The document is a 12 page arbitration decision from the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission regarding a case between an employee, [Petitioner], and their employer, Speedway LLC, [Respondent]. It details the employee's injury at work where they slipped and fell on ice sustaining a fracture to their right tibia. It describes the employee's medical treatment, including surgery, as well as testimony provided. The arbitrator found that the employee's current condition was causally related to the work injury and that the employer is responsible for all reasonable and necessary medical bills and temporary total disability benefits, less a credit to the employer.

1. ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DECISION SIGNATURE PAGE
Case Number 19WC019850
Case Name v. Speedway, LLC
Consolidated Cases
Proceeding Type
Decision Type Arbitration Decision
Commission Decision Number
Number of Pages of Decision 12
Decision Issued By , Arbitrator
Petitioner Attorney Brien DiNella
Respondent Attorney
DATE FILED: 7/5/2022
THE INTEREST RATE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 28, 2022 2.50%
,Arbitrator
Signature

2. STATE OF ILLINOIS )
Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund (§4(d))
)SS: Rate Adjustment Fund (§8(g))
COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO ) Second Injury Fund (§8(e)18)
None of the above
ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
ARBITRATION DECISION
Case # WC 19850
Employee/Petitioner
v. Consolidated cases:
Speedway, LLC
Employer/Respondent
An Application for Adjustment of Claim was filed in this matter and a Notice of Hearing was mailed to each
party. The matter was heard by the Honorable , Arbitrator of the Commission, in the city of
Rockford, on 4/26/2022. After reviewing all of the evidence presented, the Arbitrator hereby makes findings
on the disputed issues checked below, and attaches those findings to this document.
DISPUTED ISSUES
A. Was Respondent operating under and subject to the Illinois Workers' Compensation or Occupational
Diseases Act?
B. Was there an employee-employer relationship?
C. Did an accident occur that arose out of and in the course of Petitioner's employment by Respondent?
D. What was the date of the accident?
E. Was timely notice of the accident given to Respondent?
F. Is Petitioner's current condition of ill-being causally related to the injury?
G. What were Petitioner's earnings?
H. What was Petitioner's age at the time of the accident?
I. What was Petitioner's marital status at the time of the accident?
J. Were the medical services that were provided to Petitioner reasonable and necessary? Has Respondent
paid all appropriate charges for all reasonable and necessary medical services?
K. What temporary benefits are in dispute?
TPD Maintenance TTD
L. What is the nature and extent of the injury?
M. Should penalties or fees be imposed upon Respondent?
N. Is Respondent due any credit?
O. Other
ICArbDec19(b) 2/10 100 W. Randolph Street #8-200 Chicago, IL 60601 312/814-6611 Toll-free 866/352-3033 Web site: www.iwcc.il.gov
Downstate offices: Collinsville 618/346-3450 Peoria 309/671-3019 Rockford 815/987-7292 Springfield 217/785-7084

3. FINDINGS
On the date of accident, January 30, 2019, Respondent was operating under and subject to the provisions of the
Act.
On this date, an employee-employer relationship did exist between Petitioner and Respondent.
On this date, Petitioner did sustain an accident that arose out of and in the course of employment.
Timely notice of this accident was given to Respondent.
Petitioner's current condition of ill-being is causally related to the accident.
In the year preceding the injury, Petitioner earned $21,641.06; the average weekly wage was $$416.36
On the date of accident, Petitioner was 23years of age, single with 1dependent children.
Respondent has paid all reasonable and necessary charges for all reasonable and necessary medical services.
Respondent shall be given a credit of $8,493.88.TTD, $0.00 for TPD, $0.00 for maintenance, and $0 for other
benefits, for a total credit of $8,493.88.
Respondent is entitled to a credit of $0 under Section 8(j) of the Act.
ORDER
Respondent shall pay all reasonable and necessary medical services set forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 7, 8 and 9
including the reimbursement of any such medical expenses paid out of pocket by Petitioner, subject to the Fee
Schedule as provided in Sections 8(a) and 8.2 of the Act.
Respondent shall pay Petitioner Temporary Total Disability Benefits in the amount of $277.57 for a period of 35
weeks representing the periods from January 31, 2019 through July 9, 2019 and from April 29, 2020 through July
22, 2020.
Respondent shall be given a credit for Temporary Total Disability Benefits paid in the amount of $8,493.88.
Respondent shall pay permanent partial disability benefits of $253.00/week for 58.45 weeks, because the injuries
sustained caused a 35% loss of use of the right foot, as provided in Section 8(e) of the Act.
RULES REGARDING APPEALS Unless a party files a Petition for Review within 30 days after receipt of this decision,
and perfects a review in accordance with the Act and Rules, then this decision shall be entered as the decision of
the Commission.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST RATE If the Commission reviews this award, interest at the rate set forth on the Notice of
Decision of Arbitrator shall accrue from the date listed below to the day before the date of payment; however, if
an employee's appeal results in either no change or a decrease in this award, interest shall not accrue.
JULY 5, 2022
ICArbDec19(b)

