Scott Goldstein Helps Injured Chicago Library Department Worker Receive Shoulder Replacement Surgery

When a truck driver for the City of Chicago's Public Library Department was injured unloading boxes of books, he reached out to Ankin Law for help. Attorney Scott Goldstein was happy to answer the call and help the injured driver receive fair compensation for his injury.

1. ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DECISION SIGNATURE PAGE
Case Number 23WC
Case Name v. City of Chicago-
Chicago Public Library
Consolidated Cases
Proceeding Type 19(b) Petition
Decision Type Arbitration Decision
Commission Decision Number
Number of Pages of Decision 13
Decision Issued By Arbitrator
Petitioner Attorney Scott Goldstein
Respondent Attorney
DATE FILED: 10/14/2025
Signature
INTEREST RATE WEEK OF OCTOBER 7 2025 3.70%

2. STATE OF ILLINOIS )

Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund (§4(d))
)SS
Rate Adjustment Fund (§8(g))
COUNTY OF COOK ) Second Injury Fund (§8(e)18)

None of the above

ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

ARBITRATION DECISION
19(b)/8(a)

Case # 23 WC
Employee/Petitioner

v. Consolidated cases:

City of Chicago
Employer/Respondent

An Application for Adjustment of Claim was filed in this matter, and a Notice of Hearing was mailed to each
party. The matter was heard by the Honorable , Arbitrator of the Commission, in the city of
Chicago, on August 1, 2025. After reviewing all of the evidence presented, the Arbitrator hereby makes
findings on the disputed issues checked below, and attaches those findings to this document.

DISPUTED ISSUES

A. Was Respondent operating under and subject to the Illinois Workers' Compensation or Occupational
Diseases Act?

B. Was there an employee-employer relationship?

C. Did an accident occur that arose out of and in the course of Petitioner's employment by Respondent?

D. What was the date of the accident?

E. Was timely notice of the accident given to Respondent?

F. Is Petitioner's current condition of ill-being causally related to the injury?

G. What were Petitioner's earnings?

H. What was Petitioner's age at the time of the accident?

I. What was Petitioner's marital status at the time of the accident?

J. Were the medical services that were provided to Petitioner reasonable and necessary? Has Respondent
paid all appropriate charges for all reasonable and necessary medical services?

K. Is Petitioner entitled to any prospective medical care?

L. What temporary benefits are in dispute?
TPD Maintenance TTD

M. Should penalties or fees be imposed upon Respondent?

N. Is Respondent due any credit?

O. Other:


ICArbDec19(b) 4/22 Web site: www.iwcc.il.gov


FINDINGS

3. On the date of accident, April 6, 2023, Respondent was operating under and subject to the provisions of the
Act.

On this date, an employee-employer relationship did exist between Petitioner and Respondent.

On this date, Petitioner did sustain an accident that arose out of and in the course of employment.

Timely notice of this accident was given to Respondent.

Petitioner's current condition of ill-being is causally related to the accident.

In the year preceding the injury, Petitioner earned $82,412.64; the average weekly wage was $1,716.93.

On the date of accident, Petitioner was 57 years of age, married with 0 dependent children.

Respondent has not paid all reasonable and necessary charges for all reasonable and necessary medical
services.

Respondent shall be given a credit of $35,311.52 for TTD, $0 for TPD, $0 for maintenance, and $0, for other
benefits, for a total credit of $35,311.52.

Respondent is entitled to a credit of $0 under Section 8(j) of the Act.

ORDER

Respondent shall pay Petitioner temporary total disability benefits of $1,144.62/week for 33 4/7 weeks,
commencing April 7, 2023 through November 27, 2023, as provided in Section 8(b) of the Act. By stipulation
of the Parties, Respondent is entitled to a credit in the amount of $35,311.52 for temporary total disability
benefits paid to Petitioner by Respondent.

By stipulation of the Parties, Respondent is entitled to a credit in the amount of $19,960.40 (4% MAW) for a
Permanent Partial Disability advance payment made to Petitioner, at the time that the nature and extent of the
injury is considered and/or addressed. Ax1; See Rx5.

Respondent shall pay for the reasonable and necessary medical services, as provided in Px1, pursuant to the
medical fee schedule and Sections 8(a) and 8.2 of the Act. Respondent is entitled to a credit for any payments
made towards the awarded outstanding expenses.

