Find Legal Information

Docket No. 93729-Agenda 8-March 2003.

SISBRO, INC., Appellee, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION 
et al. (George Rodriguez, Appellant).

Opinion filed May 22, 2003.

CHIEF JUSTICE McMORROW delivered the opinion of thecourt:

Claimant, George Rodriguez (claimant), twisted his ankle ashe stepped out of a delivery truck and into a pothole while makinga delivery of dairy products for his employer, Sisbro, Inc. (Sisbro).The Industrial Commission awarded claimant workers'compensation benefits, finding that there was a causal relationshipbetween this work-related injury and the acute onset of adegenerative condition in claimant's right foot-Charcotosteoarthropathy. The circuit court confirmed the award.

On appeal, the Appellate Court, Industrial CommissionDivision, reversed the judgment of the circuit court, ruling thatclaimant's condition was not compensable under the Worker'sCompensation Act because claimant's health had deteriorated tosuch an extent that normal daily activity could have caused theinjury (the "normal daily activity exception") or because theactivity which caused the injury presented risks no greater thanthose to which the general public is exposed. 327 Ill. App. 3d 868.

We granted claimant's petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill. 2dR. 315(a)), and now reverse the judgment of the appellate courtand affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

Claimant filed an application for adjustment of claim seekingdisability benefits from his employer pursuant to the Workers'Compensation Act (the Act). 820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2000).Claimant alleged that an accidental injury arising out of and in thecourse of his employment was causally related to the onset of adegenerative condition in his right foot-Charcotosteoarthropathy-which caused him to be disabled and unable towork. Sisbro disputed the claim on three points: (1) whether theaccidental injury arose out of and in the course of employment, (2)whether claimant's disabling condition was causally related to hisinjury, and (3) the amount of claimant's annual earnings. On July6, 1999, a hearing was held before an arbitrator to resolve thedisputed matters.

At this hearing, the arbitrator learned that claimant was a 54-year-old male who had been afflicted with Type II (adult onset)diabetes for the past six years. For the past 2