Workers’ Compensation Law

(Court opinion corrected 2/25/15.) Employee, a car hauler who delivers new cars to car dealerships, was preparing to begin his regular commute to his employer's premises a time of his injury. He was required to driver to Belvidere facility first, load 18-wheeler truck with cars, and then drive truck to various dealerships. Thus, when driving to Belvidere facility, he was not making brief and unnecessary stop, but was making a regular commute from his home to a fixed jobsite as a necessary precondition to any later work-related travel. Commission's finding that employee's injury did not arise out of or in course of his employment was not against manifest weight of evidence. (HOFFMAN, HUDSON, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 1/30/15.) Employee, who speaks Polish but not English, suffered work-related accident when he fell 11 feet from rooftop, and sustained injuries including traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome. Commission found employee permanently and totally disabled, which was supported by rehab counselor's testimony that stable labor market did not exist for employee. Commission properly denied employer's motion to suspend benefits; employee reasonably chose to follow advice of his treating physician rather than that of IME physician. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

Circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction to resolve disputed based on a referral agreement apportioning attorney fees earned in claim filed under Workers' Compensation Act. Workers' Compensation Act does not provide Industrial Commission with authority to hear and determine attorney fee dispute based on referral agreements between the parties. Act does not explicitly divest circuit courts of jurisdiction to consider claims in fee dispute by enacting comprehensive administrative scheme. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)