxes weighed. Surveillance video of the February 11, 2013, accident was admitted into evidence at the hearing.

¶ 7 Claimant testified that she promptly reported the accident to employer and signed an accident report on February 11, 2013. Claimant provided a consistent history of the accident in the report. An accompanying supervisor's report indicated that improperly stacked boxes fell off a skid and struck claimant. Claimant testified that her supervisor provided ice for her arm and assigned her to a different work area for the remainder of her shift. Claimant continued to experience pain in her right arm and neck after she completed her shift.

¶ 8 Claimant sought treatment for her injury at Marque Medicos where chiropractor Dr. Fernando Perez saw her on February 12, 2013. Claimant's medical records indicated that she was in her mid-thirties when she sustained the injury. Claimant complained of neck, bilateral shoulder, and right wrist pain. Claimant provided a consistent history of the February 11, 2013, work accident. Claimant advised that she sustained a prior neck and back injury during a motor vehicle collision in 2011 but claimed she worked without any physical difficulties prior to February 11, 2013. Claimant advised that she received medical treatment following the motor vehicle collision but was discharged and returned to her normal activity level. Dr. Perez diagnosed claimant with cervical, shoulder, and right wrist pain. Dr. Perez opined that claimant's injury, and resulting

4

condition, directly related to the work injury she sustained on February 11, 2013. Dr. Perez placed claimant off work and referred her to Dr. Andrew Engel for pain management.

¶ 9 Claimant presented for an appointment at Medicos Pain &Surgical Specialists with Dr. Engel on February 13, 2013. Dr. Engel noted that claimant worked full duty without pain prior to February 11, 2013, despite a prior history of neck pain following a motor vehicle collision. Dr. Engel diagnosed claimant with shoulder pain, cervicalgia, and wrist pain, all of which he attributed to claimant's February 11, 2013, work accident. Dr. Engel placed claimant off work. Dr. Engel also prescribed a course of physical therapy and medication. Claimant began physical therapy on February 15, 2013.

¶ 10 Claimant underwent X-rays of her cervical spine, right hand, and right shoulder on February 18, 2013. The right shoulder X-ray revealed unremarkable soft tissue structures with no fractures, dislocations, or joint pathology. The cervical X-ray revealed flattening of the cervical lordosis and the right-hand X-ray revealed a small cyst.

¶ 11 At a follow-up appointment on March 6, 2013, Dr. Engel discontinued physical therapy for claimant's right shoulder and recommended physical therapy for her cervical spine. Claimant began the recommended course of physical therapy on March 15, 2013.

¶ 12 Claimant presented for an independent medical examination (IME) with Dr. Prasant Atluri at employer's request on March 7, 2013. Claimant provided a consistent history of the February 11, 2013, work accident, and complained of right arm and neck pain. Claimant also reported numbness and tingling radiating from her shoulder down to her hand. Dr. Atluri examined claimant's right upper extremity and found her pain responses inconsistent, which suggested symptom magnification. Dr. Atluri reviewed the surveillance video of the work accident. Dr. Atluri noted that a large stack of boxes fell and appeared to "glance" off claimant's right upper extremity

5

with no signs of direct impact other than claimant holding her right shoulder. Dr. Atluri diagnosed claimant with right upper extremity pain of an unclear etiology. Dr. Atluri opined that claimant's complaints were inconsistent with a mechanical pathology of her right upper extremity, but he could not exclude a cervical etiology for her condition. Dr. Atluri indicated that he would defer to a cervical spine specialist's determination of whether claimant suffered from a cervical spine condition and whether such condition related to the work injury claimant described. Dr. Atluri recommended an evaluation by a cervical spine specialist without an opinion on whether such evaluation related to any work injury. Dr. Atluri opined that claimant did not suffer from a work-related upper extremity condition that required further treatment.

