Workers’ Compensation Law

Claimant alleged she suffered work-related injury in 1999 due to "anxiety/mental illness caused by conflicts", and was terminated several months later. In 2003, she filed second claim, alleging she suffered back injury in 2000 while preparing to travel home from IME for her 1999 claim. Court properly set aside Commission's decision finding back injury compensable, as no employer-employee relationship existed at time of 2000 incident. Employer has a statutory right to have employee requesting workers compensation benefits undergo an IME, but attendance at the IME is not a condition of employment. (McCULLOUGH, HOFFMAN, HOLDRIDGE, and STEWART, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 8/27/10.) Claimant was injured while training at police academy to become a police officer for City of Chicago. Under Workers' Compensation Act, the term "employee" excludes any duly appointed member of a police department in any city of greater than 200,000 population. Trainee was not a "duly appointed member" of City's police department, and therefore is not precluded from receiving benefits under the Act. Legislature intended statutory exclusion in the Act to apply to persons who have been formally admitted to the responsibilities and privileges of the Chicago police department. Although evidence indicated that police recruits were treated like sworn police officers as to their eligibility for benefits under Police Pension Fund, recruits and sworn officers are not on equal footing at the department; recruits do not have full police powers until police academy training is completed and they are sworn in, and recruits are not exposed to the same risks as sworn officers on duty. (McCULLOUGH and DONOVAN, concurring; ROBERT E. GORDON, specially concurring.)

Workers Compensation Act does not authorize an employer to demand income tax records from an employee receiving PTD benefits or require an employee to produce such records; Act does not provide for a formal pretrial discovery process. Employer did not seek Section 12 medical exam, to evaluate any possible change in disability status, and employer did not present witnesses to testify about employee's capacity to work. (McCULLOUGH, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and HOLDRIDGE, concurring.)

Physician was found in direct civil contempt by circuit court for disobeying subpoena issued by Workers' Compensation Commission for records of employee claimant. No basis in law for court to order plaintiff employer to pay 15 cents per page, or any amount, for the photocopied medical records, as subpoena issued by Commission requires that physician bring records to hearing, and does not require copying and mailing of records. Court properly denied plaintiff employer's request for costs, attorney's fees, and fine, as no evidence of contumacious behavior toward circuit court. Refusal to honor subpoena issued by Commission is not contumacious behavior toward circuit court. (STEIGMANN, concurring; MYERSCOUGH, dissenting.)

Lineman, who injured his back while employed for Defendant, was awarded by arbitrator a wage differential for duration of disability and TTD for 177 weeks. Plaintiff filed in circuit court application for entry of judgment per Section 19(g) of Workers' Compensation Act, and alleged that Defendant had notified him it was terminating weekly wage-differential payments. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff's alleged disability had ended, as Plaintiff had obtained full-time job as lineman elsewhere, for greater pay than he earned in Defendant's employ. Appellate court without jurisdiction, because Defendant was required to request, within 30-month period applicable to injuries prior to February 1, 2006, that the Commission review the installment award under Section 19(h) of Act. Employer may terminate totally and permanently disabled employee's benefits upon learning that disability no longer exists, but not those of a partially permanently disabled employee. Section 19(g) does not provide for payment of attorney fees incurred on appeal. (KNECHT and TURNER, concurring.)

Mill operator's removal of himself from workforce, after briefly working at $8/hour security guard job, did not preclude him from wage differential benefits, where pay was within range per vocational rehabilitation consultant's opinion, as claimant could do only light to medium duty work after work-related injury to ulnar nerve. Proper for court to use, as basis for amount claimant would have earned if still employed, the amount his co-worker testified that he received as annual pay for wages plus mandatory overtime. Improper to include in basis the amount earned by co-worker for voluntary overtime.

Action for judicial review of Workers' Compensation Commission properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as insurer of company did not identify itself as agent of employer with authority to execute a bond on behalf of employer. Thus, employer failed to comply with bond requirement of Workers' Compensation Act.

Circuit court properly found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider petition for administrative review of workers compensation decision because claimant failed to establish that he timely exhibited to circuit clerk any documentation showing proof of payment of probable cost of record on appeal. Strict compliance with Section 19(f)(1) of Workers' Compensation Act is essential to circuit court's subject-matter jurisdiction.

Commission's finding that newspaper courier was not an employee was against manifest weight of evidence, given key factors that newspaper distributing company controlled actions of courier, designating when, how, and to whom newspapers were to be delivered, and controlled nature of work. Label of "independent contractor" in parties' written agreement was a minor factor to consider.

(Court opinion modified 04/30/10.) Court properly denied grain farm business's motion to dismiss circuit court appeal, but court erred in confirming Workers Compensation Commission's dismissal of injured worker's application for adjustment of claim. Worker was injured while driving semi-tractor trailer to haul grain, and genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether agricultural enterprise exemption of Workers Compensation Act applies. Employee did not fail to exercise reasonable diligence in service of summons, where circuit clerk failed to issue summons on improper grounds that county sheriff would not serve process on persons outside the county.