Res ondent shall authorize and is liable for the prospective medical treatment plan recommended by Dr.
V , including a right total shoulder replacement, as provided in Sections in 8(a) and 8.2 of the Act.

In no instance shall this award be a bar to subsequent hearing and determination of an additional amount of
medical benefits or compensation for a temporary or permanent disability, if any.

RULES REGARDING APPEALS Unless a party files a Petition for Review within 30 days after receipt of this
decision, and perfects a review in accordance with the Act and Rules, then this decision shall be entered as the
decision of the Commission.

4. STATEMENT OF INTEREST RATE If the Commission reviews this award, interest at the rate set forth on the
Notice of Decision of Arbitrator shall accrue from the date listed below to the day before the date of payment;
however, if an employee's appeal results in either no change or a decrease in this award, interest shall not
accrue.


ICArbDec19(b)
OCTOBER 14 2025

5. 23WC
1

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter proceeded to arbitration on August 1, 2025 before Arbitrator in Chicago Illinois
pursuant to Sections 19(b) and 8(a) of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”). The issues in dispute
are (1) causal connection, (2) unpaid medical bills, (3) temporary total disability (“TTD”) benefits, and (4)
prospective medical care. Arbitrator’s Exhibit (“Ax”) 1. All other issues are stipulated. Ax1.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioner is employed by Respondent and was employed by Respondent on April 6, 2023 as a Motor Truck
Driver in its Public Library Department. Transcript of Proceedings on Arbitration (“Tr.”) at 10-11, 12.

Petitioner testified that he did not ever have pain in his right shoulder prior to April 6, 2023. Tr. at 22. Petitioner
testified that he did not ever seek treatment for his right shoulder prior to April 6, 2023. Tr. at 22. Petitioner
testified that prior to April 6, 2023, his right shoulder felt like “a normal person’s,” and he did not experience
pain in his shoulder. Tr. at 22. Petitioner testified that he was working full duty prior to April 6, 2023. Tr. at 28.

On cross examination, Petitioner agreed that he was hired as a Motor Truck Driver by Respondent on or about
November 12, 2014. Tr. at 30. Petitioner agreed that he works Monday through Friday and testified that his shift
is from 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Tr. at 31.

Duties

As a Motor Truck Driver, Petitioner drives a Ford F-750 box truck to deliver containers of books from one
location to another. Tr. at 12, 31.

On cross examination, Petitioner agreed that he uses a dolly to assist him. Tr. at 31. Petitioner agreed that he
loads boxes of books onto the dolly and then loads the boxes of books onto the truck. Tr. at 33. Petitioner
testified that the boxes of books are lifted to shoulder height and sometimes above shoulder height. Tr. at 34.
Petitioner spends three to four hours, or about half of his shift, loading boxes into the truck. Tr. at 34. Petitioner
spends the rest of the time driving and delivering the materials. Tr. at 34. Petitioner does not have a partner that
assists him. Tr. at 34-35. Petitioner testified that he never has any staff from the libraries assist him with the
loading and unloading process. Tr. at 35. Petitioner was shown Respondent’s Exhibit (“Rx”) 3, which he agreed
was a job description for the motor truck driver position. Tr. at 35. Petitioner agreed that it appeared to be a fair
and accurate copy of the job duties that he is typically required to perform. Tr. at 36.

On redirect examination, Petitioner agreed that he has to lift the bins of books to different levels at different
times. Tr. at 58. Petitioner testified that there is a limit of 35 pounds for each bin, but that he does not weigh the
bin and that staff at the libraries are supposed to make sure that the bins do not exceed the weight limit. Tr. at
58-59. Petitioner testified that he does not know whether the staff always makes sure that the bins do not exceed
the weight limit. Tr. at 59. Petitioner testified that there are times that the bins are lighter, there are times when
the bins are of medium weight, and there are times when the bins are heavier. Tr. at 60-61. Petitioner testified
that the bins are different weights from what he feels when he lifts them. Tr. at 61.

Accident

It is stipulated that on April 6, 2023, Petitioner sustained accidental injuries that arose out of and in the course of
his employment with Respondent. Ax1.

