JUSTICE RARICK delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant, Michael Gimino, sought benefits pursuant to the Workers'Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 1994)) for injuries sustained whilein the employ of Edward Gray Corporation (Graycor). Gimino was employed by Graycoras an ironworker. Gimino injured his back on October 7, 1994, while cutting metal sheetswith a saw. The arbitrator found that Gimino had sustained an accidental injury arising outof and in the course of his employment. The arbitrator awarded medical expenses, 18 6/7weeks of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, 16 3/7 weeks of maintenance benefitspursuant to section 8(a), and a wage differential award pursuant to section 8(d)(1) of the Act. The Industrial Commission (Commission) in a 2-1 decision, affirmed and adopted thedecision of the arbitrator. The Commission's decision was confirmed by the circuit court ofCook County. We affirm.

The record reveals that Gimino had suffered numerous lower back problems. Gimino sought workers' compensation benefits for a low back injury which occurred on May6, 1986, while employed with Midland Steel. A CT scan at that time revealed a bulging discat L4-5 and a herniated disc at L3-4. Gimino was determined to be permanently partiallydisabled to the extent of 8% of the person as a whole. Gimino also sought benefits for a lowback injury sustained on September 19, 1988, while in the employ of M.C. Stanley. Hereceived conservative treatment and returned to work for M.C. Stanley. He received fiveweeks of TTD benefits. He sustained a second injury while working for M.C. Stanley onJune 15, 1989. He sought compensation benefits and filed a civil suit in the circuit court ofCook County. Gimino was determined to be permanently partially disabled to the extent of32% of the person as a whole. A functional capacity evaluation conducted on November28-29, 1989, by Worker Rehabilitation Services, Inc., revealed that Gimino was capable ofperforming at the medium level of work. Mary Petershack, the examiner, concluded thatGimino could return to his previous occupation provided that he limited the amount ofstooping and overhead lifting.

Gimino returned to work in April 1990, eventually obtaining employment withPangere Corporation. On April 1, 1994, Gimino injured his back while turning corrugatedsheets of metal. Gimino saw Dr. George Miz on April 25, 1994. He underwent physicaltherapy and work hardening. A functional capacity evaluation conducted on July 12, 1994,by Med-Works Physical Therapy Center established various lifting restrictions, as well asrestrictions against stooping and climbing ladders. The evaluation noted that Gimino didnot meet the maximum lifting requirements of his job at Pangere but found that he couldreturn to work as an ironworker if certain modifications could be placed on the job. Giminofiled a workers' compensation claim (95WC21521) as a result of this accident.

Dr. Miz released Gimino with certain restrictions, but Pangere did not offerGimino a job or vocational assistance. Gimino did not return to Pangere but obtained workat West Side Erectors, where he worked for several weeks in July 1994. This job wasdescribed as a "soft touch" job which was less physically demanding.

Gimino began working for Graycor on August 11, 1994, performing ironworkfabrication at the Ford Assembly Plant in Chicago. On his job application, Gimino indicatedthat he suffered from no physical conditions which would affect job safety or performance. Gimino worked with two sizes of aluminum sheeting, one weighing 100 pounds and theother weighing 50 pounds. Gimino's job was to attach these metal sheets to a wall. To doso, he would stand on a roof and pull the sheets up 20 feet onto the roof by a "handline." Once it was on the roof, he would position it on blocks and cut it with a 30-pound saw. Cutting the sheets required him to stand in a bent-over position.

On October 7, 1994, after cutting approximately 20-30 sheets, Gimino beganexperiencing low back pain. Later, the pain began radiating down into his right leg. Giminoworked the following week but did less and less because of the pain. On October 18, 1994,he was forced to leave work after only 15 minutes because of the pain. He contacted Dr.Vaught, a chiropractor, and scheduled an appointment with Dr. George Miz.

Gimino saw Dr. Vaught on October 19, 1994. He complained of painradiating down into his right leg when he sat, stood or laid down. Dr. Vaught's recordsreflect a comment that Gimino had previously injured his back while lifting heavy objectsand that the cause of his back problems stemmed from a fall in 1989. Gimino treated withDr. Vaught from October 19 through November 2, 1994.

On October 25, 1994, Gimino saw Dr. Miz. He gave Dr. Miz a history of painbeginning on October 7, 1994, while working with a saw which weighed approximately 20-30 pounds. The pain became progressively worse. Gimino characterized the pain as 50%back pain and 50% right leg pain. Dr. Miz felt that Gimino's symptoms were moreconsistent with disc pathology than degenerative changes. An MRI performed on October28, 1994, revealed a moderate to large right L5-S1 disc herniation. Physical therapy wasrecommended and a work hardening program was instituted.

