Commission lacks jurisdiction to review Section 8(d)(1) awardBy Carol A. CesarettiWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2006In its recent decision in Cassens Transport Co. v. Industrial Commission, 2006 WL 360186 (Ill., 2006), the Illinois Supreme Court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to reopen or modify a 10-year-old wage differential award under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
The contract for hire: The exclusive test for determining jurisdictionBy Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2006This article will focus on the Supreme Court’s analysis of the issue presented before it. For a full discussion of the facts surrounding the Mahoney decision, please refer to the March 2005 issue of the ISBA Worker’s Compensation Law Newsletter, Vol. 42, No. 3.
Double denial results in single victory for injured claimantBy Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2006In Dunlap v. Nestle USA, Inc., 2005 U.S.App. LEXIS 27070 (7th Circuit 2005), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a decision issued by Judge Wood, addressed the issue of whether the exclusivity provisions of the Act precluded the injured worker from pursuing a tort action against his employer.
Medical community remains skeptical of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS)By Edyta SalataWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2006In Bernardoni v. Indus. Comm’n., 298 Ill. Dec. 530, 840 N.E. 2d 300 (2005), the appellate court held that petitioner failed to show that multiple chemical sensitivity (hereinafter “MCS”) was a generally accepted syndrome in the medical community.
Pekin Insurance v. Anthony HieraBy Carol A. CesarettiWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2006In this Fourth District case, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting Hiera’s motion for an immediate UM arbitration and denying Pekin’s motion to stay said proceedings.
Section 19(n) interest for medical expenses awards affirmedBy Carol A. CesarettiWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2006In Vulcan Materials Company v. Industrial Commission, 2005 WL 3489567 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Dec. 21, 2005), the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a Commission decision declaring medical expense awards to be “compensation” under the Act and subject to interest pursuant to Section 19(n).
Attorneys’ pleas for fees pays offBy Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2006In Alvarado v. Industrial Commission, the Illinois Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Thomas, addressed the issue of whether the Commission may award attorney fees to a claimant’s former attorney several months after the Commission approved a settlement between the claimant and his employer.
Carpenter bypasses employer’s attempts to detour benefitsBy Arnold G. RubinWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2006In order to recover for benefits under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, it is well accepted that a claimant’s work-related injury must “arise out of and in the course of the employment.”
Employer avoids “commutation” orderBy Arnold G. RubinWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2006Section 24 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act provides authority for the Commission to order and direct an employer to deposit the commuted value of the total unpaid compensation with the State Treasurer or with any savings and loan association or State or national bank or trust company doing business in the State.
Estate wins debate over abatement of claimBy Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2006In Nationwide Bank, the appellate court was faced with the question of whether or not a claim abated upon the death of the injured worker’s spouse.
Teacher handcuffs benefitsBy Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2006In Rotberg v. Industrial Commission, the Illinois Appellate Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Hoffman, reviewed the decision of the Commission denying workers’ compensation benefits to a teacher.
Volunteer slides away from contribution claimBy Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2006In Flores v. Palmer Marketing, Inc., the Illinois Appellate Court, in a decision delivered by Justice O’Brien, addressed the issue of whether or not a claim for contribution against a “volunteer” of the employer was barred by Section 5(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Widow’s claim for benefits runs out of roadBy Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2006In Swartz v. Industrial Commission, the Illinois Appellate Court, in a decision delivered by Justice McCullough, addressed the issue of whether a causal connection existed between the claimant’s employment and his fatal cardiac event.
Penalties denied: Armour Swift-Eckrich v. Industrial CommissionBy Carol A. CesarettiWorkers’ Compensation Law, August 2005On January 15, 1998, claimant, James Williams, suffered repetitive trauma injuries to both of his arms while in the course of his employment with Armour Swift-Eckrich ("Armour").
Section 5(b) Lien RightsBy Edyta SalataWorkers’ Compensation Law, August 2005In Borrowman v. Prastein, 356 Ill.App.3d 546, 826 N.E.2d 600 (4th Dist. 2005), the Appellate Court reversed a circuit court decision awarding an employer a lien against a petitioner's medical malpractice settlement.
To admit or not to admit: The vexing issue of the admissibility of medical billsBy Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, August 2005In Land and Lakes Company v. Industrial Commission, 2005 WL 1252304(Ill.App. 2d Dist., 2005), the Illinois Appellate Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Callum, addressed a number of issues. The issues included 1) evidentiary ruling regarding the admission of medical bills into evidence; 2) medical causal connection; 3) prospective medical care; and 4) claimant's entitlement to temporary total disability benefits.
Boyd Electric: Is the Commission really a party?By Anita M. DecarloWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2005As 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?"
Credibility “defies logic”By Michelle L. LaFayetteWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2005In Chicago Messenger Service v. Industrial Commission, 826 N.E.2d 1037; 292 Ill.Dec. 601 (2005), the Appellate Court, First District, reversed the Commission's finding the claimant provided an injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
The Illinois Supreme Court plows through the snowy issue of concurrent employmentBy James TyrrellWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2005In a decision noteworthy for both average weekly wage determinations and wage differential awards, the Illinois Supreme Court in Flynn v Industrial Commission, 211 Ill.2d 546, 286 Ill. Dec.62, 813 N.E.2d 119, (June 17, 2004) held that a claimant who sustained serious injury while working a part time job was entitled to a wage differential award based on both the part time job and his regular, though seasonal, work as a truck driver even though he had been temporarily laid off from the driving job at the time of the accident.
New carpeting trips up the defenseBy James M. ByrnesWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2005In Tinley Park Hotel & Convention Center d/b/a Holiday Inn v. Industrial Commission, 826 N.E.2d 1043; 292 Ill.Dec. 607 (2005), the Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the Commission's finding the claimant proved her injuries arose out of her employment.
No repetitive requirement for repetitive trauma accidentBy Melissa L. McEndreeWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2005The Second District Appellate Court addressed the definition of repetitive trauma, specifically whether the activity must be perform on a regular or consistent basis.
Nursing assistant aided by CommissionBy Cameron B. ClarkWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2005In Kishwaukee Community Hospital v. Industrial Commission, 2005 WL 603095 (Ill.App. 2nd Dist., 2005), the Illinois Appellate Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Goldenhersh, addressed the issues of notice, medical causal connection, the admissibility of claimant's treating physician's deposition testimony, and claimant's entitlement to temporary total disability benefits.
Twice Over Clean- A respondent’s perspectiveBy James M. ByrnesWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2005In 2003, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 207 Ill.2d 193 (2003) (Sisbro II), in which it rejected the argument that the "normal daily activity" exception bars recovery when the claimant's physical condition has so deteriorated that the condition of ill-being could have been produced by normal daily activity, despite a causal connection between the work and the condition.