¶ 13 Claimant presented for a second IME with Dr. Gunnar Andersson at employer's request on March 28, 2013. Claimant provided a consistent history of the February 11, 2013, work accident, and complained of right shoulder pain that radiated into her right arm. Claimant also complained of numbness in her right arm. Dr. Andersson did not find any positive nonorganic physical signs upon examination. He believed claimant's history regarding the mechanism of her injury was inconsistent with the surveillance video depicting the February 11, 2013, work injury. In Dr. Andersson's view, the surveillance video did not show boxes striking claimant or show claimant trying to deflect falling boxes. Dr. Andersson found nothing to suggest claimant suffered an injury to her neck or shoulder and found that claimant's symptoms did not indicate a severe underlying issue. Dr. Andersson concluded that claimant's neck and shoulder pain was unrelated to the February 11, 2013, work accident and that she could safely return to work.

¶ 14 Claimant underwent a right shoulder MRI on April 13, 2013, which yielded unremarkable results. Dr. Engel agreed the MRI was unremarkable when he reviewed the imaging on April 17, 2013. Dr. Engel noted that claimant reported neck pain radiating to her right shoulder with

6

weakness, which indicated a potential cervical radiculopathy. Claimant underwent a cervical MRI at Dr. Engel's recommendation on April 29, 2013. The cervical MRI revealed minimal to mild cervical spondylosis most pronounced at C6-C7 with a small central disc protrusion at C5-C6, a small broad-based central disc protrusion at C6-C7, borderline spinal stenosis at C6-C7 with no significant cervical neural foraminal stenosis and straightening of the normal cervical lordosis possibly due to muscle spasm.

¶ 15 At a follow-up appointment on May 2, 2013, Dr. Engel opined that claimant suffered from a contained disc herniation, which caused central stenosis and deformation of the thecal sac. Dr. Engel observed that claimant exhibited shoulder weakness. Claimant underwent an EMG/NCV on May 10, 2013, which yielded normal results.

¶ 16 On May 23, 2013, shortly after claimant began physical therapy for her right wrist, she returned to Dr. Engel for a follow-up appointment. Dr. Engel agreed with Dr. Andersson's conclusion that claimant suffered from no underlying problem that caused her pain, but Dr. Engel believed the work accident likely caused claimant's issues. Dr. Engel requested the surveillance video to confirm his opinion on causation.

¶ 17 Claimant underwent right C4, C5, and C6 medial branch blocks on June 13, 2013. At a follow-up appointment on June 19, 2013, Dr. Engel opined that the C6-C7 herniation caused claimant's pain. Dr. Engel referred claimant to Dr. Robert Erickson, a neurosurgeon.

¶ 18 On July 3, 2013, claimant underwent additional testing which revealed evidence of right C6 and right C7 dermatomal conduction delays. The same day, claimant presented to Dr. Erickson, who noted that the testing indicated right-sided abnormalities of a mild degree at both C6 and C7. Dr. Erickson diagnosed claimant with cervical radiculopathy at C6 and C7 due to disc disease from C5 to C7. Dr. Erickson recommended a course of physical therapy with cervical traction, which

7

claimant began on July 18, 2013.

¶ 19 Dr. Erickson reviewed claimant's MRI scans on August 21, 2013, and noted a small herniation at C5-C6 with a slightly larger herniation at C6-C7. Dr. Erickson also noted that claimant improved with physical therapy and could possibly avoid surgery. Dr. Erickson directed claimant to remain off work.

¶ 20 At a follow-up appointment with Dr. Engel on October 3, 2013, claimant reported neck pain that radiated to her right shoulder and right wrist. Dr. Engel directed claimant to remain off work and prescribed her medication. Claimant discontinued treatment with Dr. Engel on December 11, 2013, after Dr. Engel left Medicos Pain &Surgical Specialists. Dr. Perez referred claimant to Dr. Suneela Harsoor, a pain management specialist.

¶ 21 Claimant presented for a consultation with Dr. Harsoor on December 12, 2013. Claimant provided Dr. Harsoor with a consistent history of the February 11, 2013, work injury. Dr. Harsoor diagnosed claimant with a cervical disc herniation and wrist joint pain. Dr. Harsoor recommended a cervical epidural steroid injection and medication. Dr. Harsoor directed claimant to remain off work.

¶ 22 Claimant next presented for an appointment at Northside Neurosurgery with Dr. Leonard Kranzler, who saw Dr. Erickson's patients on January 8, 2014, due to Dr. Erickson's illness. Claimant reported ongoing neck pain that radiated down her right arm with numbness and tingling, as well as headaches. Dr. Kranzler recommended Holter Cervical Traction at home and prescribed medication. Dr. Kranzler directed claimant to remain off work.

