APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION DIVISION
509 N.E.2d 1330, 157 Ill. App. 3d 996, 109 Ill. Dec. 318 1987.IL.783
Date Reported: Original Opinion of June 10, 1987 at 157 Ill. App. 3d 996.
JUSTICE WOODWARD delivered the opinion of the court. BARRY, P.J., and McCULLOUGH, McNAMARA, and KASSERMAN, JJ., concur.
DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE WOODWARD
The petition for rehearing alleges that this court erred in considering the medical reports of Dr. Miller and Dr. Busch as providing support for the finding of causal connection between Halpin's industrial accident and his present condition of ill-being, since neither report makes any statement as to that issue. However, the opinion in this case sets forth verbatim the colloquy between the attorneys for both parties and the arbitrator and clearly shows that Halpin's attorney offered the reports of Dr. Miller and Dr. Busch with the understanding that if the doctors were called to testify and were asked a proper hypothetical question, that each doctor would testify that a causal connection existed.
The petition also alleges that this court erred in finding that Rotoprint waived objection as to the testimony on the issue of casual connection by failing to object to the statement of Halpin's counsel and the method by which the doctors' reports were introduced. Rotoprint argues that its counsel "succinctly stated that he waived objection to the report only insofar as the doctor could testify to alleged objective findings," and that it was received for only those purposes.
It is patently clear from the record in this case that counsel for Rotoprint did not succinctly state that he waived objection only insofar as the doctor could testify to alleged objective findings, nor were the doctors' medical reports admitted into evidence only for the purposes of objective findings. No ruling was made by the arbitrator stating that the medical reports were admitted for a limited purpose or that they were received in evidence for a restricted purpose. It was the obligation of Rotoprint's counsel to raise the issue limiting the statement of Halpin's counsel and the purpose of the exhibit. Counsel for Rotoprint failed to do so. Furthermore, no request was made nor did the arbitrator limit or strike the statement of Halpin's counsel that the doctors would testify in the affirmative to a proper hypothetical question on the issue of causal connection.
Finally, Rotoprint argues as follows:
"It is generally accepted at the Industrial Commission, that a medical report may not be received into evidence over objection as the report would be hearsay and it would deprive the opposite party of its right of cross-examination."
We have previously concluded that no objection was made to the admission of the medical reports. Further, Rotoprint has cited no rule promulgated by the Industrial Commission codifying this "practice" which would compel this court to grant the petition for rehearing.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
The petition for rehearing ...