“We believe *** that claimant proved impaired earning capacity, and as a result, the Commission’s decision not to affirm the arbitrator’s [wage differential] award was against the manifest weight of the evidence.” (Emphasis added.)
How later courts described this case
- “We believe *** that claimant proved impaired earning capacity, and as a result, the Commission’s decision not to affirm the arbitrator’s [wage differential] award was against the manifest weight of the evidence.” (Emphasis added.)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE RAKOWSKI, specially concurring:
I agree with the majority that claimant is entitled to an award pursuant to section 8(d)(1). I write separately because I would remand this cause to the Commission to consider the arbitrator’s section 8(d)(1) award.
This is not a case where the arbitrator and the Commission were dealing with the same issue. Consider, for example, a situation where the arbitrator awarded 80% of the person as a whole which the Commission modified to a lessor amount. In such a situation, if we conclude that the Commission’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence, we may reinstate the arbitrator’s award. Both the arbitrator and the Commission considered the same issue, percentage of a person as a whole, with differing results.
In the instant case, the Commission vacated the arbitrator’s section 8(d)(1) award and made an award pursuant to section 8(d)(2). The Commission only addressed the propriety of a section 8(d)(1) award. In that we have concluded that section 8(d)(1) is proper, the Commission should now address the amount. By reinstating the arbitrator’s award, the majority has denied Commission review of the arbitrator’s decision.