Scott Goldstein Successful in Workers' Compensation Arbitration

In a recent arbitration hearing, Ankin Law attorney, Scott Goldstein, secured temporary total disability payments, medical bill payments and cervical fusion surgery for a truck driver who was injured on the job.

1. ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DECISION SIGNATURE PAGE
Case Number 23WC
Case Name v. Performance Team Logistics
LLC
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: 2/7/2025
Signature
INTEREST RATE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 4 2025 4.16%

2. STATE OF ILLINOIS )

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

None of the above

ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

ARBITRATION DECISION
19(b)

Case # WC
Emp oyee Pet t oner

v. Consolidated cases: N/A

Performance Team Logistics, LLC
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
Joliet, on 12/10/24. 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

3. FINDINGS
On the date of accident, 12/1/2023, 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 $70,908.24; the average weekly wage was $1,363.62.
On the date of accident, Petitioner was 54 years of age, married with 1 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 $36,363.20 for TTD, $0 for TPD, $0 for maintenance, and $0 for other
benefits, for a total credit of $36,363.20.
Respondent is entitled to a credit of $0 under Section 8(j) of the Act.
ORDER
Medical benefits
Respondent shall pay to Petitioner the outstanding bills identified in Petitioner’s exhibit #1, totaling $31,194.96, pursuant
to Section 8(a) of the Act subject to the fee schedule in Sections 8.2 of the Act, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law
attached hereto and incorporated herein;
Temporary Total Disability
Respondent shall pay to Petitioner TTD benefits from December 2, 2023 through January 4, 2024 and from January 6,
2024 through December 10, 2024 for a period of 53 3/7 weeks, pursuant to Section 8(b) of the Act. Respondent shall be
given a credit of $36,363.20 for temporary total disability benefits that have been paid, as set forth in the Conclusions of
Law attached hereto and incorporated herein;
Prospective Medical Care
Respondent shall pay for the anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion at C5-6-7 recommended by Dr. Sampat including
reasonable and necessary attendant care pursuant to Sections 8.2 and 8(a) of the Ac, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
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.
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.
By:
Arbitrator
ICArbDec19(b)
FEBRUARY 2025

4. v. Performance Team Logistics, LLC., Case #23WC
Page 1 of 10
Procedural History
This case was tried on December 10, 2024 pursuant to Sections 19(b) and 8(a) of the Act.
The disputed issues were causation, medical expenses, TTD benefits and whether Petitioner is
entitled to prospective medical care. (Arb. Ex. #1).
Findings of Fact
Petitioner’s Testimony
(hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”) is employed as a truck driver for
Performance Team Logistics (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”). The parties stipulated
that, on December 1, 2023, Petitioner sustained an accidental injury that arose out of and in the
course of his employment. (Id.).
On that day, Petitioner drove a truck to a facility to have an empty container was to be
removed from the trailer. (T.10). Petitioner was in the cab of the truck and the container is
removed from the chassis by a crane. As the crane picked up the container it also lifted the truck
cab because it was still connected to the chassis. (T.11). When the truck cab was about 5 feet off
the ground it detached from the container and fell to the ground. (T.12). Petitioner testified the
impact to the ground was heavy causing immediate discomfort after experiencing a whiplash
motion. (Id.). Petitioner testified the discomfort was in his neck and upper back. (Id.).
Petitioner testified the incident occurred at the end of his workday on a Friday. (T.13).
Petitioner reported the accident the following Monday and Respondent sent him to
. (T.14). Petitioner thereafter began treating at .
(T.14). While treating at Petitioner received injections into his
neck and shoulders. (T.15). After those injections, Petitioner underwent cervical epidural
injections which provided temporary relief. (T.16). sent Petitioner
for a cervical MRI. (Id.). After the cervical MRI, Petitioner was referred to Dr. S , a spine
specialist. (T.17).
Petitioner testified to attending physical therapy at . (T.21).
Petitioner presented to Dr. S , an orthopedic surgeon, on May 20, 2024. Petitioner brought
the MRI films to the appointment. Petitioner testified Dr. S recommended surgery and took
him off work. (T.18, 22). Petitioner continues to treat with Dr. S . (T.19).
Petitioner testified he never previously injured his neck nor received any medical treatment
for his neck prior to his December 1, 2023 work injury. (T.22). Petitioner testified prior to his

