Josh Rudolfi of Ankin Law in Chicago, IL helped an injured PepsiCo worker receive $32,551 for permanent partial disability after he injured his shoulder trying to open a door on his truck.

1. ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DECISION SIGNATURE PAGE
Case Number 19WC
Case Name v. PEPSICO, INC.
Consolidated Cases No Consolidated Cases
Proceeding Type Request for Hearing
Decision Type Arbitration Decision
Commission Decision Number
Number of Pages of Decision 11
Decision Issued By , Arbitrator
Petitioner Attorney Joshua Rudolfi
Respondent Attorney Robert Smith
DATE FILED: 10/27/2021
Signature
INTEREST RATE WEEK OF OCTOBER 26, 2021 0.06%

2. STATE OF ILLINOIS )
Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund (§4(d))
)SS. Rate Adjustment Fund (§8(g))
COUNTY OF Kane ) Second Injury Fund (§8(e)18)
None of the above
ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
ARBITRATION DECISION
Case # WC
Emp oyee Pet t oner
v. Consolidated cases:
PepsiCo, Inc.
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
Geneva, on 9/17/21. After reviewing all of the evidencepresented, 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
ICArbDec 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 2/21/18, 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 $56,484.25; the average weekly wage was $1,086.24.
On the date of accident, Petitioner was 58 years of age, married with 0 dependent children.
Petitioner has received all reasonable and necessary medical services.
Respondent has paid all appropriate charges for all reasonable and necessary medical services.
Respondent shall be given a credit of $7,655.72 for TTD, $4,469.34 for TPD, $0.00 for maintenance, and
$13,035.40 for other benefits, for a total credit of $25,160.46.
Respondent is entitled to a credit of $0.00 under Section 8(j) of the Act.
ORDER
The Arbitrator also finds that Petitioner suffered the permanent partial loss of use of 10% of the person, 50
weeks, or $32,587.00, due to the work-related full thickness rotator cuff tear he suffered on February 21, 2018,
pursuant to Section 8(d)2 of the Act, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
The parties stipulated that all TTD and TPD benefits were properly paid. Therefore, the only credit against
permanency in this case is the $13,035.40 for a permanency advance previously made by Respondent to
Petitioner, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Respondent shall pay Petitioner compensation that has accrued from February 21, 2018 through September 17,
2021 and shall pay the remainder of the award, if any, in weekly payments.
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.
By: /o/
Arbitrator October 27, 2021
ICArbDec p. 2

4. v. Pepsi; Case #
Page 1 of 8
Procedural History
This case was tried on September 17, 2021. The disputed issues were whether Petitioner’s
current condition of ill-being was causally related to his injury and the nature and extent of
Petitioner’s injury. (Arb. Ex. 1).
Findings of Fact
(hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”) testified he was working for Pepsi
(hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”), on February 21, 2018, as a “D-Day” delivery drive.
Petitioner testified his job involves driving the truck, getting in and out of the cab, opening and
closing doors, performing overhead activity, and lifting up to 65-pounds. (RX 1, p. 14). Petitioner
testified he has been working for Respondent for approximately 18 years. Petitioner testified that
on February 21, 2018, he was making a delivery when the door on his truck became stuck and
when he attempted to open it, he injured his left shoulder. Petitioner testified that he is right-
handed.
Petitioner testified that he reported the incident to his supervisor and received treatment at
Cadence, on February 26, 2018, and was subsequently referred to an orthopedic doctor, Dr.
B
Northwestern Medicine/Cadence Occupational Health (“Cadence”)
On April 18, 2018, Petitioner presented for an initial consultation with Dr. B on referral
from Dr. W . (PX 1). Petitioner reported pain at the bicep, anterior, and lateral shoulder
which he described as aching and intermittent. (PX 1). Dr. Bare noted that the MRI revealed a full-
thickness rotator cuff tear involving the supraspinatus tendon. (PX 1). Petitioner was assessed with
a complete tear of the left rotator cuff and rotator cuff syndrome of the left shoulder. (PX 1). Dr.
B recommended that Petitioner continue working light duty, 10-pound lifting restriction to the
chest and nothing above the chest and recommended surgical arthroscopy with rotator cuff repair
and subacromial decompression. (PX 1).
Telephone notes from April 27, 2018, and May 7, 2018, indicates that Petitioner started a
new position with Pepsi, that does not involve much lifting, and was wondering if surgery was still
necessary. (PX 1). He also requested a full duty note from Dr. B . (PX 1).
Petitioner presented for a follow-up on his left shoulder on May 11, 2018. (PX 1). He
reported continued pain in his shoulder but noted that he has a new job and that it was not as
physical as his last one. (PX 1). Dr. B noted that Petitioner had a full thickness tear and is young