¶ 23 Claimant underwent a cervical epidural injection on February 14, 2014, but reported worsening pain at a follow-up appointment with Dr. Kranzler on February 19, 2014. Dr. Kranzler noted that claimant's MRI and additional testing results were mildly abnormal. Dr. Kranzler

8

directed claimant to continue using the Holter Cervical Traction. He also placed her on light-duty work restrictions of no lifting greater than six to eight pounds and no bending.

¶ 24 When claimant returned to Dr. Harsoor on April 11, 2014, Dr. Harsoor diagnosed claimant with a cervical disc herniation and discogenic pain. Dr. Harsoor did not recommend additional cervical epidural injections and directed claimant to remain off work. However, at a follow-up appointment on May 30, 2014, Dr. Harsoor released claimant to work light duty with a five-pound lifting restriction.

¶ 25 Claimant testified that she returned to work following Dr. Harsoor's release, but she continued to experience right arm pain, neck pain, and had difficulty lifting items. Claimant testified that she sustained a second injury at work on June 17, 2014. Claimant explained that she was cleaning the floor in front of a skid loaded with aluminum trays when she noticed trays moving toward the front of the skid. She turned her head to the left and squished down as a stack of trays came down toward her. Claimant estimated that the stack was comprised of 20 trays, weighing a couple ounces each. Claimant experienced strong pain on the back of her neck when she moved her face to the left and squished down to avoid the falling trays, which struck her right arm and shoulder. Claimant notified her supervisor of the incident, and he advised that he would fill out a report. Claimant attempted to complete her shift but left shortly after the incident. Claimant testified that she did not return to work for employer after June 17, 2014.

¶ 26 Claimant's supervisor, Marcos Canales, testified that claimant advised him of the trays falling on her on June 17, 2014. Canales claimed the types of trays that fell on claimant were small and lightweight, weighing a quarter of an ounce each. Canales observed a small red mark on claimant's forehead when she reported the incident. Canales did not fill out an accident report at that time because he did not believe claimant sustained an injury, but he completed a report on

9

August 19, 2014, after learning claimant sustained an injury.

¶ 27 Claimant returned to Dr. Harsoor on July 18, 2014, and reported that trays fell on her head and right shoulder three weeks earlier, which caused worsening pain and stiffness in her neck and shoulder. Dr. Harsoor diagnosed claimant with a cervical herniated disc, discogenic pain, and myofascial pain. Dr. Harsoor administered cervical trigger point injections and released claimant to light-duty work with a 10-pound lifting restriction. Despite this, claimant testified that her pain prevented her from returning to light-duty work.

¶ 28 Claimant returned to Dr. Perez on August 7, 2014, with complaints of neck and upper midback pain, which reportedly began after a stack of trays fell on her on June 17, 2014. Dr. Perez opined that claimant's cervical and thoracic pain directly related to her June 17, 2014, work injury. Dr. Perez recommended a course of physical therapy and referred claimant to a pain management specialist. Claimant began physical therapy for her cervical spine on August 8, 2014.

¶ 29 Claimant underwent additional testing on August 13, 2014, which revealed significant bilateral C6 and C7 dermatomal conduction delays. Cervical X-rays taken on August 15, 2014, revealed biomechanical alterations that indicated a muscle spasm or soft tissue injury with no evidence of fracture, dislocation, osseous, or joint pathology. The X-rays further revealed a reversal of cervical lordosis with an anterior translation of the head. A thoracic spine X-ray revealed degenerative disc disease.

¶ 30 Claimant returned to Dr. Harsoor on October 3, 2014, with complaints of radiating right shoulder pain following the June 17, 2014, work accident. Dr. Harsoor diagnosed claimant with a shoulder injury from the June 17, 2014, accident, and a cervical disc herniation, discogenic pain, and myofascial pain from the February 11, 2013, accident. Dr. Harsoor placed claimant off work to recover from her shoulder injury and provided an orthopedic referral. Dr. Harsoor also

10

prescribed claimant medication. Claimant began physical therapy for her cervical spine on October 8, 2014.

