Publications

Section Newsletter Articles on Workers' Compensation Law

First District Appellate Court holds that specific reservation of workers’ compensation lien in settlement contract not required for lien to be enforceable By Michael A. Moore Workers' Compensation Law, December 2006 An August 30, 2006, decision from the Illinois Appellate Court’s First District in the case of James Gallagher v. Lenart, No. 1-06-0065WC (2006 WL 2506210), held that an employer does not have to specifically reserve its workers’ compensation lien right in a workers’ compensation settlement agreement in order for that lien to be enforceable, and specifically rejected the reasoning of the Fourth District Appellate Court’s decision in Borrowman v. Prastein, 356 Ill.App.3d 546, 826 N.E.2d 600 (4th Dist. 2005).
GHERE no more? Certified Testing v. Ind. Comm’n, _ _ N.E.2d _ _ , 2006 WL 3060086 (Ill.App. 4th Dist.) By Brad E. Bleakney Workers' Compensation Law, December 2006 If there is no discovery in Workers’ Compensation (except the subpoena), do you wonder why then the defense attorney always makes a demand for medical records supporting the claim when forwarding their appearance? The answer is the Section 12 objection, recently known as the Ghere objection.
Petitioner’s non-compliance with vocational rehabilitation insufficient to deny compensation By Kevin S. Botha Workers' Compensation Law, December 2006 In this Rule 23 decision, the Appellate Court addressed the issues of intervening accidents, vocational rehabilitation and Petitioners choice of physicians.
Supreme Court modifies repetitive trauma standard By Mark Cosimini Workers' Compensation Law, December 2006 Repetitive trauma cases have been recognized in Illinois since the Peoria Belwood decision was issued by the Supreme Court of Illinois.
No causal connection for claimant, despite cracked helmet By Michelle L. LaFayette Workers' Compensation Law, September 2006 In this Rule 23 decision, the Illinois Appellate Court held that a herniated disc was not causally connected to claimant’s work accident based upon a normal CT scan, unrestricted cervical range of motion, considerable gaps in medical care and treatment, and extended performance of full-duty activities.
Payment of award of medical bills directly to medical provider/Section 19(g) and hourly attorney fee set at $250 By James W. Stevenson Workers' Compensation Law, June 2006 In Aurora East School District v. Don Dover, 363 Ill.App.3d 1048, 847 N.E.2d 623, 301 Ill.Dec. 298 2nd District March 21, 2006, Don Dover, employed by the Aurora East School District, received an award which included TTD benefits of $29,908.13, representing 59-6/7 weeks, and $85,015.04 in medical expenses.
Willis v. Kiferbaum Construction: A Kotecki waiver by a subcontractor does not climb the chain to benefit a contractor higher up unless expressly provided for by contract By Richard L. Turner Civil Practice and Procedure, December 2005 It is now clear under the recent decision in Willis v. Kiferbaum Construction Corp., that such a Kotecki waiver only occurs where it is expressly contracted for between the employer/subcontractor and the party further up the contractual chain seeking to assert that waiver.
Boyd Electric: Is the Commission really a party? By Anita M. Decarlo Workers' Compensation Law, June 2005 As a first year law student, I remember asking my father why all Workers' Compensation cases above the Commission level were captioned "Somebody v. The Industrial Commission?"
Can an 8(d)1 award be modified? By Arnold G. Rubin Education Law, March 2005 In Cassens Transport Company v. Illinois Industrial Commission, 2005 WL 95714 (4th Dist., I.C. Div., 2005), the Illinois Appellate Court, in a decision delivered by Justice McCullough, with a concurring opinion by Justice Holdridge, addressed the vexing issue as to whether or not a final award under Section 8(d)1 may be modified in a subsequent proceeding at the Illinois Industrial Commission.
Pre-trial discovery: Is it available for workers’ compensation claims? By Arnold G. Rubin Workers' Compensation Law, March 2005 The Second District Appellate Court addressed the issue as to whether a claimant in a workers' compensation claim could obtain a surveillance videotape from an employer prior to commencing the Industrial Commission proceeding through an equitable bill of discovery filed in the Circuit Court of DuPage County.
Three post-surgical auto accidents failed to break causal connection chain By Arnold G. Rubin Workers' Compensation Law, March 2005 In Vogel v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, 2005 WL 42748, (Ill.App. 2nd Dist. 2005), the Illinois Appellate Court, in a decision issued by Justice Callum, addressed the issue of medical causal relationship in light of three automobile accidents subsequent to surgery.
The Industrial Commission must determine who the aggressor was By Michelle D. Porro Workers' Compensation Law, June 2004 Our Supreme Court definitively determined that when the underlying accident is a fight between employees, the Industrial Commission must determine which of the employees was the aggressor in Sandra Franklin v. the Industrial Commission, in an opinion filed May 20, 2004. Id., Docket No. 96857 (Il. S. Ct. 2004).
