City of Springfield v. Industrial Comm'n
State: Illinois
Court: 4th District Appellate
Docket No: 4-95-0926WC
Case Date: 06/30/1997
NO. 4-95-0926WC
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
Industrial Commission Division
THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ) Appeal from
Appellant, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Sangamon County
THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. ) No. 95MR116
(B.K., Appellee). )
) Honorable
) Donald M. Cadagin,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the opinion of the court:
Respondent, City of Springfield, appeals from an order of
the Industrial Commission (Commission) that awarded benefits to
B.K. (claimant) for a psychological injury suffered after her
supervisor forced her to engage in five acts of nonconsensual
sexual intercourse over a five-month period of time. Claimant
maintains she suffers from debilitating depression because of the
assaults. Respondent maintains that the five encounters were
consensual and that claimant suffered no physical trauma from which
her present psychological condition could have arisen. At issue is
whether the Commission erred in finding claimant established a
compensable psychic injury under the "physical-mental injury"
theory of compensability. See Pathfinder Co. v. Industrial Comm'n,
62 Ill. 2d 556, 563, 343 N.E.2d 913, 917 (1976). For the reasons
discussed below, we affirm the decision of the Commission.
Because the parties and this court are familiar with the
facts of this case, it is unnecessary to recite them at length.
Only those facts necessary to an understanding of our disposition
of this matter will be discussed. Claimant testified that during the period August 1991
through January 1992, her supervisor made verbal and physical
sexual advances toward her and forced her to engage in
nonconsensual intercourse on at least five occasions at work and
elsewhere. Claimant testified that although she resisted and told
him "don't," he continued to grab her, pin her down, and pin her
against walls. Claimant also testified that, on one occasion,
while she was resisting his advances, he mentioned the name of
another female coworker and implied that she could take claimant's
job. Claimant stated that she did not report this conduct because
she was afraid no one would believe her and she was afraid of
losing her job.
In February 1993, after hearing that another female co-
worker had filed sexual harassment charges against the same
supervisor, claimant reported her incidents to her supervisor's
superiors. Thereafter, claimant became very emotional, could not
sleep, and was frightened to be at work. After the incidents
became public, she stated that she was isolated by coworkers, some
of whom verbally and physically confronted her. She was made the
subject of graffiti and made to sit next to her supervisor during
certain meetings. Claimant was removed from the direct supervision
of the supervisor who allegedly assaulted her.
Claimant testified that during March 1993, she had
contemplated suicide. On April 15, 1993, claimant sought
counseling from Kevin McAvoy, a clinical psychologist under
contract to the respondent's employee assistance program. He
diagnosed claimant as suffering from generalized anxiety disorder
and post-traumatic stress disorder due to the sexual harassment and
assaults at work.
McAvoy referred claimant to Mary Ossowski, a clinical
social worker, who first counseled claimant on April 26, 1993.
Ossowski treated claimant "for therapeutic issues arising from the
personal trauma of being a victim of sexual harassment in her work
place." Ossowski referred claimant to a psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph
Bohlen, who gave an initial diagnosis of adjustment disorder with
depressed mood. He treated her with antidepressants and placed her
in group therapy for victims of sexual harassment. After further
tests and consultations, Dr. Bohlen diagnosed major depression,
single episode.
On June 29, 1994, claimant was demoted and reassigned to
work under the supervision of the supervisor who allegedly
assaulted her. Ossowski noted that claimant's demotion, coupled
with the fact that she was forced to work again under that
particular supervisor, caused undue emotional distress, and it
would have created irreparable emotional harm to claimant if she
stayed in such environment. Claimant has not reported to duty as
ordered since June 29, 1994.
On July 18, 1994, Dr. Bohlen removed claimant from work
due to her emotional state. He opined that there was a high
likelihood that claimant's depression and anxiety were reactive,
and their onset was caused by the sexual harassment she received at
work, noting that as the conditions at work worsened, so did her
depression. He opined further that claimant showed all the signs
of adult sexual abuse, and the fact that she had been the victim of
child abuse made the adult sexual abuse more debilitating. Dr.
Bohlen explained that a position of authority is often used in
place of physical force and may be more damaging. He believed
claimant viewed her demotion as punishment for making the
allegations against her supervisor and opined claimant could not
return to work.
At the arbitration hearing, the respondent attempted to
establish that the sexual encounters between claimant and her
supervisor had been completely consensual. However, the supervisor
alleged to have assaulted claimant did not testify at the
arbitration hearing to refute claimant's allegations, and the
Department failed to offer any rebutting medical evidence.
The arbitrator determined that claimant had failed to
prove an accident arising out of and in the course of her
employment and denied claimant benefits on that basis. The
Commission, with one dissent, reversed the arbitrator, finding that
claimant sustained accidental injuries arising out of and in the
course of her employment on April 15, 1993, awarded her temporary
total disability benefits in the amount of $712.92 per week for the
period of June 24, 1994, through November 7, 1994, and awarded her
$7,370 for medical expenses. The circuit court confirmed the
Commission, and the respondent appealed.
ANALYSIS
Claimant sought, and the Commission granted, compensation
for mental incapacity allegedly resulting from a work-related
injury. In Pathfinder, our supreme court held that psychological
injuries could be compensable in either of two ways: (1) where the
psychological injuries were related to and caused by a physical
trauma or injury, i.e., "physical-mental" trauma, or (2) where the
psychological injuries were caused by "a sudden, severe emotional
shock traceable to a definite time, place and cause which causes
psychological injury or harm *** though no physical trauma or
injury was sustained," i.e., "mental-mental" trauma. Pathfinder,
62 Ill. 2d at 563, 343 N.E.2d at 917. The "mental-mental" theory
of recovery is generally recognized as a more difficult basis for
trying a case in which the claimant is seeking to prove his or her
psychological injury is compensable. See Chicago Board of
Education v. Industrial Comm'n, 169 Ill. App. 3d 459, 466, 523
N.E.2d 912, 917 (1988). Under the "physical-mental" theory, the
work-related physical trauma need not be the sole causative factor,
but need only be a causative factor of the subsequent mental
condition. See May v. Industrial Comm'n, 195 Ill. App. 3d 468,
487, 552 N.E.2d 258, 270 (1990).