5. v. Performance Team Logistics, LLC., Case #23WC
Page 2 of 10

December work injury he never experienced prior neck pain. (T.23). Petitioner testified since his
work accident he continues to experience neck symptoms. (Id.). Petitioner testified he would
like to undergo the surgery recommended by Dr. S to get healthier and back to work.
(T.22).
Petitioner’s Medical Treatment
Petitioner presented to on December 5, 2023 reporting being
injured at work when the truck cab he was in was picked up and dropped by a crane. (Px. 2).
Petitioner indicated he suffered a jerk type movement to his neck followed by neck pain,
shoulder pain, headaches and dizziness. (Id.). Petitioner rated his neck pain as a 7 out of 10. An
examination noted spasm of the paraspinal cervical muscles, tenderness of the cervical muscles,
and an abnormal sternocleidomastoid muscle. (Id.). X-rays were taken of the cervical spine
which showed multilevel degenerative spondyloarthropathy of the cervical spine. Petitioner was
diagnosed as sustaining a cervical sprain of joints and ligaments. (Id.). He was prescribed
Naproxen and Cyclobenzaprine and issued work restrictions of no driving or operating
machinery. (Id.).
On December 8, 2023, Petitioner sought follow up medical care at
reporting neck and back pain after being in a truck that was lifted and dropped by a
crane. Petitioner indicated he landed on his buttock and he also made contact with a window.
(Px. 3). Petitioner rated his pain level as 7 out of 10. An examination noted loss of normal
cervical lordosis, reduced cervical range of motion and a negative Spurling’s maneuver.
Petitioner was assessed with cervicalgia. (Id.).
Petitioner continued to treat at t. Petitioner also attended
physical therapy at . Petitioner returned to
t on January 5, 2024 reporting continued right sided cervical pain. (Id.). At that
time, bilateral weakness was noted in Petitioner’s upper extremities. (Id.). The medical records
state an MRI was ordered, at that time, due to Petitioner’s upper extremity weakness to rule out a
disc injury based upon the mechanism of injury. (Id.).
On January 29, 2024 a cervical MRI was performed which showed a broad-based central
disc herniation at C5-6 with moderate spinal canal stenosis with partial effacement of the ventral
subarachnoid CFS space causing a flattening of the spinal cord and moderate to severe bilateral
neural foraminal stenosis at C5-6. The MRI also showed a broad-based central disc herniation at

6. v. Performance Team Logistics, LLC., Case #23WC
Page 3 of 10

C4-5 with impingement upon the ventral subarachnoid CFS space with moderate to severe left
and moderate right neural foraminal stenosis. (Id.).
Petitioner returned to on January 12, 2024 reporting that he
returned to work performing desk work which exacerbated his neck condition causing his neck
pain to worsen. (Id.). Petitioner indicated the work he performed required a lot of flexion and
squatting to retrieve files from bottom drawers. (Id). At that time, Petitioner was taken off work.
(Id).
On January 29, 2024 Petitioner followed up at . The medical
records indicate Petitioner continued to experience axial neck pain but that the weakness in his
right upper extremity improved after being taken off work. (Id.). Petitioner underwent cervical
paraspinal and trapezius trigger point injections. (Id.). On February 2, 2024, bilateral epidural
steroid injections were ordered at C5-6 due to the disc herniations identified by the MRI. (Id.).
On February 20, 2024 Petitioner was diagnosed with cervical disc disorder at C5-6 with
radiculitis.
After undergoing a C5-6 epidural injection Petitioner returned to
reporting a 50% reduction of pain. It was noted at that time Petitioner continued to
experience weakness in his right arm, tenderness, and restricted cervical range of motion. (Id.).
Petitioner underwent a second C5-6 epidural injection on March 26, 2024. (Id.). Petitioner
returned to on April 5, 2024 reporting being almost pain free and
being eager to return to work but that he continued to have difficulties turning his head to the
right. (Id.). On April 8, 2024 work conditioning was ordered. (Id.).
Petitioner returned to on May 10, 2024 reporting that work
conditioning caused his cervical pain returned and worsen. (Id). It was noted the pain running
down Petitioner’s right upper extremity returned and worsened with cervical rotation. (Id.). At
that time, Petitioner was referred to Dr. S for a spinal surgeon consultation. (Id.).
On July 1, 2024, Petitioner presented to Dr. S
1
. At that time, Petitioner reported pain
levels of 8 out of 10 and that, prior to his work injury, he never experienced similar symptoms.
(Px. 4). The medical records indicate Petitioner’s neck pain radiated down his right arm and he
was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy and symptomatic stenosis at C5-6. The medical