6. 23WC
2

Petitioner testified that on April 6, 2023, he fell on his right side causing pain to his right shoulder and hip. Tr. at
11, 13, 14. Petitioner testified that he spun to his left to try to break the fall with his left hand. Tr. at 11.
Petitioner’s accident occurred at the loading dock of the Harold Washington Library Center. Tr. at 11, 12.
Petitioner testified that an unsecured temporary dock plate caused him to slip and fall. Tr. at 13. Petitioner
completed his shift. Tr. at 13. Petitioner sought treatment on April 9, 2023. Tr. at 14.

On cross examination, Petitioner testified that his right shoulder first made contact with the ground, and that his
arm did not break the fall. Tr. at 37. Petitioner testified that the outside of his right shoulder hit the ground. Tr. at
37-38.

Medical Records Summary

Petitioner testified that the focus of his claim is the right shoulder injury, and that left knee treatment is
unrelated to the April 6, 2023 injury. Tr. at 28, 54.

On April 9, 2023, Petitioner was seen by T , PA at for a chief complaint
of right forearm pain since April 6, 2023 and for evaluation of right shoulder pain and left knee pain for four
days duration. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Px”) 2 at 9-27. It is noted that Petitioner reported that he stepped on a metal
dock plate and fell on his left hand and landed on his right side and that he could not move his right arm. It was
noted that Petitioner felt immediate pain in the right proximal shoulder area. It was noted that Petitioner had
been unable to lift the right arm fully since that time. Petitioner denied any previous shoulder or rotator cuff
injury. On examination, tenderness to palpation of the proximal right humeral area was noted, as well as 50 to
60 degrees of forward flexion and 45 degrees of abduction. It was noted that Petitioner could not abduct beyond
45 degrees. X-rays of the humerus were obtained and demonstrated (1) degenerative changes of the
acromioclavicular joint and glenohumeral joint, (2) chronic fragment along the proximal humerus suggesting
calcific tendonitis, and (3) no acute fracture. Petitioner’s diagnoses were right shoulder pain and sprain of right
shoulder joint. Petitioner was released to return to work with the restrictions of (1) avoid climbing ladders
entirely, (2) no lifting over the shoulder greater than zero pounds using the right arm, (3) no lifting from waist to
shoulder greater than 15 pounds using the right arm, (4) no lifting below waist greater than 15 pounds using the
right arm, and (5) no pulling or pushing greater than 30 pounds. It was noted that the restrictions were in effect
until the next follow up on April 13, 2023. It was noted that a right rotator cuff strain was suspected. It was
recommended that Petitioner work with the right arm as much as possible with the elbow tucked in toward his
side and avoid reaching out and overhead lifting.

Petitioner followed up at on April 13, 2023 and was seen by G z -
L , NP. Px2 at 28-46. Petitioner reported that he was not much better than his last visit and that he was
still unable to lift his right arm past his head. Petitioner reported muscle spasms. Petitioner’s diagnosis was right
shoulder pain. An MRI of the right shoulder and physical therapy were recommended. Petitioner was released to
return to work with the restrictions of (1) avoid climbing ladders entirely, (2) no lifting over the shoulder greater
than zero pounds using the right arm, (3) no lifting from waist to shoulder greater than 15 pounds using the right
arm, (4) no lifting below waist greater than 15 pounds using the right arm, and (5) no pulling or pushing greater
than 30 pounds. It was noted that the restrictions were in effect until the next follow up on April 27, 2023.

Petitioner was seen by Dr. at Institute on May 2, 2023. Px3 at 412 -427.
A consistent accident history is noted. Petitioner reported weakness and limited range of motion of the right
shoulder. Petitioner described the pain as sharp, throbbing, and aching and severe and constant. On examination,
Dr. noted (1) tenderness at the AC joint, (2) forward flexion 80 degrees, abduction 45 degrees, external
rotation 30 degrees, and internally rotate to the hip, (3) pain and weakness with forward flexion and abduction
against resistance, (4) strength 4/5 with external rotation against resistance, (5) positive liftoff test, (6) positive

7. 23WC
3

belly press test, and (7) positive drop arm test. X-rays of the right shoulder were obtained and demonstrated
severe degenerative changes of the glenohumeral joint and AC joint, joint space narrowing, large osteo h te
formation at the inferior and posterior aspects of the humeral head, and subchondral sclerosis. Dr. ’s
diagnoses were right shoulder glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis and right shoulder full thickness rotator cuff
tear. A right shoulder MRI was recommended to rule out a full thickness rotator cuff tear. Petitioner was kept off
work until MRI results were obtained and reviewed.