5. v. Pepsi; Case #
Page 2 of 8
and active. (PX 1). He indicated that Petitioner would benefit from surgical arthroscopy in the
form of left shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression. (PX 1).
On May 31, 2018, Petitioner underwent a left shoulder arthroscopic repair, subacromial
decompression, and labral tear debridement surgery with Dr. B . (PX 2).
Petitioner presented for a 1-week post op visit on June 8, 2018. (PX 1). He noted that his
pain was tolerable and managed with pain medications. (PX 1). Petitioner was advised to continue
using the sling, especially at night and around people. (PX 1). He was to remain off-work until his
follow-up appointment. (PX 1).
On July 6, 2018, Petitioner presented for a 5-week post op visit, reporting that his pain was
slowly improving, and his pain medication usage had decreased. (PX 1). He had been off work
since the surgery. (PX 1). He was to wean out of the sling and was cleared for light duty. (PX 1).
On the August 10, 2018 follow-up, Petitioner reported minimal pain and improved function. (PX
1). It was recommended that Petitioner continue light duty. (PX 1).
On September 12, 2018, Petitioner returned to Dr. B for a post op visit. (PX 1). He
reported that his pain has improved, but he still had a pinching feeling at his lateral shoulder with
reaching. (PX 1). He had stopped using pain medication and was working light duty. (PX 1). Dr.
B recommended that Petitioner continue therapy for an additional four (4) weeks and then
consider work conditioning. (PX 1). Petitioner was to continue light duty work restrictions in the
interim. (PX 1).
At the follow-up on October 10, 2018, Petitioner reported some residual pain on the outside
of his left shoulder, worse with movement. (PX 1). He also reported that he had been working light
duty since the last appointment. (PX 1). Dr. B recommended that Petitioner continue therapy
and light duty restrictions, with a return to full duty work in a month. (PX 1).
On November 7, 2018, Petitioner presented for a follow-up with Dr. B . (PX 1). He
reported that his range of motion was better, but there was no change in his strength since the last
visit. (PX 1). Petitioner had normal range of motion and strength, with positive impingement. (PX
1). Dr. B indicated that Petitioner was doing well and improving, and recommended work
conditioning for 3 weeks. (PX 1). He was to remain on light duty. (PX 1).
According to the December 10, 2018, work conditioning discharge note from Athletico,
Petitioner had met 100% of his reported job demands as a bulk driver. (PX 1). He demonstrated

6. v. Pepsi; Case #
Page 3 of 8
the capability to occasionally lift 60-pounds from floor to waist and 45-pounds from waist to
shoulder. (PX 1).
On December 12, 2018, Petitioner returned for a 6.5-month, post-surgical follow-up with
Dr. B . (PX 1). He reported mild pain and that he did not feel 100% but feels his strength and
range of motion had improved. (PX 1). He also reported that he had completed work conditioning
and had been working light duty. (PX 1). Dr. B indicated that Petitioner was not back to
baseline, but his range of motion and strength were acceptable, and he was cleared to work full-
duty and placed at maximum medical improvement. (PX 1).
Section 12 Examiner Dr. L
On March 14, 2019, Petitioner underwent a Section 12 examination with Dr.
L . (RX 1, p. 10). Dr. L presented for an evidence deposition on March 10, 2021. (RX 1,
p. 1). Dr. L is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who treats all orthopedic conditions with
focus on the extremities. (RX 1, p. 7-8). He testified that he performs approximately 300 to 400
surgeries per year and approximately 1 to 5 independent medical examinations per week. (RX 1,
p. 8).
Regarding the examination of Petitioner, Dr. L testified that Petitioner stated while
working as a delivery driver, he attempted to lift up a large truck door that was jammed, and while
attempting to force it through, felt a pop and strain within his left shoulder. (RX 1, p. 12).
Petitioner reported that he was initially seen at Northwestern Immediate Care Center,
treated with an examination, therapy, and had a subsequent MRI. (RX 1, p. 12). Petitioner was
diagnosed with a rotator cuff tear and referred to Dr. B for further examination, therapy, and a
subsequent surgical intervention on May 31, 2018. (RX 1, p. 12). Petitioner was last evaluated by
Dr. B on December 21, 2018 and discharged from further care. (RX 1, p. 12). Petitioner advised
Dr. L that since returning to work after the injury, his job involved driving the truck, getting
in and out of the cab, and lifting up to 30-pounds with no overhead activity. (RX 1, p. 14).
Regarding on-going subjective complaints, Petitioner reported that he had increasing left
shoulder pain at night as well as stiffness about his shoulder with weakness. (RX 1, p. 13). He
reported no swelling or numbness but did complain of popping in his shoulder and pain with
overhead activity. (RX 1, p. 13). On physical examination of Petitioner, Dr. L noted decreased
internal rotation, evidence of positive impingement and apprehension sign, and reduced strength.
(RX 1, p. 14-15).