4. 1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
)
Petitioner, )
) Case No.: 19WC019850
v. )
)
)
Speedway, LLC )
Respondent. )
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner, (Hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”) is a 26-year-old woman who worked
for Speedway, LLC (Hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”) as a customer service representative.
(Transcript at 10-11). Petitioner testified that on an average day while working for the respondent she
would work on the register, move trash outside, sweep, mop, clean bathrooms, and organize product
throughout the store. (T at 9-10). Petitioner additionally testified that she had a high school education and
had previously been employed at a Chrysler plant. (T at 8-11).
Petitioner testified that on January 30, 2019, at around 10:00 am, she parked behind the gas station, and
exited her car. (Id. at 11). She was approaching the back entrance of the store when she slipped on ice
near the entrance. Id. The petitioner noted that she immediately felt pain in her ankle and could not get up.
Id. Petitioner testified that someone reported the incident to co-workers inside the store, and she was
subsequently picked up, brought into the store, and her manager was notified. Id.
Her manager told her that she had to call the “speedway nurse” and report thee injury. Id.at 13. She stated
that she spoke with the nurse for two hours then was told to report to Physicians Immediate Care.

5. 2
Petitioner reported to Physicians Immediate care on January 30, 2019. An X-Ray revealed an
unspecified fracture of lower end of right tibia. (P Ex. 2). Petitioner was given restrictions for
seated work only and through February 6, 2019. Id. Petitioner testified that the respondent was
unable to accommodate these restrictions. T at 14.
Petitioner then testified that a few days after the accident she reported to Swedish Hospital’s
emergency room, due to the pain she was experiencing. Id. The records of Swedish American
Hospital note that she had Closed fracture of distal end of right tibia with routine healing,
unspecified fracture morphology, and that petitioner was referred to an orthopedic physician.
(Px 1).
On February 6, 2019, Petitioner returned to Physicians Immediate Care where they noted that
petitioner stated her pain is a little better, more localized to lateral aspect but still having it on
medial and posterior. (Px 2)
Petitioner notes on testimony that she was referred to Z at Orthoillinois by Swedish
American Hospital. (T at 15). Dr. Z notes that petitioner arrived in a walking boot and
crutches. (Px 4). Additionally, the doctor noted she was taking pain medication and that she
reported her pain is 6/10 with activity and 4/10 when resting. Id. Dr. Z prescribed
physical therapy. (Px 4).
Petitioner returned to Physicians Immediate Care on February 22, 2019 sedentary restrictions
were continued, Petitioner was told to Elevate leg when sitting and remain non-weight bearing
on crutches. (Px 2). The records also reveal that she reported pain at the time of the appointment.
Id.

6. 3
Petitioner again followed up with Dr. Z at OrhtoIllinois who noted on March 12, 2019
that petitioner was “5 weeks and 6 days post fracture… Stiffness in right ankle and pain during
activities… Doing better in comparison to the last visit.” (Px 4). Additionally, petitioner was
advised to wear her boot when not standing or walking and to not resume regular work duties. Id.
On April 9, 2019, the petitioner returned to Dr. Z . He reported 9 weeks and 3 days post
fracture. Id. Doing better in comparison to the last visit. Pain is an aching pain and she noted
limited pain on rest”. Id.
Petitioner began physical therapy 2 times per week for 6-8 weeks for PROM, AROM, AAROM,
stretching, manual therapy, STM, gait training, balance training, LE Strengthening on 4/23/2019.
Id. Petitioner was then seen for therapy on 04/25/2019, 04/29/2019, 04/29/2019, 05/02/2019. Id.
At those visits noted that she had difficulty wearing ASO brace due to not having a shoe to fit it
and had Increased pain from an increase with exercise session. Id.
Petitioner had a follow up with Dr. Z on May 7, 2019, noted a sprain of the tibiofibular
ligament of the right ankle, synovitis and tenosynovitis of the right ankle and foot, and tendonitis
of the fight ankle. Doctor Z made the recommendation to starting to wean off the brace
and return in four weeks.
05/07/ 2019, 5/14/2019, 05/21/2019, 05/23/2019. 05/28/2019, 05/30/2019, 06/04/2019 visits for
therapy were performed and the therapist noted that the ankle was still tender and had trouble
walking without the brace. Id.
Petitioner had follow-up with Ortho Illinois, Marc Z who noted petitioner was 4 months
post fracture and the Pain is getting much better, Fracture appears healed. Id. He did recommend
Petitioner continue with physical therapy and progress to WBAT in regular shoe gear. He felt