¶ 31 Claimant underwent additional testing on October 22, 2014, which again revealed significant bilateral delays at C6 and C7. The same day, Dr. Erickson ordered a repeat cervical MRI, refilled claimant's medications, and directed claimant to remain off work.

¶ 32 Claimant returned to Dr. Harsoor on November 7, 2014, with complaints of right shoulder and neck pain that radiated to her right fingers with numbness and tingling. Dr. Harsoor directed claimant to remain off work and recommended a right shoulder MRI, as well as a second cervical injection.

¶ 33 After additional testing of claimant's upper extremities revealed the same findings on December 3, 2014, Dr. Erickson opined that claimant was a good candidate for an anterior discectomy and fusion at C5-C6. Claimant underwent a cervical MRI on December 10, 2014, which revealed extensive spondylotic changes with numerous protrusions and disc-osteophyte complexes, as well as moderate central canal stenosis at C6-C7.

¶ 34 At a follow-up appointment with Dr. Erickson on January 28, 2015, claimant reported neck pain and paresthesia radiating to her fingers on the right hand and the upper left arm. Dr. Erickson's most important neurological examination finding was diminished grip on claimant's right side. Dr. Erickson opined that claimant required an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion from C5 to C7 as a result of her June 17, 2014, injury. Claimant testified that she did not undergo the recommended surgery because her insurance did not approve the surgery.

¶ 35 At a follow-up appointment with Dr. Harsoor on February 13, 2015, Dr. Harsoor noted that claimant was scheduled to undergo the recommended surgery. Dr. Harsoor directed claimant to remain off work.

11

¶ 36 Over seven months later, on September 24, 2015, Dr. Perez authored a note indicating that claimant was discharged from further treatment at Marque Medicos because she stopped treatment for her work injuries at the facility. Dr. Perez again authored a discharge note on December 10, 2015, stating that the facility offered no further treatment to claimant.

¶ 37 Several years later, on March 22, 2018, claimant presented for a third IME with Dr. Frank Phillips. Claimant provided a consistent history of her February 11, 2013, work injury. Dr. Phillips noted that claimant did not provide a history of the June 17, 2014, work accident. Claimant complained of right arm and neck pain. Dr. Phillips found no evidence of a specific structural cervical injury and no objective findings to support claimant's subjective complaints. Dr. Phillips opined that claimant's cervical MRI from April 29, 2013, revealed no acute pathology or neural compression and her EMG showed no cervical radiculopathy. Accordingly, Dr. Phillips opined that claimant had no cervical diagnosis as a result of the alleged February 11, 2013, work injury. Assuming claimant suffered an injury as described, Dr. Phillips agreed that claimant could have suffered a cervical strain or sprain but claimed she would have long since reached maximum medical improvement for such condition. Dr. Phillips opined that a few months of cervical physical therapy would have been reasonable to treat claimant's neck pain following any injury. Dr. Phillips opined that claimant lacked any current cervical diagnosis related to either the February 11, 2013, or June 17, 2014, work accidents. Dr. Phillips concluded that claimant's subjective cervical complaints were not causally related to either accident, given the absence of any structural spine injury. Dr. Phillips noted, however, that he observed no clear evidence of symptom magnification or nonorganic pain signs.

¶ 38 Claimant testified that she never fully recovered from the work accidents. She lacked the ability to lift heavy objects due to the pain in her right arm and neck at the time of the hearing.

12

Claimant used her left hand more often, due to experiencing pain from lifting everyday objects with her right hand. Claimant also used her left arm to carry her children but experienced neck pain and tingling when lifting them. Claimant explained that she was able to take care of her five youngest children with the help of her eldest daughter.

¶ 39 Claimant denied working since she worked for employer. Claimant explained that the jobs she applied for require lifting more than 10 pounds. Claimant believed she could not perform such jobs without feeling pain all day long. Claimant denied that she did not return to work because she had to care for her children. Claimant stopped receiving medical treatment for the pain in February 2015 because she did not have insurance. Claimant did not have the recommended surgery because it was not authorized by insurance.