7. v. Pepsi; Case #
Page 4 of 8
Regarding the MRI, after reviewing the scans, Dr. L noted that Petitioner had a
supraspinatus rotator cuff tear, which was consistent with the radiologist’s impression. (RX 1, p.
15-16).
After reviewing the MRI scan, medical treatment records and performing an examination
of Petitioner, Dr. L diagnosed Petitioner with “status post rotator cuff repair of the left
shoulder”. (RX 1, p. 16). Dr. L did not believe that Petitioner required any further medical
treatment and that he had reached maximum medical improvement. (RX 1, p. 16). He also did not
see any issues or functional limitations that would prevent Petitioner from doing his job, as he
described to Dr. L during his examination. (RX 1, p. 29).
Dr. L also prepared an Impairment Evaluation using the AMA guides, 6th
Edition, on
March 14, 2019. (RX 1, p. 17, 19). Based on Petitioner’s history and subjective complaints, Dr.
L felt that Petitioner had a 6% impairment of his left upper extremity which coincides with a
4% impairment of the individual as a whole. (RX 1, p. 20). Dr. L testified that Petitioner only
had a minor functional impairment. (RX 1, p. 25). Dr. L testified that the only real significant
loss of range of motion was to internal rotation, which is not that great of a loss from a functional
standpoint. (RX 1, p. 27).
Petitioner’s Testimony Regarding his Current Condition
Petitioner testified he can’t lay on his left shoulder and, if he does, his left shoulder is very
painful and hard to move. Petitioner testified he tries not to lift anything above shoulder height
and he takes Tylenol PM at night for pain. Petitioner testified that prior to February 21, 2018 he
had no left shoulder issues and had not received any medical care for his left shoulder. Petitioner
testified he continues to work for Respondent as a Bulk Driver which is a less physically
demanding job than a “D-Bay” Driver. Petitioner testified that he works about the same hours as
he did before this accident.
The Arbitrator found Petitioner’s testimony credible.
Conclusions of Law
The Arbitrator adopts the above Findings of Fact in support of the Conclusions of Law as
set forth below. The claimant bears the burden of proving every aspect of his claim by a
preponderance of the evidence. Hutson v. Industrial Commission, 223 Ill.App.3d 706, 714 (Ill.
App. 5th Dist. 1992).

8. v. Pepsi; Case #
Page 5 of 8
With Respect to Issue (F), Whether the Petitioner’s Current Condition of Ill-being is
Causally Related to the Injury, the Arbitrator Finds as follows:
In pre-existing condition cases, recovery will depend on the employee’s ability to show
that a work-related accidental injury aggravated or accelerated the pre-existing disease such that
the employee’s current condition of ill-being can be said to have been causally-connected to the
work-related injury and not simply the result of a normal degenerative process of a pre-existing
condition. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 92 Ill.2d 30, 36-37. When a worker’s
physical structures, diseased or not, give way under the stress of their usual tasks, the law views
it as an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. General Electric Co. v.
Industrial Comm’n, 89 Ill.2d 432, 60 Ill.Dec. 629, 433 N.E.2d 671 (1982). When an employee
with a preexisting condition is injured in the course and of his employment the Commission must
decide whether there was an accidental injury which arose out of the employment, whether the
accidental injury aggravated or accelerated the preexisting condition or whether the preexisting
condition alone was the cause of the injury. Sisbro, Inc. Industrial Comm’n, 207 Ill.2d 193, 278
Ill.Dec. 70,797 N.E.2d 665, (2003). Even though an employee has a preexisting condition which
may make him more vulnerable to injury, recovery for an accidental injury will not be denied as
long as it can be shown that the employment was also a causative factor. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
v. Industrial Comm’n, 129 Ill.2d 52, 133 Ill. Dec. 454, 541 N.E.2d 665 (1989). Furthermore, it
has long been held that "a chain of events which demonstrates a previous condition of good
health, an accident, and a subsequent injury resulting in disability may be sufficient
circumstantial evidence to prove a causal nexus between the accident and the employee's injury."
International Harvester v. Industrial Comm'n, 93 Ill.2d 59, 63-64 (1982). "When the claimant's
version of the accident is uncontradicted and his testimony is unimpeached, his recital of the
facts surrounding the accident may be sufficient to sustain an award. Id. at 64.
The Arbitrator finds Petitioner proved by the preponderance of the evidence that his left
shoulder condition is causally related to his work injury. Petitioner was diagnosed with a left
shoulder full thickness rotator cuff tear and underwent a left shoulder arthroscopic repair,
subacromial decompression, and labral tear debridement surgery with Dr. B . The rotator cuff
tear was identified in the MRI and operative report. Respondent’s Section 12 Examiner, Dr.
L , said it appeared reasonable that Petitioner tore his rotator cuff of his left shoulder in
association with the work activities.