On June 13, 2023, Dr. noted that Petitioner’s right shoulder ain persisted and that he still had pain in
the shoulder with activities and at night. Px3 at 348-356. Dr. noted that the MRI showed (1)
degenerative change in the glenohumeral joint longstanding in nature with some bony remodeling cystic
changes in the humeral head, (2) no fracture of the humeral head, (3) large glenohumeral joint effusion with
synovitis, (4) intraarticular biceps tenosynovitis and 5) supraspinatus tendinosis with bursal sided fraying and
a partial tear was noted. On examination, Dr. noted “loss of glenohumeral motion with compensatory
scapular range of motion. Weakness on forward flexion crepitation subacromial space tenderness in the biceps
AC joint area.” Dr. recommended initiating physical therapy, a cortisone injection, and an anti-
inflammatory protocol. Petitioner underwent a large joint injection/arthrocentesis of the right glenohumeral and
a large joint injection/arthrocentesis of the right subacromial bursa. Petitioner’s post-procedure diagnoses were
primary osteoarthritis of the right shoulder and right full thickness rotator cuff tear. Petitioner was kept off
work.

Petitioner attended eight sessions of physical therapy at Therapy between June 23, 2023 and
July 17, 2023. Px4.

Petitioner followed up with Dr. on August 1, 2023. Px3 at 285-290. Dr. noted that Petitioner
still had pain on forward flexion and abduction and night pain. On examination, Dr. noted (1) external
rotation 30 degrees, (2) abduction 45 degrees, (3) crepitation in the glenohumeral joint, (4) tenderness in the
paratrapexial pararhomboid area, (5) negative Spurling test, and (6) tender AC joint. Petitioner was instructed to
continue physical therapy. Petitioner was released to return to work with the restriction of clerical duty only.

Petitioner next saw Dr. on September 26, 2023. Px3 at 247-252. Dr. noted that Petitioner had
attended therapy with some improvement in range of motion but still had crepitation in the right shoulder. On
examination, Dr. noted (1) that Petitioner remained tight on internal rotation, (2) crepitation in the
glenohumeral joint, (3) loss of external rotation, and (4) some weakness on forward flexion above the frontal
plane. Petitioner described pain along the posterior triceps. Dr. ’s diagnoses were ri ht shoulder pain,
right full thickness rotator cuff tear, and primary osteoarthritis of the right shoulder. Dr. noted that
ultimately, Petitioner would require surgical intervention for a shoulder replacement. A TENS unit was
prescribed. Petitioner was kept off work.

Petitioner returned to Dr. on November 13, 2023. Px3 at 217-225. Dr. noted that Petitioner
presented with persistent pain in his right shoulder, limited ran e of motion, limited strength, and limited ability
to external rotation and forward flexion. On examination, Dr. noted (1) limited external rotation to 45
degrees, (2) forward flexion to 45 degrees with crepitation above the 45-degree plane, (3) weakness with
positive drop test and crepitation in the glenohumeral joint, (4) bice s and triceps intact distally, and (5) some
limitation in the cervical spine with a negative Spurling test. Dr. noted that Petitioner had not gotten
substantial relief from Relafen, but did get relief from the TENS unit. Dr. noted that Petitioner would
ultimately re uire a shoulder replacement as a rotator cuff repair alone would not alleviate the joint mediated
pain. Dr. noted that the work injury aggravated Petitioner’s condition and that Petitioner was able to
lift and perform full activities at work prior to the injury. Petitioner was released to return to light duty work
with the restrictions of no lifting overhead and no lifting more than 10 pounds.

8. 23WC
4

Petitioner attended 16 sessions of physical therapy at therapy between August 24, 2023 and
November 8, 2023. Px4.

On February 13, 2024, Petitioner underwent a large joint injection/arthrocentesis of the right glenohumeral. Px3
at 146-154. Petitioner’s post-procedure diagnoses were primar osteoarthritis of the right shoulder, right
shoulder pain, and full thickness right rotator cuff tear. Dr. noted that the injection was performed for
pain relief. Dr. noted that Petitioner’s shoulder had osteoarthritic changes cuff patholo and that there
was weakness on forward flexion and abduction crepitation in the glenohumeral joint. Dr. also noted
that at that time, he thought that Petitioner required a shoulder replacement for relief of pain and that the injury
aggravated his shoulder in a permanent fashion requiring surgery.