1
Petitioner first presented to Dr. S when he was at . Dr. S
subsequently joined and Petitioner followed Dr. S to .

7. v. Performance Team Logistics, LLC., Case #23WC
Page 4 of 10

records also indicate Petitioner underwent cervical epidural injections which provided near 100%
relief that lasted for about a month before returning. (Id). An examination was conducted which
noted decreased sensation in the right periscapular region, right biceps, and right lateral arm into
the distal forearm with decreased sensation in the right finger and occasionally also in the ring
and small finger. (Id.). Dr. S also noted a positive Spurling’s sign on the right. (Id). Dr.
S indicated the MRI showed a C5-6-disc herniation with right arm radiculopathy. (Id).
Based upon the failure of conservative treatment Dr. S recommended surgery consisting of
an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion at C5-6. (Id.).
The medical records dated May 20, 2024 state Petitioner’s neck pain radiates into his right
biceps, triceps and into the dorsal aspect of his forearm since his December 1, 2023 work injury.
Dr. S noted Petitioner had decreased sensation in the right C6 distribution including the
periscapular region, right biceps, and lateral arm into the dorsal forearm. (Id.). Dr. S also
noted Petitioner’s right biceps and triceps reflexes were 1/4 compared to 2/4 on the left. (Id.).
Dr. S indicated Petitioner’s symptoms could be recreated with range of motion testing and
that Petitioner did not have these symptoms prior to his work injury. (Id). Dr. S further
noted the MRI showed a disc herniation at C5-6 with significant stenosis and impingement upon
the thecal sac. (Id.).
Dr. S opined that Petitioner suffered a C5-6 disc herniation with right arm
radiculopathy related to his work injury. (Id.). Dr. S stated when the truck was
unexpectedly slammed to the ground it caused Petitioner’s neck to experience a whiplash type
motion and, since that time, he continued to experience neck pain that radiated into the right
periscapular region, right biceps and triceps and into the dorsal forearm with numbness and
tingling. (Id.). Dr. S also opined that all of Petitioner’s medical treatment had been
reasonable. (Id.).
On August 21, 2024 Petitioner was examined by Dr. M C pursuant to Section
12 of the Act. Dr. C stated Petitioner reported being in the cab of a truck when the truck
was lifted before being slammed back down causing him to experience a whiplash type injury to
his neck. (Rx. 1). Dr. C stated Petitioner also reported that his pain was mainly in his
neck, trapezius muscle and shoulder blade for about 5-6 months. (Id.). Dr. C stated
Petitioner began to develop weakness in his right arm persistently around March of 2024 causing

8. v. Performance Team Logistics, LLC., Case #23WC
Page 5 of 10

him to be referred for a cervical MRI. Thereafter, Petitioner underwent 2 bilateral C5-6 epidural
injections which provided temporary relief. (Id.).
Dr. C ’s examination noted decreased range of motion with rotation, pain to the right
with cervical extension, and decreased sensation in the C6 dermatome. (Id.). Dr. C
indicated the x-rays showed C5-6 degenerative disc disease and the MRI showed central stenosis
at C5-6 without evidence of an acute injury. (Id.).
Dr. C stated 5.5 months after the accident Petitioner began to complain of numbness
and tingling in his forearm, thumb, and index finger with diminished sensation. (Id.). Dr.
C diagnosed degenerative disc disease at C5-6 with degenerative central and foraminal
stenosis at C5-6. Dr. C stated the radiographic findings correlate with Petitioner’s right
extremity radiculopathy mainly in the C6 distribution. (Id.). Dr. C opined that Petitioner’s
ongoing pain and right upper extremity symptoms were attributed to his degeneration condition
and had no relationship to his December 1, 2023 work accident. (Id.). Dr. C further
opined that Petitioner’s work accident caused a minor cervical sprain or strain which long since
resolved. (Id.). Dr. C opined the intermittent and late onset of upper extremity
radiculopathy was consistent with the manifestation of Petitioner’s significant degenerate disc
disease and had no relationship to his work accident. (Id.).
In support of his opinions Dr. C stated the medical records show no radiating upper
extremity pain until May of 2024. Dr. C acknowledged that Petitioner complained of arm
weakness in January of 2024, but he said that it resolved by January 19, 2024. (Id.). Dr. C
opined being jostled in a truck was not sufficient to cause a significant structural injury in the
cervical spine and, therefore, Petitioner’s radiculopathy, which started in May of 2024,
represents the manifestation and normal progression of his significant degenerative disease at
C5-6 and had no relationship to his work accident. (Id.). Dr. C also opined the mechanism
of injury was not sufficient to permanently aggravate or accelerate Petitioner’s degenerative
condition. (Id.).
Dr. C opined no further medical treatment was warranted for Petitioner’s work injury
but he agreed that the recommended surgery was reasonable to address Petitioner’s degenerate
disc disease. (Id.). Dr. C also opined Petitioner reached maximum medical improvement
on March 1, 2024 because soft tissue injuries generally resolve within 6-12 weeks. (Id.).