¶ 40 On February 4, 2021, the arbitrator issued written decisions, finding that claimant failed to prove she suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment with employer on either February 11, 2013, or June 17, 2014. The arbitrator also found that claimant failed to prove her current condition of ill-being was causally related to either of the alleged accidental work accidents. Accordingly, the arbitrator denied claimant benefits under the Act for both claims. Claimant filed petitions for review of the arbitrator's decisions before the Commission.

¶ 41 On October 25, 2021, the Commission issued two separate written decisions for each claim. Regarding claim 13 WC 11146, the Commission reversed the arbitrator's decision and found that claimant proved a compensable accident arising out of and in the course of claimant's employment occurred on February 11, 2013. The Commission found claimant's testimony regarding the incident credible. The Commission also found the surveillance video corroborated claimant's testimony, where it showed boxes making contact with claimant and claimant holding her right shoulder after the boxes fell on her. The Commission additionally found that claimant's prompt

13

report of the injury to employer and the consistent history of the injury claimant provided to treatment providers following the accident supported a determination that an accident occurred on February 11, 2013.

¶ 42 The Commission further found that claimant proved a causal connection between her right upper extremity and cervical spine conditions and "the February 11, 2013, accident through June 16, 2014, as [claimant] sustained a second intervening accident the next day." In so finding, the Commission acknowledged claimant's prior motor vehicle collision injury from 2011 but found claimant was discharged from care and returned to her normal level of activity prior to the February 11, 2013, work accident. The Commission found that nothing in the treatment records suggested claimant's current condition was attributable to her prior motor vehicle collision. The Commission also relied on the medical opinions of Drs. Perez and Engel, who both found claimant's cervical and shoulder pain directly related to her work accident. The Commission further noted that Dr. Phillips conceded claimant could have sustained a cervical strain or sprain on February 11, 2013. The Commission noted that the medical opinions of Drs. Perez and Engel were supported by the objective findings on claimant's cervical MRI, which showed spondylosis at C6-C7 with a central disc protrusion at C5-C6 and a small broad-based central disc protrusion at C6-C7, and borderline spinal stenosis at C6-C7. The Commission concluded that "[s]uch evidence of objective pathology, combined with the fact that [claimant] had been asymptomatic and working full duty up until the accident, warrants a causal finding." Thus, the Commission awarded claimant temporary total disability (TTD) benefits in the amount of $330 per week from February 12, 2013, through May 30, 2014. The Commission additionally awarded claimant reasonable and necessary medical expenses relating to the February 11, 2013, work injury.

14

¶ 43 Regarding claim 14 WC 29673, the Commission reversed the arbitrator's decision and found that claimant proved a compensable accident arising out of and in the course of her employment on June 17, 2014. The Commission found claimant's testimony regarding the June 17, 2014, accident credible and noted that she promptly notified her supervisor of the incident. The Commission also noted that claimant provided a consistent history of the accident to treatment providers, as well as worsening pain. The Commission further noted that claimant continued working because she believed the pain would dissipate on its own, but it did not. The Commission found that claimant sought medical treatment after the pain persisted and that she never returned to work for employer after sustaining the injury on June 17, 2014, which indicated that her conditioned worsened.

¶ 44 The Commission additionally found that claimant's right upper extremity and cervical spine conditions were causally related to the June 17, 2014, work accident through her last date of treatment on February 13, 2015. In so finding, the Commission relied on the medical opinions of Drs. Perez and Erickson, both of whom opined that claimant's cervical pain was directly related to the June 17, 2014, work accident. The Commission did not find the medical opinion of Dr. Phillips persuasive, given his notation that claimant did not provide a history of the June 17, 2014, work accident during the examination. The Commission further noted that Dr. Phillips' opinion was weakened by the objective findings revealed on claimant's cervical MRI from December 10, 2014. Considering that claimant was unable to work light duty and was given a surgical recommendation after the June 17, 2014, work accident, the Commission found that claimant proved causation for her right upper extremity and cervical conditions but that the causal relationship ceased on February 13, 2015, after she stopped treatment. Thus, the Commission awarded claimant TTD benefits in the amount of $330 per week from August 7, 2014, through

15

February 13, 2015. The Commission also awarded claimant all reasonable and necessary benefits relating to the June 17, 2014, work injury. Lastly, the Commission awarded claimant permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits in the amount of $330 per week for 62.5 weeks for a loss of 12.5% of the person as a whole, representing 7.5% for the cervical injury and 5% for the right shoulder injury.