On March 29, 2024, Petitioner underwent a large joint Orthovisc injection/arthrocentesis of the right
glenohumeral. Px3 at 127-136. Petitioner’s post-procedure diagnoses were primary osteoarthritis of the right
shoulder, right shoulder pain, and full thickness right rotator cuff tear. It was noted that Petitioner presented with
persistent right shoulder pain.

On April 5, 2024, Petitioner underwent a large joint Orthovisc injection/arthrocentesis of the right
glenohumeral. Px3 at 116-122. Petitioner’s post-procedure diagnosis was primary osteoarthritis of the right
shoulder.

On April 12, 2024, Petitioner underwent a large joint Orthovisc injection/arthrocentesis of the right
glenohumeral. Px3 at 100-111. Petitioner’s post-procedure diagnoses were primary osteoarthritis of the right
shoulder and right shoulder pain. It was noted that Petitioner presented with persistent right shoulder pain and
that Petitioner had noted some improvement with the previous injections.

On December 3, 2024, Petitioner underwent a large joint injection/arthrocentesis of the right glenohumeral. Px3
at 34-42. Petitioner’s post-procedure diagnoses were primary osteoarthritis of the right shoulder, right shoulder
pain, and full thickness right rotator cuff tear.

On December 10, 2024, Petitioner underwent a large joint Orthovisc injection/arthrocentesis of the right
subacromial bursa. Px3 at 8-25. Petitioner’s post-procedure diagnosis was primary osteoarthritis of the right
shoulder.

On December 17, 2024, Petitioner underwent a large joint Orthovisc injection/arthrocentesis of the right
subacromial bursa. Px3 at 7-15. Petitioner’s post-procedure diagnoses were primary osteoarthritis of the right
shoulder, right shoulder pain, and full thickness right rotator cuff tear.

Petitioner testified that he received temporary pain relief following each series of injections, but that the pain
returned to its baseline one or two months later. Tr. at 29-30. Petitioner testified that the injections did not fully
alleviate the pain and “just kind of buffered the symptoms.” Tr. at 30.

Petitioner has not undergone the surgery recommended by Dr. . Tr. at 19.

Section 12 Examination Reports by Dr.
1


Dr. F performed an independent medical examination (“IME”) of Petitioner’s right shoulder and
left knee on October 17, 2023. Rx1. On examination of the right shoulder, Dr. F noted (1) 70 degrees

1
While Dr. F examined the right shoulder and left knee, only his opinions as to the right shoulder are summarized herein.

9. 23WC
5

right shoulder scaption, (2) 25 degrees of external rotation and internal rotation to L5, (3) severe hitching with
active right shoulder range of motion, (4) audible and palpable crepitus with right shoulder range of motion, (5)
trace posterior joint line and AC joint tenderness, (6) 4/5 supraspinatus and Hornblower’s strength with crepitus
and discomfort, (7) 4/5 infraspinatus strength, (8) 5/5 right subscapularis, biceps, triceps, and deltoid strength,
(9) Petitioner’s reports of diffuse nonspecific discomfort with special testing including Neer and Hawkins
impingement, Speed’s, O’Brien’s valgus shear, Yergason’s, and crossover adduction exams, (10) positive belly
press on the right, and (11) negative liftoff bilaterally. X-rays of the right shoulder were obtained, and Dr.
F noted that the AP, scapular Y, and axillary views demonstrated severe glenohumeral joint arthritis with
bone-on-bone articulation and osteophyte formation. Dr. F noted that the May 26, 2023 MRI was
reviewed and showed severe bone-on-bone glenohumeral arthritis.

Dr. F opined that Petitioner’s diagnosis at that time was resolved work-related right shoulder strain and
severe, preexisting right shoulder arthritis unrelated to work. Dr. F opined that the diagnosis of right
shoulder strain was causally related to the April 6, 2023 work injury, which had resolved, and that Petitioner had
returned to his preinjury baseline status. Dr. F noted that Petitioner had severe preexisting right shoulder
arthritis and opined that there had been no aggravation, acceleration, or material worsening beyond its natural
course as a result of the work injury. Dr. F opined that additional treatment for the right shoulder was not
recommended and he did not recommend any work restrictions. Dr. F recommended that Petitioner be
released to full duty without restrictions. Dr. F opined that Petitioner had reached maximum medical
improvement (“MMI”) as to the right shoulder, and that he estimated that Petitioner achieved MMI on or
around July 6, 2023, three months following the right shoulder strain.