7. 4
petitioner would slowly get back to regular working conditions and was told to work 4 hours a
day for 2 weeks then full duty. Stated the petitioner could benefit from work conditioning or an
FCE. Id.
Petitioner returned for therapy at OrthoIllinois on 06/13/2019, 06/20/2019, 06/25/2019,
06/27/2019, 07/09/2019. Id. She notes she is very sore after returning to work. Patient will be
seen two times a week for PROM, AROM, AAROM, stretching, manual therapy, STM, gait
training, balance training, LE Strengthening. Id. Records indicate Petitioner continued therapy
and was to be transitioned to work hardening. Id.
Petitioner followed up with the physical therapist and noted “Intermittent burning, aching, and
shooting pain. Reports 10/10 pain when working more than an hour.” Id. Notes that she is doing
worse compared to the previous visit and Start meloxicam. Id.
Petitioner noted that her pain persisted and was referred to Suburban Orthopedics. (T at 19). An
MRI was performed on 7/23/19 and the impressions were early posttraumatic osteoarthritis at the
ankle joint. (Px 5). On 7/29/19, the Petitioner was given several options regarding future
treatment, a 40 mg of Triamcinolone was injected into the right ankle joint and the petitioner
advised on a surgical referral. Id.
Petitioner then presented to Dr. P on 8/26/2019, who after reviewing the diagnostic
testing and conservative treatment that had been performed, recommended a right ankle
arthroscopy with extensive debridement and an open brostom/ gould lateral ligament repair. Id.
Dr. P recommend full duty work and a follow up post-surgery. Id.
Petitioner then testified that she had presented to Respondent’s Section 12 examiner Dr.
N on September 23, 2019. (T at 20). Dr. N noted that there was evidence of right lateral

8. 5
ankle ligamentous laxity and opined that her complaints were consistent with those findings. (Rx
3). Dr. N concurred that petitioner is a surgical candidate, however, only for the ligamentous
reconstruction. (Rx 3). Dr. N agreed that she can continue to work without restrictions. Id.
Petitioner next treat with Suburban Orthopedics and on 11/14/2019. The records indicate
agreement with Dr. N report and that surgical intervention was needed. Id. An MRI at a 3
Tesla Machine-ABMC was prescribed and custom orthotics were also ordered. Id.
On 12/19/2019, an MRI was performed (Px 5). Dr. P interpreted it to reveal lateral ankle
instability with ATFL/CFL tear as well as arthritis. He recommended a Brostrum/Gould lateral
ligament repair Id.
Suburban Ortho notes that when petitioner followed up on 12/23/19, there is a great deal of pain
about the ankle joint line, especially in the anterolateral corner. Id. Review of the MRI reveals a
tear of the AFL and CRFL and Dr. P notes that in his opinion, the petitioner will require a
surgical intervention. Id.
Respondent submitted an addendum of Dr. N which concurred that the ATFL and CFL
ligaments are abnormal based on the MRI imaging and agreed that petitioner was a surgical
candidate. (Rx 4)
Petitioner testified that she underwent surgery on April 29, 2020. The surgery was at right ankle
arthroscopy with extensive debridement and Open Bostrom/Gould lateral ligament repair. (Px
11).
The progress notes of May 4, 2020 indicate Petitioner presented for imaging which on x-ray
noted AP, lateral, and oblique views on right ankle. (Px 5). Normal alignment, closed physis,
nondisplaced fracture of the distal tibia – healed at this point, no dislocations, mild degenerative