Prior to the court's holding in Pathfinder, the
"physical-mental" theory of recovery had been the only method of
establishing compensability for psychological injuries. It was
universally accepted in this state that mental disability was
compensable "only if it was precipitated by physical contact or
injury traceable to a definite time, place and cause." (Emphasis
added.) General Motors Parts Division v. Industrial Comm'n, 168
Ill. App. 3d 678, 685, 522 N.E.2d 1260, 1265 (1988). The
Pathfinder court also noted that minor physical contact or contact
that left no objective manifestation, i.e., bruises, contusions,
broken bones, et cetera, was sufficient to cause psychological
injuries to be compensable. Pathfinder, 62 Ill. 2d at 564, 343
N.E.2d at 917.
In the matter sub judice, the Commission analyzed the
record based upon the "physical-mental" rather than the "mental-
mental" theory of compensation for psychological injuries. The
Commission held that the five acts of nonconsensual sexual
intercourse between claimant and her supervisor were in the nature
of physical assaults upon her and claimant's psychological injuries
were therefore caused by a physical "contact," trauma or injury
more appropriately analyzed under the "physical-mental" model.
The respondent maintains that the Commission erred in
finding that the physical contact between claimant and her
supervisor was nonconsensual and therefore in the nature of a
physical assault or trauma. Respondent also maintains that the
Commission erred in using the "physical-mental" theory. We
disagree.
Whether a supervisor's forcing of nonconsensual sexual
intercourse upon an employee can constitute physical contact for
purposes of establishing compensation for psychological injuries
under the "physical-mental" theory is a question of first
impression in our courts.
After reviewing the case law, we are convinced that the
physical contact explicit in nonconsensual sexual intercourse is
sufficient to meet the requirement of physical contact necessary
for the "physical-mental" trauma theory of recovery. Rape, sexual
assault, and battery are all physical bodily injury crimes in
Illinois. See 720 ILCS 5/12-13, 12-3 (West 1992). For purposes of
battery and aggravated sexual assault, bodily harm may be shown by
either actual injury, such as bruises, or may be inferred by the
trier of fact based upon common knowledge. People v. Lopez, 222
Ill. App. 3d 872, 879, 584 N.E.2d 462, 467 (1991). Therefore, we
find that it was proper for the Commission to infer that a
nonconsensual sexual assault was likely to involve physical trauma,
and it was appropriate to characterize claimant's injury as a
"physical-mental" trauma, as opposed to a "mental-mental" trauma.
We also reject respondent's contention that the
Commission erred in finding that the supervisor's actions caused
claimant's psychological injuries. The respondent maintains that
no physical trauma took place, as the sexual acts were consensual,
and that, therefore, the actions by the supervisor could not have
caused claimant's subsequent depression.
The question of whether there is a causal connection
between a claimant's injury and his or her employment is uniquely
within the province of the Commission (Organic Waste Systems v.
Industrial Comm'n, 241 Ill. App. 3d 257, 260, 608 N.E.2d 1243, 1245
(1993)), and its decision will not be disturbed on review unless it
is against the manifest weight of the evidence (Cognato v.
Industrial Comm'n, 242 Ill. App. 3d 50, 55, 609 N.E.2d 783, 786
(1993)). A finding is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence unless an opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Hicks
v. Industrial Comm'n, 251 Ill. App. 3d 320, 327, 621 N.E.2d 293,
297 (1993).
In this case we cannot say that the Commission's
conclusion that claimant was physically assaulted by her supervisor
is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Claimant's
unrefuted testimony described incidents of being held and pinned
down, as well as other unconsented physical contact. Although no
evidence was presented to show that the incidents were consensual,
respondent argued that claimant's conduct in not reporting her
supervisor to authorities or otherwise taking steps to protect
herself indicate that the acts of sexual intercourse were
consensual. While this inference is plausible, it is well settled
that in resolving questions of fact, it is within the province of
the Commission to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve
conflicts in the evidence, assign weight to be accorded the
evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.
Kirkwood v. Industrial Comm'n, 84 Ill. 2d 14, 20, 416 N.E.2d 1078,
1080 (1981).
Claimant's unrebutted testimony supports the Commission's
conclusion that her supervisor committed repeated sexual assaults
against her, and unrefuted medical evidence showed that, as a
result, she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. It
cannot be said, therefore, that the conclusion opposite that of the
Commission's is clearly apparent from the record.
Finally, we note that it is well settled that a physical
assault by a coworker can constitute an accidental injury under the
Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 1992)).
Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill. 2d 455, 463, 564 N.E.2d
1222, 1226 (1990); Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 81 Ill. 2d 229,
238, 408 N.E.2d 198, 202 (1980).
Based upon the foregoing, the circuit court of Sangamon
County, which confirmed the Commission's finding that claimant
proved accidental injuries arising out of in the course of her
employment, is affirmed.
Affirmed.
McCULLOUGH, P.J., and RAKOWSKI, COLWELL, and RARICK, JJ.,
concur.
Illinois Law
Illinois State Laws
Illinois Tax
Illinois Court
Illinois Labor Laws
> Minimum Wage in Illinois
Illinois Agencies