Workers’ Compensation Law

Skokie Castings, Inc. v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund

Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL 113873
Decision Date: 
Friday, October 18, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
KARMEIER
Claims under policies providing excess coverage for workers' compensation awards are exempt from $300,000 statutory cap on obligation of Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund to pay any particular claim. Claims under excess coverage policies purchased by the employer were not subject to statutory cap. Guaranty Fund had improperly terminated payments for injured employee's workers' compensation award after cap was reached. Guaranty Fund was obligated to reimburse employer for all workers' compensation payments it had made to its injured employee following liquidation of employer's workers' compensation carrier. (FREEMAN, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring; KILBRIDE and THOMAS, dissenting.)

Dratewska-Zator v. Rutherford

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 122699
Decision Date: 
Friday, September 13, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
REYES
Court properly dismissed amended complaint against State Treasurer for judgment on full amount of award received from Workers' Compensation Commission, and against Commissioners and Chairman for mandamus. Plaintiff was injured in workplace accident, but employer failed to have valid workers' compensation insurance. Claim against Treasurer is barred by sovereign immunity based on nature of cause of action and nature of relief sought. Plaintiff does not have clear right to direct disbursement from Illinois Injured Workers' Benefit Fund for medical expenses in full amount of award, as Commission already paid her medical expenses from Fund. (HALL and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Tiburzi Chiropractic v. Kline

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (4th) 121113
Decision Date: 
Monday, September 16, 2013
District: 
4th Dist
Division/County: 
Macoupin Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed as modified.
Justice: 
TURNER
Court erred in entering $2,010 money judgment for chiropractor and against his patient for balance of fees for chiropractic services. Patient had filed workers compensation claim for injuries, and employer paid chiropractor's bill per fee schedule in effect per Section 8.2 of Workers' Compensation Act. Chiropractor's compensable services under the Act are not recoverable. As chiropractor had submitted its bill to its workers' compensation insurance carrier, bills paid at fee-schedule rate were not recoverable, but $200 for cold packs, not paid for by carrier, were recoverable in small claims judgment. (POPE and HARRIS, concurring.)

Public Act 98-548

Topic: 
Tort cases and settlement problems
(Raoul, D-Chicago; Sims, D-Chicago) amends the Code of Civil Procedure to create an enforcement mechanism for cases in which the parties agree to settle, but the defendant won't comply with the agreement. It is limited to cases seeking money damages involving personal injury, wrongful death, or tort action. It requires a settling defendant pay all sums due the plaintiff within 30 days of tender of all applicable documents required under this new section. It requires a "settling defendant" to tender a release to the plaintiff within 14 days of written confirmation of the settlement. If the law requires court approval of a settlement, the plaintiff must tender to the defendant a copy of the court order approving the settlement. If there is a known third-party right of recovery or subrogation interest, the plaintiff may protect the third party's right of recovery or subrogation interest by tendering to the defendant (1) A signed release of the attorney's lien; and (2) A letter from the plaintiff's attorney agreeing to hold the full amount of the claimed lien in the plaintiff's attorney's client-fund account pending final resolution of lien amount; or (a) A signed release of the healthcare-provider lien or documentation of the agreement between the plaintiff and Medicare or private health insurance company as to the amount of the settlement that will be accepted in satisfaction of the right of recovery; or (b) An offer that the defendant hold the full amount of the claimed right to recovery pending a final resolution of the right to recovery; or (c) Documentation of any other resolution of the liens as agreed to by the parties. If the court finds, after a hearing, that payment has not been made within 30 days of tender of the necessary documents, judgment must be entered against that defendant for the amount in the executed release, costs incurred in obtaining the judgment, and 9 percent interest from the date of the plaintiff's tender. The Act exempts units of local government, the State of Illinois, and state employees. Effective January 1, 2014.

Milynarczyk v. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (3d) 120411WC
Decision Date: 
Thursday, May 30, 2013
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
HUDSON
(Court opinion corrected 8/7/13.) Employee was a "traveling employee" for cleaning service, as she did not work at a fixed job site but traveled to various locations to do cleaning. Thus, employee was entitled to workers' compensation benefits for wrist fracture from falling on snowy sidewalk when walking to minivan to go from her home, where she had been taking lunch break, to return to church where she had been cleaning. Employee's walk to the minivan was initial part of her journey to her work assignment, and was thus reasonable and foreseeable. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

Gruszeczka v. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL 114212
Decision Date: 
Thursday, August 1, 2013
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
McHenry Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court reversed; remanded.
Justice: 
THOMAS
The mailbox rule applies when a party seeks judicial review of a Workers' Compensation Commission decision in circuit court per Section 19(f)(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act. Under that Section, a proceeding for judicial review must be "commenced" within 20 days after claimant's attorney received the Commission's decision. A proceeding is "commenced" when the request for summons is placed in the mail, consistent with Illinois law which already applies at the first and third stages of the workers' compensation review process: when appealing circuit court decision to appellate court, and when seeking review of arbitrator's decision before the Commission. (KILBRIDE, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring.)

Workers’ Comp and Temporary or ‘Borrowed’ Workers

By James P. Looby
August
2013
Article
, Page 426
With more employers turning to staffing agencies, determining who the real employer is and isn't - and thus whom the worker might be able to sue in civil court - is trickier than ever.

Kawa v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 120469WC
Decision Date: 
Monday, June 3, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,WC Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded.
Justice: 
STEWART
Claimant was employed as launch engineer for auto maker assembly plant and was in job-related vehicle accident. Commission's finding that claimant reached MMI was not supported by evidence; employer's medical expert concluded four months later that claimant was not at MMI and could not do overhead lifting with right shoulder. Claimant's refusal to participate in unnamed, unapproved multidisciplinary pain managment program cannot be basis for denying him further TTD benefits or medical benefits.(HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, and HUDSON, concurring; TURNER, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

National Freight Industries v. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (5th) 120043WC
Decision Date: 
Thursday, June 13, 2013
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Madison Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed and remanded (5-12-0043WC); affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded (5-12-0047WC).
Justice: 
HUDSON
Claimant filed worker's compensation claim for injuries from 12/08 motor vehicle accident while employed by trucking company employer; and on same day filed workers compensation claim for previous employer from 11/06 work-related accident. Prior to car accident, back surgery was limited to one level, but after car accident surgery was indicated at multiple levels. Evidence showed that car accident changed the nature of claimant's injury, was sole cause of his current condition, and thus broke causalo chain from original accident. Second accident was not just a continuation of injury from first accident, but caused separate and distinct injury that broke causal chain. Thus, claimant should be allowed to seek permanency award for each accident. (HOLDRIDGE and HOFFMAN, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)

United Airlines, Inc. v. Illinois Wokers' Compensation Commission

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Workers' Compensation
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 121136WC
Decision Date: 
Monday, June 3, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., WC Div.
Holding: 
Reversed; Commission decision reinstated.
Justice: 
HOFFMAN
Airline ramp service worker sustained wrist injury in 2004, and right shoulder injury in 2006 in course of his employment, while loading and unloading luggage bags. Treating physician released employee to return to work in 2007, but with permanent restrictions which precluded him from returning to ramp service position. Section 8(d)(1) of Workers' Compensation Act requires the wage differential to be determined as of the date of the arbitration hearing. Commission was not required to consider mandatory overtime hours in determining wage differential amount, as employee's pay history did not whow that he worked mandatory overtime on regular basis. (HOLDRIDGE, HUDSON, HARRIS, and STEWART, concurring.)