Dr. F performed another IME of Petitioner’s right shoulder and left knee on August 20, 2024. Rx2. Dr.
F noted that Petitioner reported that he had returned to work full duty in late November 2023, and that it
had been difficult. On examination of the right shoulder, Dr. F noted (1) 70 degrees of right shoulder
scaption with crepitation, (2) 30 degrees of external rotation and internal rotation to L4, (3) 1+ greater
tuberosity and posterior joint line tenderness, (4) 2+ bicipital groove tenderness, (5) trace AC joint tenderness,
(6) 4+/5 right supraspinatus strength with discomfort, (7) 4/5 right infraspinatus strength with crepitus, (8) 5/5
subscapularis, biceps, triceps, and deltoid strength bilaterally, (9) special testing of the right shoulder was
mainly deferred secondary to limited range of motion, (10) equivocal belly press on the right, and (11) negative
liftoff exam bilaterally. Dr. F ’s opinions were unchanged from his opinions of October 17, 2023.

Work Status

Petitioner initially received weekly benefits from Respondent. Tr. at 20. Petitioner stopped receiving weekly
benefits from Respondent sometime after October 17, 2023. Tr. at 20-21. Petitioner returned to work at
Respondent on or about November 28, 2023. Tr. at 21. Petitioner testified that he returned to work because of
financial necessity. Tr. at 21.

On cross examination, Petitioner agreed that he received TTD benefits between April 7, 2023 and November 8,
2023. Tr. at 38. Petitioner testified that he has been working full duty since returning to work on November 28,
2023 and has not missed time off work. Tr. at 40, 47-48.

Current Condition

Petitioner testified that at the time of arbitration, his right shoulder felt painful. Tr. at 21-22. Petitioner testified
that his right shoulder has felt painful every day since April 6, 2023. Tr. at 22-24. Petitioner takes 800 mg of
Ibuprofen three times a day and uses an electronic stimulation device daily to help with the pain. Tr. at 24-25.
Petitioner testified that the Ibuprofen and electronic stimulation device help with the pain, but do not alleviate

10. 23WC
6

the pain in his right shoulder. Tr. at 25. Petitioner wants to proceed with the surgery recommended by Dr.
. Tr. at 26.

Petitioner testified that he is able to work, but that he does not have a choice and that he has to support his
family. Tr. at 26. Petitioner testified that he would like to have the surgery so that he can feel somewhat normal,
like he did prior to the accident. Tr. at 26-27. Petitioner testified that he has pain at work in his right shoulder on
a daily basis. Tr. at 27. Petitioner testified that the pain in his right shoulder affects his work performance, and
that he is challenged or limited with his abilities since he lifts, pushes, and pulls which require upper body
strength. Tr. at 27. Petitioner testified that he does his best to perform work duties to the best of his abilities. Tr.
at 27.

On cross examination, Petitioner testified that his job does not have light duty. Tr. at 43. Petitioner testified that
his doctor last told him to not lift more than 15 pounds, which is impossible. Tr. at 43-44. Petitioner agreed that
he did not know if he had lifting, carrying, or work shift restrictions at the time of arbitration. Tr. at 44-45.
Petitioner testified that Dr. did not give him a work note on December 17, 2024. Tr. at 46. Petitioner
testified that his primary care physician, Dr. C , prescribes the 800 mg of Ibuprofen. Tr. at 48.
Petitioner testified that he also takes Tramadol on an as-needed basis. Tr. at 48-49. Petitioner testified that he
had a series of injections scheduled at 4 p.m. at IBJ on the date of arbitration and that he had a series of three
injections scheduled on the next three Fridays in a row. Tr. at 49. Petitioner agreed that despite being challenged
in his abilities to perform his job duties, he still shows up to work every day and is doing his job. Tr. at 50.
Petitioner testified that he has not had any injuries to his right shoulder since April 6, 2023. Tr. at 55.

On redirect examination, Petitioner agreed that Respondent would not return him to work unless he was at full
duty. Tr. at 64. Petitioner agreed that he was working full duty at the time of arbitration. Tr. at 65.

