Workers’ Compensation Law

Bayer v. Panduit Corporation

Bayer v. Panduit Corporation
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 132252
Decision Date: 
Monday, August 10, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM
Employee working as ironworker on construction site fell and was injured, and was rendered a quadriplegic. Employee filed workers' compensation claim against employer, and later filed negligence suit against general contractor, which filed third-party complaint for contribution against employer, alleging that employer was negligent in failing to ensure safety of its employees. Court within its discretion in finding good faith and in approving settlement between employee and employer, and in dismissing with prejudice general contractor's third-party contribution claim against employer. Workers' Compensation Act does not require employer to pay statutory 25% attorney fees for suspended future medical payments. (CONNORS and HARRIS, concurring.)

Reichling v. Touchette Regional Hospital, Inc.

Reichling v. Touchette Regional Hospital, Inc.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (5th) 140412
Decision Date: 
Thursday, July 16, 2015
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
St. Clair Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
STEWART
Court properly granted summary judgment for hospital, as there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff was hospital's borrowed employee. Plaintiff's premises liability was barred b y exclusive remedy provision of Workers' Compensation Act, as she was hospital's borrowed employee at time of injury. Undisputed material facts show that hospital directed and controlled Plaintiff's work and that she consented to borrowed-employee relationship with hospital. Existence of agreement between hospital and temporary healthcare staffing agency, whereby staffing agency was responsible for workers' compensation claims and agreed to hold hospital harmless from such claims, did not relieve hospital from liability under Act and protection of Act's exclusive remedy provision. (CATES and WELCH, concurring.)

Pekin Insurance Company v. Campbell

Pekin Insurance Company v. Campbell
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (4th) 140955
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
POPE
Plaintiff insurer filed complaint to rescind workers' compensation policy it issued to construction company, citing misrepresentations as to number of persons employed. Court properly dismissed Defendant's motion to reconsider his Section 2-1401 petition to vacate default judgment. As a result of default, Defendant admitted allegation that named person was an employee, as a default admits facts alleged against a defendant in complaint to be true. Even if trial court had concurrent jurisdiction with Workers' Compensation Commission, it would not have been error for court to retain jurisdiction. (KNECHT and TURNER, concurring.)

Estate of Burns v. Consolidation Coal Company

Estate of Burns v. Consolidation Coal Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (5th) 140503
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Franklin Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
STEWART
Widow filed claim for benefits under Workers' Occupational Diseases Act, alleging that husband was disabled and died as a result of diseases arising out of his employment as a coal miner for 38 years. Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted arbitrator's award of death benefits and burial expenses. Estate contended that $89,865 paid by employer was not full amount due and owing per Commission's award, and filed motion to enforce judgment in circuit court under Section 19(g) of Workers' Compensation Act. Employer was not entitled to offset amount of federal claim against workers' compensation benefits under Section 19(g). As alleged settlement agreement was not presented to Commission, in Section 19(g) proceedings, court could not consider the agreement and could only review Commission's award. (CATES and WELCH, concurring.)

Sunrise Assisted Living v. Banach

Sunrise Assisted Living v. Banach
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (2d) 140037
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 26, 2015
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BURKE
Workers’ Compensation Commission approved and adopted arbitrator’s decision finding employee permanently partially disabled and temporarily totally disabled, and circuit court and appellate court affirmed Commission’s decision. During appellate review, employee petitioned to increase arbitration award, claiming her condition had worsened. Trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Section 19(g) application, despite pending section 19(h) proceedings, and appellate court has jurisdiction to review denial of application. Trial court properly denied Claimant’s request for interest under Section 2-1303. Employer promptly paid in full. When employer tendered full payment, claimant was no longer entitled to judgment under Section 19(g), and without a judgment, claimant was not entitled to additional interest under Section 2-1303 of Code of Civil Procedure. (JORGENSEN and HUDSON, concurring.)

Dibenedetto v. Illinois Workers Compensation Commisssion

Dibenedetto v. Illinois Workers Compensation Commisssion
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 133233WC
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 26, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., WC Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HARRIS
Claimant, a hosting engineer, sustained injuries to right shoulder and cervical spine from fall. Commission properly found date of injury, rather than date of arbitration hearing 5 ½ years later, controlled maximum rate applicable to claimant’s wage-differential award. Limits on compensation in Section 8(b)(4) of Workers Compensation Act, including maximum rates applicable to wage-differential awards, apply with reference to date of injury and not some later point in time. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and STEWART, concurring.)

In re Estate of Brewer

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.
View Full Text of Legislation

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
View Full Text of Legislation

Durica v. Commonwealth Edison Company

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.)