Workers’ Compensation Law

When an injured employee's potential claim under Workers' Compensation Act and Workers' Occupational Diseases Act is time-barred before he ever learns of it, thus necessarily depriving him of any potential for compensation under those Acts, employee can sue employer in circuit court, and exclusive remedy provision of those Acts does not bar suit. (GORDON and McBRIDE, concurring.)

Nursing home employee filed worker's compensation claim for shoulder and lower back injury while assisting a patient. In determining TTD benefits, Commission properly focused on whether employee's condition had stabilized and she had reached MMI, rather than whether she was working in a stable labor market. Employee's presence at flower shop which she owned with her daughters, and whether it was a "return to work", was only one factor; her activities at shop were minor, with no income and no regular schedule. Record contains sufficient support for Commission's causation finding. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and STEWART, concurring.)

Claimant worked in grain elevators, including cleaning grain elevators and bins, and he was exposed to significant airborne dust particles including dried bird droppings. Doctors diagnosed him with lung condition caused by fungus usually associated with bird droppings. Commission's finding that Claimant did not give sufficient notice under Section 6(c) of Workers' Compensation Act is contrary to manifest weight of evidence. Although Claimant and his doctor initially thought he had cancer, employer knew of his respiratory conditions and work exposure, and initial inaccuracy in diagnosis did not prejudice employer. Failure to discovery causal connection until after employment relationship ended does not justify denial of benefits for injuries suffered during employment. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and HARRIS, concurring.)

Claimant, who had worked for 22 years as coal miner, filed claim for coal workers' pneumoconiosis. Medical evidence at hearing indicated that Claimant was diagnosed with COPD caused in part by exposure to coal dust, but was not diagnosed with coal workers' pneumoconiosis. Workers Compensation Commission properly found claim time-barred because it was not filed within 3-year statute of limitations for claims alleging occupational diseases other than coal workers' pneumoconiosis, per Section 6(c) of Workers' Occupational Diseases Act. Five-year statute of limitations applies exclusively to coal workers with that diagnosis, rather than COPD, and thus does not apply to Claimant. No equal protection violation as statutory interpretation does not treat similarly situated individuals differently; the two diseases are different conditions diagnosed through different procedures. (HOFFMAN, HUDSON, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 5/13/14.) In workers compensation case, opinions of claimant's treating physician and employer's Section 12 examiner were divergent. Commission resolved conflict in testimony of physicians, and Section 12 examiner's heightened expertise was not so compelling that it rendered opposite conclusion clearly apparent. Employer did not demonstrate prejudice by arbitrator's denial of his motion to take evidence deposition of Section 12 expert, and order that admitting expert's report into evidence was sufficient. Case remanded for Commission to evaluate opinions of physical therapists as to reasonableness and necessity of home modifications. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)