Gimino underwent physical therapy from October 27, 1994, through February6, 1995. He underwent a functional capacity evaluation on February 7, 1995, and wasreleased to return to work under a light-medium physical demand level.

Gimino was examined by Dr. Jeffrey Coe on November 18, 1995. Giminogave Dr. Coe a history of cutting sheet metal at work when he began experiencing pain inhis low back and right leg. After examining Gimino and reviewing his medical records, Dr.Coe diagnosed a right-sided herniation of the L5-S1 disc with right lumbar radiculopathy. He opined that this condition was related to the October 7, 1994, accident.

Gimino was seen by Dr. Calvin Brown on February 24, 1995, at the requestof Graycor. Dr. Brown concluded that, based upon the lack of objective findings, Giminohad reached maximum medical improvement and could return to work without restrictions. Brown testified that Gimino may have described the October 7, 1994, accident to him, butthat he did not have any independent recollection. Dr. Brown also testified that he took nonotes during the examination and that made his report based upon his memory. Dr. Browntestified that he did not feel that Gimino was at a high risk of reinjuring his back if hereturned to ironworking. Dr. Brown further testified that he did not feel that the February24, 1995, functional capacity evaluation was a valid measure of Gimino's abilities. Brownadmitted that the only records he had to review were some of Dr. Miz's records and the MRI. Brown testified that if he had the additional medical records his opinion might change.

Dr. Miz released Gimino to return to work with permanent restrictions of nolifting over 15 pounds on a frequent basis and no lifting over 45 pounds on an occasionalbasis. Dr. Miz testified that vocational rehabilitation was appropriate because the February7, 1995, functional capacity evaluation demonstrated that Gimino could not return to workas an ironworker. He further testified that Gimino was totally disabled from October 18,1994, through February 27, 1995.

Gimino did not return to work as an ironworker for Graycor or any otherironworking employer. Instead, he obtained employment at the Greater Chicago AutoAuction as a porter, making approximately $304 per week. His weekly earnings as anironworker had been $1,002 per week.

Marlene Butler, a rehabilitation nurse hired by Graycor, noted in a report datedJanuary 16, 1995, that Gimino gave her a history of low back pain and intermittent painradiating into his right leg following an October 7, 1994, accident. He indicated that he wasbent over, cutting siding material with a saw when he felt the onset of pain. In a February15, 1995, report Butler noted that Dr. Miz stated that any work more demanding than therestrictions set forth in the functional capacity evaluation would greatly increase the risk ofreinjury. She also noted that Dr. Brown indicated that heavy labor might put Gimino at risk.

Pamela Stone, a rehabilitation counselor retained by Gimino, and KathyHadley, a vocational specialist retained by Graycor, both testified that Gimino could notreturn to ironworking and that his job at the Greater Chicago Auto Auction was appropriatefor him. They also testified that the restrictions stemming from the November 1987functional capacity evaluation would not have permitted Gimino to return to work as anironworker and that, based upon that report, they would not have recommended a return toironworking.

Gimino's workers' compensation claim against Graycor (94WC61521) wasconsolidated, for purposes of hearing, with his claim against Pangere (95WC21521). Gimino sought a wage differential award pursuant to section 8(d)(1) of the Act againstGraycor and a section 8(d)(2) award against Pangere. The arbitrator concluded that Giminohad sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment withGraycor. The arbitrator found that frequency of the work, cutting 20-30 sheets a day, andthe bent-over position in which Gimino performed the work, was such that the injury aroseout of a risk associated with Gimino's employment. This finding was based upon thetestimony of Drs. Miz and Coe, as well as Gimino's own testimony which the arbitratorfound unrebutted and credible in all respects.

The arbitrator found that Gimino was temporarily totally disabled for theperiods October 18, 1994, through February 27, 1995. This finding was based on thetestimony of Gimino, Dr. Miz, Dr. Coe and the reports of Marlene Butler. The arbitratordiscounted Dr. Brown's opinion with respect to Gimino's ability to return to work, findingthat such opinion was rendered without reviewing the complete records of Dr. Miz andwithout reviewing any of the records of Gimino's physical therapy or work hardening.