On recross examination, Petitioner testified that he cannot work as a motor truck driver with restrictions. Tr. at
66. Petitioner agreed that he was working at the time of arbitration. Tr. at 66. Petitioner was unaware of whether
he was on any restrictions that prevented him from working as a motor truck driver. Tr. at 67.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Arbitrator adopts the above Findings of Fact in support of the Conclusions of Law set forth below.

Decisions of an arbitrator shall be based exclusively on the evidence in the record of the proceeding and
material that has been officially noticed. 820 ILCS 305/1.1(e). The burden of proof is on a claimant to establish
the elements of his right to compensation, and unless the evidence considered in its entirety supports a finding
that the injury resulted from a cause connected with the employment, there is no right to recover. Board of
Trustees v. Industrial Commission, 44 Ill. 2d 214 (1969).

Credibility is the quality of a witness which renders his evidence worthy of belief. It is the function of the
Commission to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve conflicts in the medical evidence and assign
weight to witness testimony. O’Dette v. Industrial Commission, 79 Ill. 2d 249, 253 (1980); Hosteny v. Workers’
Compensation Commission, 397 Ill. App. 3d 665, 674 (2009). Where a claimant’s testimony is inconsistent with
his actual behavior and conduct, the Commission has held that an award cannot stand. McDonald v. Industrial
Commission, 39 Ill. 2d 396 (1968); Swift v. Industrial Commission, 52 Ill. 2d 490 (1972).

11. 23WC
7

Issue F, whether Petitioner’s current condition of ill-being is causally related to the injury, the Arbitrator
finds as follows:

To obtain compensation under the Act, a claimant must prove that some act or phase of his employment was a
causative factor in his ensuing injuries. A work-related injury 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). An employer takes its employees as it finds them. St. Elizabeth’s Hospital v. Illinois
Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 371 Ill. App. 3d 882, 888 (2007). Even if the claimant had a preexisting
degenerative condition which made him more vulnerable to injury, recovery for an accidental injury will not be
denied if the claimant can show that a work-related injury played a role in aggravating or accelerating his
preexisting condition. Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 207 Ill. 2d 193, 205 (2003). A chain of events which
demonstrates a previous condition of good health, an accident, and a subsequent injury resulting in disability
may be sufficient to prove a causal connection between the accident and the claimant’s injury. International
Harvester v. Industrial Com., 93 Ill. 2d 59, 63 (1982).

It is stipulated that on April 6, 2023, Petitioner sustained accidental injuries that arose out of and in the course of
his employment with Respondent. Ax1.

The Arbitrator addresses causation only as it relates to the right shoulder injury for which Petitioner seeks
prospective medical care. Having considered all the evidence, the Arbitrator finds that Petitioner’s current right
shoulder condition of ill-being is causally related to the April 6, 2023 injury. The Arbitrator relies on the
following in support of her findings: (1) the records of Care, (2) the records of Dr.
and Institute, (3) the fact that none of the records in evidence reflect that
Petitioner was actively treating for a right shoulder condition prior to April 6, 2023, (4) Petitioner’s credible
testimony that he did not ever have pain in or seek treatment for his right shoulder prior to April 6, 2023, and (5)
Petitioner’s credible testimony that he has not sustained any injuries to his right shoulder since April 6, 2023.
The overall evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was in condition of good health and able to work full duty and
without restrictions immediately prior to the work accident and consistent complaints and symptoms of the right
shoulder following the work accident. The Arbitrator further notes that there is no evidence of any reinjury or
other intervening event that would sever the chain of causation.

The Arbitrator has considered the opinions of Dr. F and does not find them persuasive. The Arbitrator
notes that on October 17, 2023, Dr. F opined that at most, Petitioner sustained a right shoulder strain as a
result of the April 6, 2023 injury and that he had returned to his preinjury baseline. The Arbitrator notes,
however, that Dr. F did not review any pre-accident records or diagnostic studies. There is also no
evidence that Petitioner had any symptomatic right shoulder issues or pain complaints or had ever treated for
any right shoulder conditions prior to the work injury. The Arbitrator further notes that Petitioner has had
ongoing right shoulder symptoms since the work accident which have not abated and are well-documented in
the medical evidence. The Arbitrator finds that the overall medical evidence supports Dr. ’s opinion that
the work injury aggravated Petitioner’s right shoulder in a permanent fashion requiring a shoulder replacement
for relief of pain.

