
Quoting
Zbiegien v. Department of Labor, 156 Ill. App.3d 395, 399, 510 N.E.2d 422 (1987) (citations omitted)
Although the Act is to be liberally interpreted to favor the awarding of benefit,... we find that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing eligibility under section 601(B) of the Act. His ophthalmologist's report indicated only that he could perform any work which did not unduly risk eye injury or require "simultaneous binocular vision." A physician is not required to use the exact wording of the statute... and the doctor's advice is subject to interpretation in the context of whether a plaintiff is entitled to unemployment benefits.... However, not every statement by a physician, no matter how ambiguous or equivocal, will satisfy statutory requirements.... The statements of plaintiff's physician in this case certainly did not satisfy the requirement of section 601(B) of the Act that in order for a claimant to receive benefits after voluntarily leaving work, he must be "deemed physically unable to perform his work by a * * * physician," and plaintiff is therefore not eligible to receive unemployment benefits under this section of the Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, par. 431(B).