Skip to main content
The Truth Hurts: Assessing Witness Credibility at Trial; A Study of Two Cases
The Appellate Court’s decision in Lynne Spencer v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2024 Ill. App. (2nd) 230576WC-U, emphasizes the weight of consistent reporting in determining a petitioner’s credibility and determining whether an accident arose out of and in the course of a petitioner’s employment.
Spencer involved a bus driver who alleged that she was hit on the back of the head by an unknown assailant when she went to start her bus on the morning of February 20, 2015. Petitioner alleged that she was briefly knocked unconscious and that she did not see or hear anything at the time of the alleged accident. Petitioner testified that she had a raised bump on the back of her head and that she developed psychiatric issues as a result of the accident. Although petitioner called the police (who reported to the scene and conducted an investigation), there was no direct evidence of the accident (such as witnesses or video footage).
Evidence showed that there was a camera on the bus that began recording as soon as the bus was turned on and did not show petitioner or an unknown assailant on the bus. The record also showed that there were other employees present in the bus schoolyard at the time of petitioner’s alleged accident.
Petitioner testified that she was struck on the head by an unidentified assailant after she entered her unlocked bus that was parked in a lot without security cameras or lighting. Unlike the Arbitrator and the Circuit Court, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission found that the petitioner’s testimony was credible.
The Appellate Court ultimately held that the Commission’s decision (which was favorable to the petitioner on the issue of accident) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In support of its conclusion, the Appellate Court held that petitioner consistently reported the details of the attack to her treating physicians and the Section 12 examiners since the inception of her claim. The Appellate Court additionally noted that “while different inferences could be drawn from the evidence, we cannot say that the Commission’s credibility determinations or its factual findings that a work-related accident occurred was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
While the Appellate Court’s decision in Spencer emphasizes the weight of consistent reporting in determining a petitioner’s credibility, the Court’s later decision in ACME Alliance, LLC v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2025 Ill. App. (1st) 241243WC-U, further highlights the importance of credibility on the stand versus consistent reporting in determining whether an accident arose out of and in the course of a petitioner’s employment.
In ACME, the First District Appellate Court issued an unpublished decision that involved a CNC machine operator who alleged that on June 14, 2019, she felt a pain in her lower back as she carried a box of parts near the end of her shift.
Unlike in Spencer, where petitioner’s injury was apparent immediately after her alleged accident (for example, she immediately reported her injury to her employer, filed a police report, and presented to the emergency room for treatment), the petitioner in ACME did not seek treatment for her injuries for more than one month after her alleged accident. The only evidence of notice to her employer was her own testimony alleging that she reported her injury sometime before July 20, 2019.
Despite the flaws in her case with regard to accident and notice, the Commission reversed the Arbitrator’s decision and found that petitioner sustained a compensable accident arising out of and occurring in the course of her employment.
Regarding notice, the petitioner in ACME admitted that she did not notify anyone in management that she had been injured and stated that she had not done so because she thought her pain would go away. She additionally testified that she delayed seeking medical treatment because she lacked the financial ability to pay and that she waited until she found a new job to seek treatment.
Similar to Spencer, the Commission in ACME also found petitioner’s testimony credible, reasoning that she maintained a consistent report of accident to her treating physicians and Section 12 examiners throughout the course of litigation.
Employer ACME sought a judicial review of the Commission’s decision in the Circuit Court, which entered an order confirming the Commission’s decision. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court and confirmed the decision of the Commission. In its reasoning, the Appellate Court touched upon the issue of credibility, stating that “the reasons given by the Commission support its finding that contrary to the arbitrator’s finding, the claimant testified credibly that she sustained a work accident while working for ACME on June 14, 2019.”
In both cases, the Appellate Court agreed with the Commission’s reversal of the Arbitrator’s Decision on the issue of “credibility” of a witness. This begs the question: Who is in the best position to observe demeanor, manner, or attitude of the witness? The Arbitrator, who is present to observe the actual testimony, or the Commission, which relies upon the transcript? The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission’s Arbitrators are competent and experienced hearing officers, who view the witnesses and hear testimony, and prepare their factual findings and recommendations. As a point of observation, in the Illinois Workers’ Compensation system, the Arbitrator is the only neutral person and trier of fact to observe the witnesses and is in the best position to render credibility findings based on viewing the witnesses through both direct and cross-examination, and his or her own examination. We believe that Arbitrators should be given deference in determining the credibility of witnesses. The Appellate Court’s decisions in Spencer and ACME illustrate how a consistent record of prior reporting can be given more weight than an Arbitrator’s assessment of credibility in-court.
If you have any questions about these recent Appellate Court decisions, reach out to our attorneys here.