9. v. Pepsi; Case #
Page 6 of 8
With respect to issue “L,” the nature and extent of Petitioner’s injuries, the Arbitrator makes
the following conclusions:
Section 8.lb of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act ("Act") addresses the factors that
must be considered in determining the extent of permanent partial disability for accidents occurring
on or after September 1, 2011. 820 ILCS 305/8.1b (LEXIS 2011). Specifically, Section 8.1b
states:
For accidental injuries that occur on or after September 1, 2011, permanent partial
disability shall be established using the following criteria:
(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
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. Id.
Considering these factors in light of the evidence submitted at trial, the Arbitrator addresses
the factors delineated in the Act for determining permanent partial disability.

10. v. Pepsi; Case #
Page 7 of 8
With regard to subsection (i) of §8.1b(b), the Arbitrator notes that Respondent’s Section
12 Examiner, Dr. L issued a permanent partial disability impairment rating of 6% of the left
upper extremity or 4% of the whole person under the AMA Guidelines, 6th
Edition. Dr. L ’s
report indicates a Class 1 impairment for history of painful injury with residual symptoms with
residual functional loss with normal motion. (RX 1, p. 40). The Arbitrator notes that this level of
impairment does not necessarily equate to permanent partial disability under the Workers’
Compensation Act, but instead is a factor to be considered in making such a disability evaluation.
The Arbitrator therefore gives some weight to this factor in determining permanent partial
disability.
With regard to subsection (ii) of §8.lb(b), the occupation of the employee, the Arbitrator
notes that Petitioner was employed as a delivery driver at the time of the accident. Petitioner
testified he has returned to work. The Arbitrator notes Petitioner was employed as a “D-Bay
Driver”, prior to the work incident, but now works as Bulk Driver, a less physically demanding
job. The Arbitrator gives some weight to this factor in determining permanent partial disability.
With regard to subsection (iii) of §8.1b(b), the Arbitrator notes that Petitioner was 58 years
old at the time of the accident and Petitioner has presented no evidence as to how his age might
affect his future earnings or disability. Still, the Arbitrator views Petitioner as an older individual
who, from a statistical perspective, would not be expected to remain in the workforce for more
than 10 years. The Arbitrator gives some weight to this factor in determining permanent partial
disability.
With regard to subsection (iv) of §8.1b(b), Petitioner's future earnings capacity, there is
no evidence presented that Petitioner’s future earning capacity has been impacted by the accident.
The Arbitrator notes that Petitioner testified that he believed that he was making $1,000.00 less
per year, but upon further questioning, testified that he was unsure if this was in-fact the case.
Petitioner testified that he was working at least the same frequency of hours as before the incident
and in-fact, was working more overtime. Based on Petitioner’s testimony, Petitioner is earning the
same, if not more than he was prior to the work incident. Therefore, the Arbitrator gives little
weight to this factor in determining permanent partial disability.
With regard to subsection (v) of §8.lb(b), evidence of disability corroborated by the treating
medical records, the Arbitrator notes Petitioner was diagnosed with a full thickness rotator cuff
tear and underwent a left shoulder arthroscopic repair, subacromial decompression and labral tear

11. v. Pepsi; Case #
Page 8 of 8
debridement. The surgery was followed by a course of therapy, work restrictions, medications, and
work conditioning. According to the December 10, 2018, work conditioning discharge note from
Athletico, Petitioner had met 100% of his reported job demands as a bulk driver and he
demonstrated the capability to occasionally lift 60-pounds from floor to waist and 45-pounds from
waist to shoulder. Petitioner testified that he continues to experience shoulder pain and he needs
to take Tylenol PM at night for pain. Petitioner testified to difficulties sleeping and that he is
unable to sleep on his shoulder because, if he does, his shoulder is painful and hard to move the
next day. The Arbitrator gives significant weight to this factor in determining permanent partial
disability.
Based on the record as a whole, the Arbitrator finds that Petitioner suffered permanent
partial loss of use of 10% of the person, 50 weeks, pursuant to Section 8(d)2 of the Act, less an
advance for permanency Respondent previously paid to Petitioner in the amount of $13,035.40.
See Arb. Ex. 1.
By: /o/
Arbitrator