9. v. Performance Team Logistics, LLC., Case #23WC
Page 6 of 10

Petitioner returned to Dr. S on August 16, 2024. (Px. 5). At that time, Dr. S
reaffirmed his surgical recommendation. In the medical records, Dr. S stated he reviewed
Dr. C ’s report and noted Dr. C agrees that Petitioner’s work accident caused an
onset of symptoms but disagrees with the surgery being related to his work accident. Dr. S
stated Petitioner did not suffer a simple cervical sprain because he had significant neck pain with
a progression of symptoms resulting in radiculopathy necessitating the need for surgery. (Id.).
Dr. S said the mechanism of injury was a competent mechanism rendering
Petitioner’s C5-6 degenerative disc disease to become symptomatic. Dr. S said it could
take some time for the radicular symptoms to develop once the disc has been rendered
symptomatic by an injury and, in this case, Petitioner’s clinical presentation was consistent with
his work injury causing his current symptomatology. (Id.). Petitioner did not have any neck pain
or numbness or tingling nor was undergoing any care for his neck before his work accident. Dr.
S said it is common to have asymptomatic findings in the cervical spine which are
degenerative in nature but, as in this case, they become symptomatic as the result of a work
injury and continue to stay symptomatic. Dr. S opined Petitioner’s medical treatment and
work restrictions are related to his work injury. (Id.).
Conclusions of Law
The Arbitrator adopts the above Findings of Fact in support of the Conclusions of Law as
set forth below. The claimant bears the burden of proving every aspect of his claim by a
preponderance of the evidence. Hutson v. Industrial Commission, 223 Ill.App.3d 706, 714 (Ill.
App. 5th Dist. 1992).
With Respect to Issue (F) Whether Petitioner’s current condition of ill-being is causally
related to his injury, the Arbitrator Finds as follows:

In pre-existing condition cases, recovery will depend on the employee’s ability to show
that a work-related accidental injury aggravated or accelerated the pre-existing disease such that
the employee’s current condition of ill-being can be said to have been causally connected to the
work-related injury and not simply the result of a normal degenerative process of a pre-existing
condition. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 92 Ill.2d 30, 36-37. When a worker’s
physical structures, diseased or not, give way under the stress of their usual tasks, the law views
it as an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. General Electric Co. v.
Industrial Comm’n, 89 Ill.2d 432, 60 Ill.Dec. 629, 433 N.E.2d 671 (1982). When an employee

