Workers’ Compensation Law

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

Workers' Compensation Commission erred in failing to determine whether claimant was entitled to permanent partial disability (PPD) benefit award based on wage differential calculation, rather than percentage of a person as a whole award. Employer stipulated that claimant could no longer meet physical demands of his usual and customary line of work as dockworker/truck driver. Although claimant did not pursue PPD benefits, record contains evidence relevant to claimant's entitlement to wage differential award. Claimant's request for PTD (permanent and total disability) benefrits should not be construed as election as to his rights to PPD benefits.(HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and HARRIS, concurring.)

Plaintiff employee was injured in work-related vehicle accident in which a third party was at fault. Circuit court correctly ruled, sua sponte, that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide controversy in declaratory judgment action filed asking court to decide whether Plaintiff could seek additional benefits under Workers' Compensation Act, following Plaintiff's settlement of a third-party tort claim that arose from workplace accident. Issues of Plaintiff's entitlement to workers' compensation benefits and Defendants' (City and its workers' compensation insurer) defenses to claim fall within exclusive jurisdiction of Workers' Compensation Commission. Circuit court's jurisdiction in this controversy is "appellate only", not concurrent.(SCHWARM and MOORE, concurring.)

Employee worked as water and sewer inspector for Village. Employee sustained elbow injury in 2006, during his work duty of replacing a water meter on parcel of property in Village. Commission's decision to deny employee TTD benefits after his voluntary retirement 6 months after accident is not against manifest weight of evidence. Sufficient evidence in record to support Commission's determination that employee failed to meet his burden of providing his entitlement to PTD benefits based on "odd lot" theory. Employee failed to establish prejudice in Commission's failure to answer questions he submitted purusant to Section 19(e) of Workers' Compensation Act. (HOLDRIDGE, HUDSON, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

When a traveling employee is exposed to a certain risk while working, he is presumed to have been exposed to a greater degree than the general public. Employee, who was a plumbing inspector for city, was exposed to risk of traversing a curb to a greater degree than a member of general public by virtue of status as a traveling employee at time of accident. Injury employee suffered when tripping over curb was sustained in course of his employment and arose out of his employment. (HOLDRIDGE, HUDSON, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)