¶ 45 On November 9, 2021, employer sought judicial review of the Commission's decisions before the circuit court. The court consolidated the decisions for review. The court entered a written order on December 21, 2022, confirming the Commission's decisions. Employer filed a timely notice of appeal.

¶ 46 II. Analysis

¶ 47 Employer raises three arguments on appeal. First, employer argues that the Commission's findings of a causal connection between claimant's current condition of ill-being and the alleged February 11, 2013, and June 17, 2014, work accidents were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Second, employer argues that the Commission's findings that claimant sustained accidental injuries that arose out of and in the course of her employment on February 11, 2013, and June 17, 2014, were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Third, employer argues that the Commission's awards of medical expenses, TTD benefits, and PPD benefits were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We begin by addressing employer's second argument.

¶ 48 A. Accidents

¶ 49 Employer argues that the Commission's findings on the issue of accident were against the manifest weight of the evidence, where the evidence failed to show claimant sustained accidental injuries on either February 11, 2013, or June 17, 2014. We disagree.

16

¶ 50 "To obtain compensation under the Act, a claimant bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has suffered a disabling injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment." Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Comm 'n , 207 Ill.2d 193, 203 (2003). An injury arises "in the course of employment" when the injury occurs within the time and space boundaries of the employment. Sisbro , 207 Ill.2d at 203. "The 'arising out of component is primarily concerned with causal connection" and is established when a claimant shows "that the injury had its origin in some risk connected with, or incidental to, the employment so as to create a causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury." Id .

¶ 51 The issue of whether a claimant's injury arises out of and in the course of employment is a question of fact to be decided by the Commission, and this court will not overturn the Commission's finding unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n , 407 Ill.App.3d 1010, 1013 (2011). "In resolving questions of fact, it is within the province of the Commission to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in the evidence, assign weight to be accorded the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence." Hosteny v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm 'n , 397 Ill.App.3d 665, 674 (2009). "A finding of fact is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only where an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent." Metropolitan , 407 Ill.App.3d at 1013. "The appropriate test is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commission's finding, not whether this court might have reached the same conclusion." Id.

¶ 52 Here, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commission's finding that claimant proved she sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment on February 11, 2013. Although claimant suffered from a prior neck injury following

17

a motor vehicle collision in 2011, the evidence demonstrated that claimant fully recovered from the injury and returned to her normal activity level. It is undisputed that claimant worked for employer without issue prior to February 11, 2013. In fact, Dr. Engel noted that claimant worked full duty without pain prior to February 11, 2013. Claimant testified that she experienced immediate pain after the boxes fell on her right arm on February 11, 2013, and she promptly reported the incident to employer. Moreover, the Commission found the surveillance video corroborated claimant's testimony regarding the February 11, 2013, accident. While the video was not included in the record on appeal, both the Commission and Dr. Atluri found that the video depicted the boxes making some degree of contact with claimant's right arm and claimant holding her right shoulder after the boxes fell. Claimant's medical records and employer's accident report document a consistent history of the accident. Claimant sought consistent medical treatment following the February 11, 2013, work accident, and reported consistent complaints of right arm, shoulder, and neck pain. The Commission found claimant's testimony regarding the February 11, 2013, accident credible because it was supported by the medical records and surveillance video. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent.

¶ 53 There is also sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commission's finding that claimant proved she sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment on June 17, 2014. Claimant testified that she sustained a second accidental injury on June 17, 2014, after she returned to work following the February 11, 2013, accident. Claimant notified employer of the second accident, and her supervisor observed a red mark on her forehead following the accident. Claimant's supervisor did not initially complete an accident report but eventually completed a report in August 2014. Claimant testified that her pain worsened following the June 17, 2014, work accident. Claimant's medical records document a consistent history of the

18

June 17, 2014, work accident, along with claimant's worsening pain following the accident. The Commission found claimant's testimony regarding the June 17, 2014, accident credible because it was supported by the medical records. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent.