9. 6
changes, in the tibiotalar joint, no loose or foreign bodies, and no congenital abnormalities. Id.
The progress notes of June 5, 2020, note that petitioner’s Symptoms have slightly improved
since her previous visit. Id. Petitioner then presented to physical therapy which was performed
through 9/28/20. (Px 6).
Petitioner had her final appointment post-surgery with Suburban Orthopedics, which noted post
traumatic ankle arthritis from the previous distal tibia fracture at work. (Px 12). Petitioner was
placed full duty and at MMI on October 22, 2020. Id.
Petitioner testified then that she is still working for speedway and will be moving to a Mexican
restaurant owned by the company. (T at 24-25). Petitioner reports that she still has pain at times
and cannot stand for long periods of time. (T at 24-25).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
L. WITH REGARD TO ITEM (L), WHAT IS THE NATURE AND EXTEND OF THE
INJURY, THE ARBITRATOR RENDERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Pursuant to Section 8.1(b) of the Act, the following criteria and factors must be weighed in
determining the level of permanent partial disability for accidental injuries occurring on or after
September 1, 2011:
a) A physician licensed to practice medicine in all of its branches preparing a permanent
partial disability impairment report shall report the level of impairment in writing. The report
shall include an evaluation of medically defined and professionally appropriate measurements of
impairment that include but are not limited to: loss of range of motion; loss of strength; measured
atrophy of tissue mass consistent with the injury; and any other measurements that establish the

10. 7
nature and extent of the impairment. The most current edition of the American Medical
Association's "Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment" shall be used by the
physician in determining the level of impairment.
b) In determining the level of permanent partial disability, the Commission shall base its
determination on the following factors;
(i) the reported level of impairment pursuant to subsection (a);
(ii) the occupation of the injured employee;
(iii) the age of the employee at the time of the injury;
(iv) the employee's future earning capacity; and
(v) evidence of disability corroborated by the treating medical records. No
single enumerated factor shall be the sole determinant of disability. In
determining the level of disability, the relevance and weight of any factors
used in addition to the level of impairment as reported by the physician must
be explained in a written order.
With regard to subsection (i) of §8.1b(b), the Arbitrator notes that no permanent partial disability
impairment report and/or opinion was submitted into evidence by either party. The Arbitrator
finds that this factor weighs in neither favor of increased nor decreased permanence.
With regard to subsection (ii) of §8.1b(b), the occupation of the employee, the petitioner’s
employment with respondent and the nature of her occupation requires her to be standing or
walking throughout the day. Based on the nature of the petitioner’s foot injury and her

11. 8
occupational requirements of standing and walking throughout the workday, the Arbitrator finds
that this factor weighs in favor of increased permanence.
With regard to subsection (iii) of §8.1b(b), the Petitioner was 23 years old at the time of the
accident. The petitioner is at the early stages of her working career. She will be required to live
and work with the residuals of this injury for a much longer duration than an older worker. Based
on the above, the Arbitrator finds that this factor weighs in favor of increased permanence.
With regard to subsection (iv) of §8.1b(b), Petitioner’s future earnings capacity, there was no
evidence introduced at Arbitration that the petitioner’s injury would impact her future earnings.
The Arbitrator finds that this factor weighs in favor of decreased permanence
With regard to subsection (v) of §8.1b(b), evidence of disability corroborated by the treating
medical records, the Arbitrator notes that Petitioner’s medical records document a consistent
course of medical care and consistent complaints from Petitioner. The Arbitrator notes that all
doctors have acknowledged that there was a non-displaced fracture of the distal tuba. Dr. N
noted that there was evidence of right lateral ankle ligamentous laxity and stated her complaints
were consistent with those findings. Both Suburban Orthopedics and Dr. N concur the
injury would require surgical intervention to achieve MMI. The surgery that was involved
included a right ankle arthroscopy and an open Bostrom/Gould ligament repair. This procedure is
widely known for being performed to correct ankle instability. Petitioner also received an
injection and was constantly in therapy through her treatment.

12. 9
The Arbitrator notes that in the MMI note, suburban orthopedics does note arthritic changes to
the ankle. The diagnostic testing also revealed arthritis in the petitioner’s ankle despite her
relatively young age. The Arbitrator finds that this factor weighs in favor of increased
permanence.
The Arbitrator also notes in this Decision his opinion of the petitioner’s credibility. Specifically,
the Arbitrator notes that he felt petitioner’s testimony regarding the injury, her treatment, and her
residual complaints to be very credible.
Based on all of the above, and the record taken as a whole, the Arbitrator finds that Petitioner
sustained permanent partial disability to the extent of 35% loss of use of the right foot under
§8(e) of the Act.