10. v. Performance Team Logistics, LLC., Case #23WC
Page 7 of 10

with a preexisting condition is injured in the course and of his employment the Commission must
decide whether there was an accidental injury which arose out of the employment, whether the
accidental injury aggravated or accelerated the preexisting condition or whether the preexisting
condition alone was the cause of the injury. Sisbro, Inc. Industrial Comm’n, 207 Ill.2d 193, 278
Ill.Dec. 70,797 N.E.2d 665, (2003). Even though an employee has a preexisting condition which
may make him more vulnerable to injury, recovery for an accidental injury will not be denied as
long as it can be shown that the employment was also a causative factor. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
v. Industrial Comm’n, 129 Ill.2d 52, 133 Ill. Dec. 454, 541 N.E.2d 665 (1989).
The aggravation or acceleration of a preexisting condition caused by work-related
activity is compensable under the Act. Sisbro, Inc., 207 Ill. 2d at 204-05. When a preexisting
condition is asymptomatic and then becomes painful as the result of work-related activity, that
symptomatic condition is compensable under the Act as an aggravation of the preexisting
condition even in the absence of an organic or structural change in the preexisting condition.
Tazewell County v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2025 IL App (4th) 230754WC.
When a preexisting asymptomatic condition becomes painful for reasons other than an organic or
structural change or natural progression, it follows that the preexisting condition was aggravated
by something. If the aggravation is work-related, such as repetitive trauma, and solely causes
pain, we hold that the pain suffered is, in and of itself, a compensable aggravation of the
preexisting condition. (Id).
The Arbitrator has carefully reviewed and considered all medical evidence along with all
the testimony. The Arbitrator finds Petitioner has proven by the preponderance of the credible
evidence that his current condition of ill-being is causally related to his work accident, as set
forth more fully below.
The Arbitrator finds the opinions of Dr. S , as the treating physician, to be more
persuasive than the opinions of Dr. Cbecause, in part, since he had a greater opportunity to
assess Petitioners symptoms and credibility than the Section 12 examiner. See International
Vermiculite Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 77 Ill.2d 1, 4 (1979); see also Sears v. Rutishauser, 102 Ill.
2d. 402. 407 (1984).
Dr. S diagnosed a herniated disc at C5-6 with right arm radiculopathy related to
Petitioner’s work accident. The MRI showed the disc herniation at C5-6 that impinged upon the
thecal sac. Dr. S opined the mechanism of injury was a competent mechanism to result in a

11. v. Performance Team Logistics, LLC., Case #23WC
Page 8 of 10

disc herniation. (Px. 4). Dr. S indicated Petitioner did not suffer a simple cervical strain
because he had significant pain and a progression of symptoms resulting in radiculopathy. Dr.
S opined that Petitioner’s preexisting degenerative disc disease at C5-6 was asymptomatic
until his work accident. The evidence at trial confirms Petitioner was not experiencing any
cervical spine symptoms until after his work accident and that his symptoms continued to
progress. The Arbitrator finds the medical records to be consistent with Dr. S ’s opinions.
The Arbitrator finds the opinions of Dr. C less persuasive than the opinions of Dr.
S . Dr. C opined Petitioner suffered a cervical strain or sprain which resolved by
March 1, 2024 since the typical soft tissue injury resolves in 6-12 weeks. However, on March 1,
2024, Petitioner was examined at . The examination show that
Petitioner’s symptoms were not resolved. The examination noted weakness in the right arm,
restricted cervical range of motion and tenderness. (Px. 3). The Arbitrator finds Petitioner’s
March 1, 2024 examination findings undermines Dr. C ’s MMI opinion.
Dr. C also that opined Petitioner’s current condition was only a manifestation and
normal progression of his degenerative disc disease unrelated to his work accident. The
Arbitrator finds Dr. C failed to sufficiently address the temporal relationship between
Petitioner’s symptoms and his work injury. Petitioner was asymptomatic prior to his work injury
but became symptomatic after his work accident and remained continuously symptomatic
thereafter. Dr. C also stated Petitioner’s upper extremity weakness resolved by January 19,
2024. The medical records dated February 20, 2024, from , conflict
with Dr. C ’s position because, at that time, Petitioner was still experiencing upper
extremity weakness. Additionally, the medical record dated May 10, 2024, also from
, show that Petitioner’s upper extremity weakness worsened after participating
in work conditioning.
Dr. C opined that being jostled in a truck was an insufficient mechanism of injury to
permanently aggravate or accelerate Petitioner’s degenerative condition. Dr. C failed to
sufficiently address why Petitioner’s whiplash type cervical injury was an insufficient
mechanism of injury but the normal progression of degenerative disc disease was a sufficient
mechanism. To support his opinions Dr. C implies that Petitioner’s radiculopathy did not
exist until it appeared persistent in the medical records around May of 2024. Dr. C doesn’t
sufficiently address Petitioner’s upper extremity weakness which is also a neurologic finding.