¶ 54 Thus, there was evidence supporting the Commission's findings on the issue of accident. Accordingly, the Commission's decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 55 B. Causal Connection

¶ 56 Employer argues that the Commission's findings on the issue of causal connection were against the manifest weight of the evidence, where the Commission relied on a mechanism of injury that was unsupported by any expert opinion and its decision was not based on objective medical evidence. We disagree.

¶ 57 "A chain of events which demonstrates a previous condition of good health, an accident, and a subsequent injury resulting in disability may be sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove a causal nexus between the accident and the employee's injury." International Harvester v. Industrial Comm'n , 93 Ill.2d 59, 63-64 (1982). A claimant is not required to present medical testimony to prove that an accident caused a claimant's condition of ill-being. International Harvester , 93 Ill.2d at 63. "[A] claimant's testimony, standing alone, may support an award where all of the facts and circumstances do not preponderate in favor of the opposite conclusion." Seiber v. Industrial Comm'n , 82 Ill.2d 87, 97 (1980). "Whether a causal connection exists between a claimant's condition of ill-being and her work[-]related accident is a question of fact to be resolved by the Commission, and its resolution of the matter will not be disturbed on review unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence." University of Illinois v. Industrial Comm 'n of Illinois , 365 Ill.App.3d 906, 913 (2006).

19

¶ 58 Here, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commission's finding of a causal connection between claimant's current condition of ill-being and the February 11, 2013, work accident. Again, although claimant suffered from a prior injury following a motor vehicle collision in 2011, the evidence demonstrated that claimant fully recovered from the injury and returned to her normal activity level. It is undisputed that claimant worked for employer without issue prior to February 11, 2013. As the Commission correctly noted, there is simply no evidence in the record showing that claimant's 2011 injury attributed to her current condition of ill-being.

¶ 59 Claimant's medical records demonstrated that claimant provided a consistent history of the February 11, 2013, work accident when she sought medical treatment for her injury. Claimant consistently sought medical treatment for her injury until she returned to light-duty work at the end of May 2014. Claimant's treatment providers documented pain in claimant's right arm, shoulder, and neck each time she received medical treatment. An MRI revealed disc herniations at C5-C6 and C6-C7 following the February 11, 2013, work accident. Drs. Perez and Engel opined that claimant's pain complaints related to the February 11, 2013, work accident, although Dr. Engel later indicated that he wanted to view the surveillance video to confirm his causation opinion. Dr. Harsoor opined that claimant suffered from a cervical disc herniation, discogenic pain, and myofascial pain from the February 11, 2013, accident. While employer presented the opinions of the independent medical examiners, the Commission did not find their opinions persuasive. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent.

¶ 60 There is also sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commission's finding of a causal connection between claimant's current condition and the June 17, 2014, work accident. Claimant reported worsening pain following the June 17, 2014, work accident. Claimant testified that she was unable to return to work due to the pain worsening following the June 17, 2014,

20

accident. Drs. Perez and Erickson opined that claimant's subsequent pain complaints also related to the June 17, 2014, work accident. Dr. Harsoor opined that claimant sustained a shoulder injury from the June 17, 2014, work accident. While employer presented evidence of the opinions of the independent medical examiners, the Commission did not find their opinions persuasive. The Commission noted that Drs. Atluri and Andersson examined claimant prior to the June 17, 2014, work accident and that Dr. Phillips lacked knowledge of the June 17, 2014, accident when he formed his opinion. It is not the function of this court to judge the credibility of the witnesses and resolve conflicts in the evidence. See O 'Dette v. Industrial Comm 'n , 79 Ill.2d 249, 253 (1980) (It is the function of the Commission to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting evidence.). The Commission found claimant's testimony credible and the medical opinions of claimant's treatment providers persuasive. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent.

¶ 61 Thus, there was evidence supporting the Commission's findings as to causal connection. Accordingly, the Commission's decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 62 C. Benefits

¶ 63 Employer's final argument that the Commission's award of medical expenses, TTD benefits, and PPD benefits was against the manifest weight of the evidence is premised entirely upon the success of its first two arguments. Because we reject employer's first two arguments, we conclude that the Commission's award of benefits was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 64 III. Conclusion

¶ 65 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County confirming the Commission's decisions.

21

¶ 66 Affirmed.