dissenting:
I must dissent. One of the most basic premises in workers’ compensation law is that it is solely within the province of the Commission to judge the credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicting medical testimony and determine the weight evidence is to be given. See, e.g., O’Dette v. Industrial Comm’n, 79 Ill. 2d 249, 253, 403 N.E.2d 221, 223-24 (1980); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 228 Ill. App. 3d 288, 291, 591 N.E.2d 894, 896 (1992). We are not to reject permissible inferences drawn by the Commission or substitute our judgment for that of the Commission merely because other inferences could also be drawn. Wagner Castings Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 241 Ill. App. 3d 584, 594-95, 609 N.E.2d 397, 405 (1993). Yet, this is exactly what the majority is doing, impermissibly substituting its judgment for that of the arbitrator, the Commission and the circuit court. The majority seems to assert we must reverse the Commission’s decision because the Commission erred in failing to consider whether claimant’s injury fell under the exception to compensation for health so deteriorated that any normal daily activity is an overexertion. The majority misses the mark. This very issue was included in employer’s statement of exceptions and argued before the Commission. The determination of whether a claimant’s health has so deteriorated is a question of fact for the Commission to decide. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 92 Ill. 2d 30, 36-37, 440 N.E.2d 861, 864 (1982). The Commission, by awarding benefits, found the exception not applicable in this instance. Dr. Reed could not have been more emphatic that the onset of claimant’s Charcot osteoarthropathy was causally related to his work-related accident. It does not matter that other incidents could have caused the onset; what is important is what caused it here. Claimant’s condition was triggered by stepping out of an 18-wheeler into a pothole attempting to make a delivery. This was not an everyday occurrence to which the general public is routinely exposed like taking off one’s coat (see Branch v. Industrial Comm’n, 95 Ill. 2d 268, 447 N.E.2d 828 (1983)), twisting in a chair (see Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Industrial Comm’n, 44 Ill. 2d 207, 254 N.E.2d 522 (1969)) or bending over to pick up papers (see Greater Peoria Mass Transit District v. Industrial Comm’n, 81 Ill. 2d 38, 405 N.E.2d 796 (1980)). Nor does it matter that claimant may have already been suffering from foot problems if his condition was aggravated or accelerated by the employment-related accident. See Caterpillar Tractor Co., 92 Ill. 2d at 36, 440 N.E.2d at 864. These were all questions for the Commission to resolve, and the Commission resolved them in claimant’s favor. The Commission specifically accepted Dr. Reed’s testimony, the treating physician, and found the testimony of employer’s expert, who only saw claimant once and whose practice consists almost entirely of employment- and insurance-related examinations, less credible. Again, it is the Commission’s function, not ours, to choose between conflicting medical opinions. And, not only may the Commission decide which medical view is to be accepted, it may attach greater weight to the opinion of the treating physician. International Vermiculite Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 77 Ill. 2d 1, 4, 394 N.E.2d 1166, 1168 (1979); ARA Services, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 226 Ill. App. 3d 225, 232, 590 N.E.2d 78, 82 (1992). The majority clearly has forgotten the principle that the Workers’ Compensation Act was designed to protect all workers, whether they be healthy or ill, and compensate them for injuries incurred while working. I believe claimant is entitled to compensation in this instance, and therefore, I must dissent.
JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE joins in this dissent.