The Arbitrator acknowledges that Petitioner returned to work at Respondent on or about November 28, 2023,
and that he has been working full duty since that time. The Arbitrator notes, however, that Petitioner credibly
testified that he returned to work out of financial necessity after Respondent terminated his weekly benefits
sometime after the date of Dr. F ’s first IME. The Arbitrator notes that while Petitioner returned to work
full duty in late November 2023, his treating physician had not released him to return to work without
restrictions. On November 13, 2023, Dr. released Petitioner to return to work with the restrictions of
no overhead lifting and a 10-pound lifting restriction. The Arbitrator notes that in his position as a Motor Truck

12. 23WC
8

Driver, Petitioner is required to lift up to 35 pounds, which exceeds this lifting restriction. Rx3. Moreover,
Petitioner credibly testified that while he has worked in a full duty capacity since late November 2023, (1) he
does not have a choice because he has to support his family, (2) he has right shoulder pain while at work on a
daily basis, (3) the pain in his right shoulder affects his work performance, and (4) he is challenged or limited in
his work abilities since he is required to lift, push, and pull which require upper body strength. Petitioner further
credibly testified that his right shoulder has felt painful everyday since April 6, 2023.

In resolving the issue of causation, the Arbitrator finds that Petitioner is not at MMI for his current right
shoulder condition of ill-being.

Issue J, whether the medical services that were provided to Petitioner were reasonable and necessary and
whether Respondent has paid all appropriate charges for all reasonable and necessary medical services, the
Arbitrator finds as follows:

Consistent with the Arbitrator’s prior finding as to causal connection, the Arbitrator finds that the medical
services that were provided to Petitioner were reasonable, necessary, and casually related to the work accident,
and that Respondent has not paid all appropriate charges. Accordingly, the Arbitrator further finds that all bills,
as provided in Px1, are awarded and that Respondent is liable for payment of these bills, pursuant to the medical
fee schedule and Sections 8(a) and 8.2 of the Act. Respondent is entitled to a credit for any payments made
towards the awarded outstanding expenses.

Issue K, whether Petitioner is entitled to any prospective medical care, the Arbitrator finds as follows:

Consistent with the Arbitrator’s prior findings, the Arbitrator finds that Petitioner is entitled to prospective
medical care as recommended by Dr. .

The Arbitrator notes that on November 13, 2023, Dr. recommended Petitioner undergo a right total
shoulder replacement. Petitioner testified that he wants to proceed with the surgery recommended by Dr.
. Accordingly, the Arbitrator finds that Petitioner is entitled to treatment as recommended by Dr.
, including a right total shoulder replacement, all of which is contemplated as compensable treatment
under Section 8(a) of the Act, and therefore, Respondent is responsible for authorizing and paying for same.

Issue L, whether Petitioner is entitled to any temporary total disability benefits, the Arbitrator finds as
follows:

Petitioner claims that he is entitled to TTD benefits for the period of April 7, 2023 through November 27, 2023.
Ax1. Respondent disputes Petitioner’s claim, and Respondent claims, “all TTD owed has been paid,” and refers
to Rx5. Ax1.

Consistent with the Arbitrator’s prior findings, the Arbitrator finds that Petitioner is entitled to TTD benefits.
The Arbitrator notes that on April 9, 2023, Petitioner was released to return to work with restrictions which
remained in effect until April 27, 2023. Petitioner was then taken off work by Dr. on May 2, 2023. On
August 1, 2023, Petitioner was released to return to work with the restriction of clerical duty only. On
September 26, 2023, Dr. kept Petitioner off work. On November 13, 2023, Petitioner was released to
return to light duty work with the restrictions of no lifting overhead and no lifting more than 10 pounds. There
is no evidence that Respondent ever accommodated any of Petitioner’s restrictions. Petitioner testified that he
returned to work at Respondent on or about November 28, 2023, and his testimony is unrebutted. Accordingly,
the Arbitrator finds that the overall evidence supports an award of TTD benefits for the period of April 7, 2023
through November 27, 2023.

13. 23WC
9

By stipulation of the Parties, Respondent is entitled to a credit in the amount of $35,311.52 for TTD benefits
paid to Petitioner by Respondent. Ax1.

______________________________