Workers’ Compensation Law

Section 6(d) of Workers' Compensation Act, which sets forth three-year statute of limiiations to file workers' compensation claims, does not act as a bar to presentation of evidence of work activities that occurred more than three years prior to date of accident, or manifestation date, of a repetitive-trauma injury. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON,K and STEWART, concurring.)

When an employee who was injured on the job and is unable to return to work as a result of workers' compensation carrier's delay in approving medical treatment, his claim for lost wages falls within exclusivity provision of Worker's compensation Act, and cannot be recovered in subsequently-filed retaliatory discharge claim. (WELCH and GOLDENHERSH, concurring.)When

Employee filed for workers' compensation benefits for right shoulder injuries sustained while employed for landscaping company. Circuit court erred in finding that Commission's award of temporary total disability benefits and past and future medical care was against manifest weight of evidence. Commission's finding that condition of ill-being is causally related to employment is not contrary to manifest weight of evidence. Commission found credible medical evidence supporting causation, and although did not expressly find claimant credible, its description of his testimony reveals that it found him credible. (HOFFMAN, HUDSON, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

Where a risk is distinctly associated with a claimant's employment, it is not a neutral risk. When claimant was performing acts employer might reasonably have expected him to perform incident to and in fulfillment of his assigned duties, injury occurring during performance of those acts arose out of work and was causally connected to his work. (HOLDRIDGE and HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and STEWART, concurring.)

Commission's decision that claimant was not permanently and totally disabled is not against manifest weight of evidence, given Functional Capacity Evaluation report and physician testimony. As claimant requested alternate relief of, and did not explicitly waive his right to, a wage differential award, Commission was obliged to resolve that issue. (HOLDRIDGE, HUDSON, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

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.)