Call to Action: Build a Bridge From Courthouse to CommunityBy Margie Komes Putzler & Avery TenEcykWorkers’ Compensation Law, February 2026Illinois Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Rochford is excited to unveil a forward and public-facing initiative: Build a Bridge from Courthouse to Community, founded on the premise that there is diminished confidence in our legal system, and it is the responsibility of lawyers and judges to make information about the operation of the courts more accessible and transparent to the people we serve.
Use Caution With Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of LawBy Michelle PorroWorkers’ Compensation Law, February 2026AI is here to stay. Due to the federal void in guidance regarding the use of AI generated content, the Illinois Supreme Court published its policy regarding the use of AI effective on January 1, 2025. Attorneys must be sure to familiarize themselves with AI guidance and rules to uphold ethical obligations and professional standards.
When “Owner-Operator” Really Means “Independent Contractor”By Gregory S. KeltnerWorkers’ Compensation Law, February 2026In Boyce v. Redbird Carriers, 25 IWCC 0327, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted, without modification, the Arbitrator’s decision denying benefits on the basis that no employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioner truck driver and respondent motor carrier.
Editor’s NoteBy Alexis FerracutiWorkers’ Compensation Law, May 2025An introduction to the issue from the editor.
Pain Is Enough… Aggravation of Pre-Existing Conditions: Tazewell County v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2025 IL App (4th) 230754WCBy Gregory H. BoothWorkers’ Compensation Law, May 2025On January 31, 2025, the Appellate Court, 4th District, published an opinion in the case of Tazewell County v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, 2025 IL App (4th) 230754WC. This case establishes the precedent in Illinois that pain alone, arising from repetitive work activities, can be a sufficient basis for a compensable workers’ compensation claim, even in the absence of structural changes to a pre-existing condition.
A Victory for Injured Workers Who Suffered Catastrophic AmputationsBy Audrey E. GardnerWorkers’ Compensation Law, May 2025A recent decision by the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court in The American Coal Co. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission has significant implications for workers who have suffered catastrophic injuries, particularly multiple limb amputations, under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.
The Appellate Court Confirms That Disfigurement of the Foot Is Compensable Under Section 8(c) of ActBy Joseph Belmonte, C.R.C.Workers’ Compensation Law, March 2025On January 28, 2025, the appellate court issued a ruling pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 that an employee who sustained disfigurement to his foot in the course of employment is entitled to benefits under Section 8(c) of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act even though the “foot” is not specifically delineated under Section 8(c). Panda Express, Inc., v. Illinois Workers Compensation Commission, 2025 IL App (4th) 240771 WC-U. The court concluded that although the foot is not specifically listed in the language of Section 8(c), the commonly understood meaning of the term leg also includes the foot, and thus, disfigurement injuries to the foot shall be compensable under 8(c).
Case Summary: BorstBy Lindsey BeukemaWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2025In Borst v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2024 Il App (2d) 230124WC-U, a maintenance technician failed to prove his repetitive trauma claim, and the court addressed a common evidentiary objection.
Editor’s NoteBy Alexis P. FerracutiWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2025A note from the editor introducing the issue as well as an update on recent section activity from the chair.
The Gig Economy and Nonstandard Work ArrangementsBy Joseph Belmonte, C.R.C.Workers’ Compensation Law, March 2025The American workforce is subject to constant change as a result of technological development, changing demographics, and global economic conditions. This will present challenges in identifying health and safety risks to workers associated with nonstandard work arrangements and improving safety and health.
Consequence of accepting a ride to work from co-employeeBy Erin M. SieversWorkers’ Compensation Law, January 2018Peng v. Nardi, et. al. is a case in which the Court addresses the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Beware of rustlers (and rustlers beware)By Herbert FranksWorkers’ Compensation Law, November 2017Rustlers employ various tactics to lure their quarry. Many will advertise that even if you are represented, they will evaluate your case and tell you its true value. Some advertise to other lawyers that they will pay 50% of the fee to any referring attorney. Others may also have bartenders and beauticians helping them to receive referrals of your cases.
A fee for all or, How do I argue that my prior attorneys are entitled to twenty cents in attorney fees?By Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, November 2017Joiner v. IWCC is a must-read for attorneys representing injured workers before the Commission. It involves a case where the Claimant not only terminated one attorney but three attorneys. The last attorney was terminated nine days after she conveyed a $290,000 offer to Claimant.
How temporary partial disability came to be and its application since 2011By Joshua A. HumbrechtWorkers’ Compensation Law, November 2017TPD marks an effort to balance the financial well-being of the injured worker and the employer’s ability to receive some gainful services of physically limited workers for the money extended in temporary benefits.
The amount of evidence required to rebut the statutory presumption in 6(f) of the ActBy Monica J. KiehlWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2017In Johnston v. Illinois Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, et al., the Appellate Court considered the correct standard to be used when rebutting the statutory presumption contained in Section 6(f) of the Act, finding that it is an “ordinary rebuttable presumption,” which merely requires the employer to offer some evidence to show that a petitioner’s condition was caused by something other than his or her occupation.
Appellate Court establishes statutory guideline for wage differential benefit calculationBy Gerald W. NapletonWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2017The issue in Crittenden v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission dealt specifically with Section 8(d)(1)’s language concerning “the average amount which a claimant is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the accident.”
Appellate Court upholds dismissal of Marque Medicos class action suitBy Jim ByrnesWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2017On June 30, 2017, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court issued a decision affirming an order by Judge Rita Novak of the Circuit Court of Cook County, dismissing with prejudice a class action suit filed by Marque Medicos Fullerton, LLC and other plaintiffs against various workers’ compensation carriers
Can CMS dictate to their attorney what defenses it must raise in the context of defending WC cases?By Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2017CMS argued that the Atty. Gen.’s refusal to raise the employer/employee defendants constituted a conflict of interest such that special counsel should be appointed. However, the Constitution of the State of Illinois gives the Atty. Gen. the authority to decide what arguments, strategies and litigation tactics to employee in defending claims.
Case analysis and commentsBy Robert M. HarrisWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2017When do the facts draw an inference that an accident aggravated a pre-existing degenerative condition? A look at Nanette Schroeder v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (Swift Transportation).
Does Holocker v. IWCC take down Interstate Scaffolding?By Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2017The answer is that Holocker helps to clarify Interstate Scaffolding. The respondent’s attorney should use this case as a textbook outline on how to defeat a claim for temporary total disability benefits when the employee has been terminated by his employer prior to reaching maximum medical improvement.
Anthony R. Holstine v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission et al.; NO. 2-16-0339WC (Rule 23 decision) When is an 8(d)1 award mandatory?By Deborah BenzingWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2017Given the Court’s expression of preference of 8(d)(1) awards, respondents should be careful to always consider the use of vocational experts to address whether the injury resulted in an impairment of the capacity to earn or, although unlikely, establish a waiver of 8(d)(1) benefits by claimant on the record when asserting that permanency should be based on 8(d)(2) as opposed to 8(d)(1).
Country Preferred Insurance Company v. Lori GroenBy Herbert FranksWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2017A setoff provision in an employee’s uninsured motorist policy providing that payments made pursuant to the Worker’s Compensation Act will reduce the amount payable under the policy is enforceable and applicable to payments made by the employer to the employee’s medical providers.
