Injured Worker Recovery Under Section 8(e) and 8(d)(2): An Analysis of Body Part Injuries and Injury to the Person-As-A-Whole
By Markham M. Jeep
Workers’ Compensation Law,
June 2026
A recent case, Azcon Metals, seems to permit PAW benefits over and above section 8(e) specific loss benefits only if other body parts are involved; however, injured workers have the option to elect either the section 8(d)(1) or section 8(d)(2) remedy. Petitioner’s counsel should remember that certain precedent for additional PAW benefits in section 8(e)(18) cases where the injured worker also suffered other injuries to the “body part” of the head—for psychological injuries.
Negotiated rates and third-party carriers
By Markham M. Jeep & Graham J. Jeep
Workers’ Compensation Law,
May 2018
The appellate court ruled in Perez v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission that the negotiated rate — the calculation of a dollar amount owed for medical services — is not limited to a rate negotiated by the employer or the employer’s insurance carrier.
Late notice rejected as defense to repetitive trauma case
By Markham M. Jeep
Workers’ Compensation Law,
September 2016
The recent decision in Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission again addresses the difficulty of determining the date of accident for injuries which develop over time and for which symptoms gradually increase.
Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.
Select a Different Author