Workers’ Compensation Law

In re Estate of Brewer

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Wills
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (2d) 140706
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Winnebago Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BIRKETT
Court properly granted motion to dismiss petition to contest validity of a will. Petition did not allege sufficient facts to establish that will had been revoked in accordance with relevant provisions of Probate Act. Because the will purportedy cancelled by decedent is an unsigned and unattested copy of his original will, it is not a "will" for purposes of Section 4-7 of Probate Act. (SCHOSTOK and JORGENSEN, concurring.)

Senate Bill 884

Topic: 
Venue changes
(Radogno, R-Lemont) makes the following changes to the venue section of the Code of Civil Procedure. (1) Deletes current law that if all defendants are nonresidents of Illinois, and action may be commenced in any county. (2) Makes the residence of an Illinois private corporation or railroad or bridge company and any foreign corporation authorized to transact business in Illinois to be any county in which it is doing business if after due inquiry no other office can be found in Illinois. Any county in which it has a registered office would still be considered to be a county of residence. (3) Deletes current law in which a partnership may be sued in any county in which any partner resides. A partnership may be sued in any county in Illinois in which it is doing business if after due inquiry no office can be found in Illinois. (4) Deletes current law in which an Illinois insurance company or one doing business in Illinois may be brought in any county in which the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs may reside. (5) Creates a new motion to dismiss for inconvenient venue. It requires the court to dismiss an action in which none of the parties is a resident of Illinois and over which another forum has jurisdiction unless the cause of action primarily arose in Illinois or the interests of justice require that the action proceed in Illinois. Allows the court to award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with the dismissal. A condition of dismissal is that if the plaintiff elects to file an action in another forum within six months after the dismissal order, the defendant must accept service of process from the court. If the statute of limitations has run in the other forum, the defendant must waive that defense. If the defendant refuses to abide by these conditions, the action shall be reinstated for further proceedings in the court in which the dismissal was granted. If the court in the other forum refuses to accept jurisdiction, the plaintiff may, within 30 days after the final order refusing jurisdiction, reinstate the action in which the dismissal was granted.

HJRCA 37

Topic: 
Constitutional amendment to cap tort damages
(Madigan, D-Chicago) is a constitutional amendment for the ballot in the 2016 general election. It does the following: (1) caps punitive damages to three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded in the action or $50,000, whichever is greater. (2) Caps the total amount recoverable for an injury or death of the patient as a result of medical malpractice to $1.25 million. (3) Caps the liability of a health-care provider for medical malpractice to $250,000. (3) Caps the aggregate damages for the loss of society resulting from the wrongful death of an unmarried adult who has no dependents to $300,000. “Loss of society” includes affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort, guidance, and protection. Scheduled for hearing this Wednesday in House Judiciary Committee

Durica v. Commonwealth Edison Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Preemption
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 140076
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 30, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM
(Court opinion corrected 5/15/15.) Court erred in dismissing complaint per Section 2-619(a)(1), in finding that Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) had exclusive jurisdiction over their claims against ComEd and tree service company, for removing several 25-foot pine trees from their property, which they had planted to reduce noise and dust from freight train traffic abutting their property. Although ICC has sole authority to hear complaints for violation of Section 8-505.1(a) of Public Utilities Act, that Act does not preempt property owners' rights to assert independent tort claims arising from same conduct, and does not preclude common law remedy of monetary damages otherwise available. (CONNORS and HARRIS, concurring.)

Steel & Machinery Transportation, Inc. v. Illinois Workers Compensation Commisssion

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 133985WC
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 1, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., WC Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HUDSON
Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission properly awarded benefits to claimant, an over-the-road truck driver who owns a tractor-trailer, and in finding that an employer-employee relationship existed. Claimant was in accident in Illinois while transporting load of machinery and metal products, having been dispatched by Respondent to transport shipment from Indiana to Wisconsin.Claimant's ownership of tractor-trailer was in name only, and control Respondent had over equipment is indicative of an employment relationship. "Independent Contractor Agreement" signed by parties indicated that Claimant's ability to haul for another carrier was subject to many conditions; Claimant hauled exclusively for Respondent from hire date to accident date; and Respondent had sole discretion to interchange equipment Respondent leased from Claimant to other authorized carriers. (HOFFMAN, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

Loyola University of Chicago v. Illinois Workers Compensation Commisssion

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 130984WC
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 1, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., WC Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Justice: 
HUDSON
Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission approved settlement contract, and neither party sought judicial review; thus, settlement contract constitutes a final award under Workers' Compensation Act. Claimant thereafter filed petition for penalties pursuant to Sections 19(k) and 19(l) of the Act, and for attorney fees under Section 16 of the Act. Commission correctly concluded that Respondent is liable for reimbursement of overpayment of long-term disability payments made to claimant by CIGNA. Commission was authorized to address claimant's petition, and Commission had jurisdiction to interpret settlement contract in conjunction with deciding claimant's petition for penalties and attorney fees. Commission had jurisdiction to construe settlement contract, and to consider claimant's petition for penalties and attorney fees. Commission properly found that claimant failed to prove that Respondent's interpretation of settlement contract was unreasonable or vexatious.(HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

Bell v. Illinois Workers Compensation Commisssion

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (4th) 140028WC
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 1, 2015
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Coles Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
HOLDRIDGE
Clerical worker filed workers' compensation claim for injuries in slip and fall in employer's parking lot. Prior to arbitration hearing, claimant died of caused unrelated to work accident. Claimant's estate may seek and obtain permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits that had accrued and were payable, due, and owing to claimant prior to her death. Benefits that accrue before injured employee's death are payable to estate regardless of dependency. PPD benefits are compensation for diminishment of employee's earning capacity caused by work-related injury. (HOFFMAN, HUDSON, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

Kay v. Centegra Health System

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (2d) 131187
Decision Date: 
Thursday, April 23, 2015
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
McHenry Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McLAREN
Court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants hospital and its parent company, on grounds that Workers' Compensation Act was exclusive remedy. Plaintiff had sought workers compensation benefits, for injury sustained when tripping over cable while working in a hospital lab, and that workers compensation arbitrator had decided that Defendants were Plaintiffs "joint employer" at time of injury. (HUDSON and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Illinois State Treausrer v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL 117418
Decision Date: 
Thursday, April 16, 2015
District: 
1st
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
KARMEIER
When acting as custodian of Injured Workers' Benefit Fund, Illinois State Treasurer is required to file appeal bond pursuant to Section 19(f)(2) of Workers' Compensation Act to obtain judicial review of a decision by Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission affirmating an arbitrator's award of benefits to an injured worker. If Treasurer has not filed such appeal bond, then court lacks jurisdcition to consider Treasurer's appeal. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KIL;BRIDE, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Young v. Alden Gardens of Waterford, LLC

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Whistleblower Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 131887
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MASON
Jury verdict found long-term care facility liable under Whistleblower Act for retaliating against R.N., its former employee, based on her refusal to follow her supervisor's instructions to falsify residents' medication administration records. Court's award of attorney's fees to Plaintiff was within its discretion and not contrary to manifest weight of evidence. Evidentiary hearings are not required, as a matter of course, on fee petitions, but only where other party's response raises issue of fact that cannot be resolved without hearing further evidence. (PUCINSKI and HYMAN, concurring.)