When is a circuit court order final and appealable? By Michelle D. Porro Workers' Compensation Law, June 2004 Where the Arbitrator and Industrial Commission find that the Petitioner is entitled to TTD, medical and an award of PPD equal to 45 percent maw, and the circuit court reverses and remands for a finding consistent with its opinion that the Petitioner is permanently and totally disabled, the circuit court's order is interlocutory and an appeal can not be perfected to the appellate court until after the claim has been heard on remand by the Industrial Commission.
Clerical error. When is the proper time to file a Review? By Richard D. Hannigan Workers' Compensation Law, March 2004 The appellate court seems to deal with this issue once every four years. In Diane Schultz v Forest Preserve District of Cook County, 1-02-2860 WC filed by the First District Appellate Court, Industrial Commission Division revisited that issue.
Commission news By Richard D. Hannigan Workers' Compensation Law, March 2004 Updates of interest to workers' comp law practitioners.
When filing a summons for the employer, make sure the principal signs the bond By Richard D. Hannigan Workers' Compensation Law, March 2004 In Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, the appellate court addresses the issue of whether section 19(f) requires "strict compliance" when a bond is filed with the circuit court but unsigned.
Commission News By Richard D. Hannigan Workers' Compensation Law, December 2003 Updates from the Illinois Industrial Commission.
Mechanical Devices v. Industrial Commission By James W. Stevenson, Jr. Workers' Compensation Law, December 2003 A summary of the case of Mechanical Devices v. Industrial Commission.
Appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear direct appeal from Industrial Commission decision By Richard D. Hannigan Workers' Compensation Law, April 2003 In Pace Bus Company v. Industrial Commission, the appellate court, First Judicial District dismissed an appeal by the employer ruling that they lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from an Industrial Commission decision.
Hearing loss—Who is liable? By Richard D. Hannigan Workers' Compensation Law, April 2003 In our April, 2002 newsletter, Steve Grady discussed Hamilton v. Industrial Commission, 326 Ill.App.3d 602; 761 N.E.2d 775; 260 Ill.Dec. 592. Since then, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois accepted the case and has affirmed the appellate court.
Injury at picnic voluntary/mandatory attendance By Richard D. Hannigan Workers' Compensation Law, April 2003 On September 18, 1998 the claimant was at a company picnic and was playing basketball on the company parking lot when he injured his right knee.
Is a juror an employee of the county? By Richard D. Hannigan Workers' Compensation Law, April 2003 The appellate court of Illinois Third District answered that question in the negative.
Parking lot injury/lot not “provided for” by employer By Richard D. Hannigan Workers' Compensation Law, April 2003 Whether an injury in a parking is compensable may depend upon whether the lot was "provided for" by the employer.
Res judicata/collateral estoppel/rule of the case By Richard D. Hannigan Workers' Compensation Law, April 2003 The claimant filed a 19(b), alleging that as a result of a fall on January 21, 1991 he injured his left knee, neck, and back.
Should you be taking those casino boat cases? By Kurt Niermann Workers' Compensation Law, January 2003 The first district recently extended the jurisdictional reach of Illinois workers' compensation claims into a maritime setting in McCoy v. Industrial Commission, Ill.App. 1 Dist. Sep 26, 2002 (2002 WL 31128953).
Questions and answers on insurance compliance enforcement at the Industrial Commission By Robert M. Harris Workers' Compensation Law, January 2002 "Insurance compliance" refers to the Industrial Commission's efforts to enforce the mandatory insurance coverage provisions of section 4 of the Act.
Illinois Consolidated Telephone: The future of unexplained and idiopathic fall classifications By Lee Vasilatos and Anita M. DeCarlo Workers' Compensation Law, March 2001 In the recent case of Illinois Consolidated Telephone Co. v. Industrial Commission, 314 Ill.App.3d 347, 732 N.E.2d 49 the claimant had left her work area on the first floor to use the only women's restroom which was located on the second floor.
Proposed ergonomics program standard By Kenneth F. Werts Workers' Compensation Law, March 2001 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has proposed an "Ergonomics Program Standard" to address so-called work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) which it asserts is the leading cause of lost-workday injuries and workers' compensation costs.
Whoops—there goes that second worker’s compensation fee By Terrence M. Madsen General Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, August 2000 The Illinois Supreme Court has either clarified or declared—depending on your perspective—that the statutory 25% attorney fees for recovery of reimbursement for an employer who has made a worker's compensation payment is, as a practical matter, at best a part of, and not in addition to, any fee amount contracted with an employee.
Industrial Commission news By Robert M. Harris Workers' Compensation Law, November 1999 If any members of the bar are not already aware, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss an area of great concern and importance to the bar as well as to a wide range of other interested parties: the Illinois Industrial Commission's active engagement in enforcing section 4(d) of the Act.