Workers’ Compensation Law

Trial court found that Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding claimant had shown a causal link between her condition of ill-being and an at-work accident. Commission's decision as to causation is not contrary to manifest weight of evidence. Claimant's consistent reports of pain were not required to be given more weight than changes in her ability to work. Where an accident accelerates the need for surgery, a claimant may recover under the Workers' Compensation Act.Physician's testimony supports inference that accident accelerated need for surgery. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HARRIS, and MOORE, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 6/2/17.) Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for injury allegedly sustained while working for Respondent hotel. Parties executed lump-sum, settlement contract which provided that Respondent had paid all of Claimant's medical bills. Circuit court, pursuant to Section 19(g) of Workers' Compensation Act, is proper venue to seek enforcement of a Commission's final award. Imposition of penalties and attorney fees in this case was improper because Claimant abandoned his request for such relief. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HARRIS, and MOORE, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 4/20/17.) Court confirmed decision of Workers' Compensation Commission to deny him benefits under Section 8 of Workers' Compensation Act. Commission found that Claimant failed to meet his burden because at time of his heart attack, he was at home and had just physically exerted himself and was not performing any activity connected to his duties as firefighter or assistant fire chief. Expert cardiologist's opinion that Claimant's 3 major risk factors for heart disease caused the heart disease that resulted in a heart attack was sufficient evidence to rebut presumption of causation. Commission's decision was not against manifest weight of evidence. (HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and HARRIS, concurring; HOLDRIDGE, dissenting.)

Firefighter filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging injuries from shoveling snow in fire department parking lot. Commission's determination that heart attack did not arise out of his employment was not against manifest weight of evidence. Employer rebutted presumption by showing claimant's smoking history. Testimony of physician was about  medical research generally supporting correlation between firefighter's occupational exposure and development of coronary artery disease, but was not making correlation specifically as to claimant. (HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and MOORE, concurring; HOLDRIDGE, dissenting.)

Workers' compensation claimant properly reversed Commission's award of section 19(l) penalties. Employer provided adequate justification for its delay in paying claimant's award of medical expenses.(HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and MOORE, concurring.)

Workers' Compensation Commission erred in its method of determining average amount which claimant is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after work-related accident. If claimant is not working at time of calculation, Commission must identify, based on evidence in the record, an occupation that claimant is able and qualified to perform, and apply average wage for that occupation to wage differential calculation. Claimant is required to introduce evidence sufficient for Commission to identify occupation that claimant is able and qualified to perform, and average wage for that occupation. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and HARRIS, concurring.)

(Correcting court designation.) Defendant received benefits from workers' compensation claim for injuries from accident during course of her employment. Defendant also sought benefits under her unbinsured motorist policy. Court properly granted summary judgment for insurer in that action. Court found setoff provision in uninsured motorist policy enforceable, unambiguous, and not against public policy, and found that it provides that amounts payable under uninsured policy will be reduced by amount of all payments made or due under the Workers' Compensation Act. (TURNER and APPLETON, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 1/27/17.) Claimant, working as a welder-fabricator, sustained work-related injury when he attempted to grab a 400-lb. section of rail as it fell from a sawhorse, and suffered distal biceps tendon rupture. Commission found claimant lost 25% use of his right arm. Commission noted that IME physician placed claimant's level of "impairment" at 6%, and stated that giving this rating more weight would effectively discount the other factors set forth in Section 8.1b of Workers' Compensation Act. Commission then discussed the other 4 factors of that Section. Commission properly applied Section 8.1b of the Act, and Commission's application of that Section was not against manifest weight of evidence. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)