Workers’ Compensation Law

A workers' compensation lien, pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act, cannot be subject to reduction or elimination due to conduct on the part of the insurer in its handling of the workers' compensation claim itself, in its cooperation with an investigation of 3rd-party causes of the injury, or in its negotiations with employee as to satisfaction of its lien. Under Section 5(b) of the Act, an employer's right to reimbursement of full amount of benefits paid or to be paid to worker is absolute. No basis in Illinois law to hold that alleged conduct on part of lienholder (workers' compensation insurer of employer) outweighs absolute right that it has to reimbursement of its lien. (WELCH and OVERSTREET, concurring.)

Health care providers which provided care to employee injured at work had to wait several years for payment from employer and its workers' compensation insurer; they filed suit and were awarded statutory interest under Section 8.2(d) of Workers' Compensation Act. No language in the Act expressly authorizes a private right of action. Health care providers, whose only basis for claiming interest was Section 8.2(d) of the Act, are not members of the class for whose benefit the Act was enacted. Thus, they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and court erred in awarding statutory interest. (ELLIS, concurring; GORDON, specially concurring.)

Registered nurse filed claim for workers' compensation benefits. Commission reversed arbitrator's decision, finding claimant failed to prove she sustained work-related accident to her right shoulder. Record contains sufficient support for Commission's decision. Commission resolved disputed facts, including finding that Claimant was not credible, and finding that medical experts of both parties mainly agreed that history and mechanism of injury was not a reasonable or likely cause of the right shoulder condition. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and BARBERIS, concurring.)

The 9% judgment interest rate set forth in section 2-1303 of Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to a Workers' Compensation Commission award prior to the award being reduced to judgment by a circuit court pursuant to section 19(g) of Workers Compensation Act. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and HARRIS, concurring).

(Court opinion corrected 2/7/18.) Court erred in denying employee's petition to intervene in action filed by her employer against Defendants as employee's subrogee pursuant to Section 5(b) of Workers' Compensation Act.Plaintiff had filed suit against Defendants after expiration of 2-year statute of limitations, and after her employer had timely filed its suit for damages as subrogee. Court's dismissal of employee's suit as time-barred does not act to bar, on res judicata grounds, her intervention in employer's timely filed case.(COBBS and FITZGERALD SMITH, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 11/14/17.)Plaintiff filed workers' compensation claim and a common law claim related to the same accident against the employer and a 3rd-party defendant. Parties entered into global settlement agreement in the civil action, which purported to settle both workers' compensation claim and the civil action. Arbitrator approved parties' settlement agreement and ordered Plaintiff to pay attorney fees to the 3 attorneys who had represented him at various times during Commission proceedings. Workers' Compensation Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes as to attorney fees arising out of the representation of a claimant in a workers' compensation case. Court properly dismissed Plaintiff's petition for judicial review for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, based on Plaintiff's failure to file an appeal bond under Section 19(f)(2) of Workers' Compensation Act. That bond requirement is not limited to employers, and is not limited to only compensation awards. (HOFFMAN, HUDSON, HARRIS, and MOORE, concurring.)

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for injury to her right shoulder. Arbitrator awarded TTD, PPD, and medical expenses. Respondent filed timely motion to recall arbitrator's decision to correct a clerical error. Arbitrator issued a corrected decision. Workers' Compensation Commission reversed arbitrator's decision, finding that claimant failed to prove that her injury arose out of and in course of her employment. Circuit court confirmed Commission's decision. Respondent employer failed to properly perfect review of arbitrator's decision by seeking review of arbitrator's original decision rather than the corrected decision. Because Commission issued a corrected decision, the original decision was not a final, appealable decision. Respondent employer never filed a petition requesting review of arbitrator's corrected decision within the statutorily-required period. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HARRIS, and MOORE, concurring.)

Claimant filed workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained when she fell on wet pavement at premises of her employer, a high school, while walking to her car on her way to lunch. Workers' Compensation Commission reversed arbitrator's decision awarding claimant TTD, PPD for 10% loss of person as a whole, and medical expenses. Accident is not compensable, as dangers created by rainfall are dangers to which all members of public are exposed on a regular basis. No evidence that employer exercised any control over route claimant took to her car, and no evidence that her job duties contributed to fall or enhanced risk of slipping on wet pavement. No evidence of any defects, uneven surfaces, or puddles on pavement's surface. Commission properly rejected claim under a neutral risk analysis.(HOFFMAN, HUDSON, HARRIS, and MOORE, concurring.)