The arbitrator also found Gimino to be permanently partially disabled pursuantto section 8(d)(1) of the Act. The arbitrator noted that Drs. Miz and Coe testified that, basedupon the functional capacity evaluation, Gimino could not return to work as an ironworker. The arbitrator found the average weekly wage Gimino could have earned as an ironworkerwas $1,002. Gimino's current earnings were found to be $304 per week. The arbitratorrejected Graycor's argument that Gimino was not entitled to section 8(d)(1) benefits becausehe had previously been restricted from ironworking, but returned to ironworking anyway. The arbitrator concluded that penalizing Gimino for attempting to return to work at hisnormal occupation would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. The arbitrator foundthat although 66 2/3% of the difference was $465.35 per week, the arbitrator awarded only$396.87 per week, finding this to be the maximum amount allowable under section 8(b) foran injury occurring on October 7, 1994.

On appeal, Graycor argues that the Commission erred as a matter of law indetermining that Gimino's usual and customary line of work was ironworking. Graycormaintains that following his treatment for the injury sustained while working for Pangere,Gimino was placed under restrictions that precluded him from working as a full-dutyironworker. Because he was physically incapacitated from working as an ironworker as aresult of his previous injury, Graycor contends, ironworking could not, as a matter of law,have been Gimino's usual and customary line of employment at the time of his October 7,1994, injury.

The determination of what constitutes a claimant's "usual and customary lineof employment" is a question of fact for the Commission and its determination thereof willnot be set aside on review unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Aswith all fact questions, where the facts are not in dispute and give rise to only one inference,the question becomes one of law, and the Commission's decision is subject to de novoreview. Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n, 253 Ill. App. 3d 900, 626 N.E.2d 234 (1993). Where the evidence gives rise to more than one inference, however, the question remainsone of fact and the Commission's determination is accorded great deference. Morgan CabCompany v. Industrial Comm'n, 60 Ill. 2d 92, 324 N.E.2d 425 (1975).

The question of whether ironworking was Gimino's usual and customaryline of employment becomes one of law only if the evidence that he could not have returnedto ironworking is undisputed and of such character as to give rise to no other inference. Insupport of its position Graycor relies on the July 12, 1994, functional capacity evaluationwhich, according to Graycor, demonstrates that Gimino could not have returned toironworking. Reviewing the evaluation, we note that it did not preclude Gimino from everreturning to ironworking. Rather, it said that he could not perform the maximum liftingrequirements of his job at Pangere and could not return unless certain job modifications weremade. Further, the opinion of the evaluator was made in the context of the job requirementsat Pangere, not Graycor. While this constitutes evidence that Gimino was not capable ofperforming the maximum lifting requirements of his job at Pangere, it is hardly of suchconclusive character that the only permissible inference was that Gimino could not returnto work as an ironworker. Moreover, this inference is clearly refuted by the fact that Giminodid in fact return to ironworking at Graycor and was in full performance of his required jobduties for 57 days prior to his injury. Additionally, Gimino testified that he had been anironworker for 30 years, and Graycor offered no evidence to the contrary. The evidencegives rise to more than one inference, and thus the question of whether ironworking wasGimino's usual and customary line of employment was one of fact for the Commission. Wecannot say that its resolution thereof was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

Moreover, Graycor's position is at odds with the primary purpose of the Act,which is to require that the cost of industrial accidents be borne by the industry rather thanits individual employees. Modern Drop Forge Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 284 Ill. App.3d 259, 671 N.E.2d 753 (1996). To adopt Graycor's position and deny an injured employeebenefits under the circumstances of this case would be contrary to the purpose of the Act,and would discourage employees from attempting to return to work by penalizing those whodo.

Graycor also argues that as a matter of law, whatever earning impairmentGimino has suffered as a result of not being able to work as an ironworker occurred whilehe was employed at Pangere. The basis of this argument is the same as the argument above,that Gimino was incapacitated from working as an ironworker as a result of his employmentwith Pangere. Having rejected that argument, we need not address this one.

Gimino argues that the present appeal is frivolous and warrants sanctionspursuant to Supreme Court Rule 375(a) because Graycor's arguments for reversal are notreasonably well grounded in fact or law and are made in bad faith to harass him and to avoidpaying the compensation award. Gimino maintains that there is no evidence at all to supportGraycor's argument that ironworking was not his usual and customary line of employment. Graycor contends that as a result of this accident at Pangere, Gimino was placed onpermanent work restrictions that did not allow him to safely perform the full duty activitiesof an ironworker, and that he obtained his ironworking job at Graycor by lying about hisabilities in his employment application.

Although Graycor's argument is unpersuasive, it is not so lacking infoundation in law and evidence as to merit sanctions, and we hereby deny same.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook Countyis affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

McCULLOUGH, P.J., and HOFFMAN, COLWELL, and HOLDRIDGE, JJ.,concurring.