Workers’ Compensation Law

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.

Claimant, an apprentice carpenter, was rendered a paraplegic after falling through floor opening on second floor. Employer contended marijuana use, detected via urinalysis, was proximate cause of fall. IWCC Rule requires showing of actual bias for arbitrator recusal, and recusal not mandated where litigation pending between arbitrator and a party. Employee was winding in a chalk line when he fell, and no evidence that he was so intoxicated that he had abandoned his employment, nor that marijuana use was sole cause of fall, and witness statements establish employee was performing his job duties at time of accident. Award of penalties and fees reversed as reasonable person could have concluded that claimant was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

Commission's decision not contrary to manifest weight of evidence as to nature and extent of injuries, necessity and reasonableness of medical expenses, and causal relationship, although contrary to certain of arbitrator's findings, including as to credibility, for which Commission explained reasons. Arbitrator concluded only soft-tissue injury to low back related to fall at work, and that Plaintiff failed to prove permanent injury or future medical treatment as to knee; whereas Commission found that Plaintiff proved disk protrustion and annular tear, and fracture and possible meniscal tear of knee caused by work-related fall.