12. v. Performance Team Logistics, LLC., Case #23WC
Page 9 of 10

The records from January 4, 2024, February 20, 2024 and May 10,
2024 show that Petitioner continuously experienced upper extremity weakness soon after his
work accident. An MRI was ordered on January 4, 2024 based upon Petitioner’s upper extremity
weakness to rule out a disc injury. The neurologic component of Petitioner’s symptoms appeared
soon after his work accident but never fully resolved. The Arbitrator also notes that Dr. C
did not address the worsening of Petitioner’s upper extremity weakness after participating in
work conditioning or after retrieving files at work located in a bottom a drawer.
With Respect to Issue (J) Whether Respondent paid all appropriate changes for all
reasonable and necessary medical services, the Arbitrator Finds as follows:

Section 8(a) of the Act states a Respondent is responsible “…for all the necessary first
aid, medical and surgical services, and all necessary medical, surgical and hospital services
thereafter incurred, limited, however, to that which is reasonably required to cure or relieve
from the effects of the accidental injury…” A claimant has the burden of proving that the medical
services were necessary, and the expenses were reasonable. See Gallentine v. Industrial Comm'n,
201 Ill.App.3d 880, 888 (2nd Dist. 1990).
The Arbitrator incorporates the Conclusions of Law in Section “F” into this Section. The
Arbitrator finds Petitioner has proven by the preponderance of the credible evidence that the
medical services provided were necessary and reasonably required to cure or relieve him from
the effects of his work injury.
As stated above in Section F of the Conclusions of Law the Arbitrator found Petitioner’s
current condition to be causally connected to his work injury. Respondent did not proffer any
evidence Petitioner’s medical treatment was unreasonable or unnecessary. The Arbitrator notes
that Dr. S opined that Petitioner’s medical treatment were reasonable and necessary. As
such, Respondent shall pay to Petitioner the outstanding bills identified in Petitioner’s exhibit #1,
totaling $31,194.96, pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Act subject to the fee schedule in Sections
8.2 of the Act.
With respect to issue “K”, whether Petitioner is entitled to prospective medical care, the
Arbitrator finds as follows:
Section 8(a) of the Act entitles a claimant to compensation for all necessary medical,
surgical and hospital services “thereafter incurred” that are reasonably required to cure or relieve
the effects of injury. Procedures or treatment that have been prescribed by a medical service

13. v. Performance Team Logistics, LLC., Case #23WC
Page 10 of 10
provider are “incurred” within the meaning of the statute, even if they have not yet been paid.
Plantation Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 294 Ill.App.3d 705, 710 (Ill. App. 2nd Dist. 1997).
The Arbitrator incorporates the Conclusions of Law in Sections F and J into this Section.
Petitioner seeks prospective medical treatment consisting of an anterior cervical diskectomy and
fusion at C5-6 as recommended by Dr. S . The Arbitrator finds Petitioner has proven by the
preponderance of the credible evidence that the surgery recommended by Dr. S is related
to his work accident, necessary and reasonable required to cure or relieve him form the effects of
his work accident.
Respondent’s Section 12 examiner, Dr. C , agreed the recommended surgery was
reasonable and necessary but not related to Petitioner’s work accident. As stated above in
Section F of the Conclusions of Law the Arbitrator found Petitioner’s current condition to be
causally connected to his work injury. As such, Respondent shall pay for the anterior cervical
diskectomy and fusion at C5-6-7 recommended by Dr. S including reasonable and
necessary attendant care pursuant to Sections 8.2 and 8(a) of the Act.
With respect to issue (K) whether Petitioner is entitled to temporary total disability
benefits, the Arbitrator finds as follows:
The Arbitrator incorporates the Conclusions of Law in Sections “F” and “J” into this
Section. Petitioner has been off work from December 2, 2023 through January 4, 2024 and from
January 6, 2024 through December 10, 2024 for a period of 53 3/7 weeks. Respondent disputed
TTD benefits based upon causation. The Arbitrator finds Petitioner has proven by the
preponderance of the credible evidence that he is entitled to TTD benefits from December 2,
2023 through January 4, 2024 and from January 6, 2024 through December 10, 2024 for a period
of 53 3/7 weeks. As such, Respondent shall pay to Petitioner TTD benefits from December 2,
2023 through January 4, 2024 and from January 6, 2024 through December 10, 2024 for a period
of 53 3/7 weeks, pursuant to Section 8(b) of the Act. Respondent shall be given a credit of
$36,363.20 for temporary total disability benefits that have been paid.
By:
Arbitrator
FEBRUARY 2025