Workers’ Compensation Law

Plaintiff and two defendants appealed form an order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of a third defendant based on the exclusive remedy provision contained in the Workers’ Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the issue of whether the defendant had the right to control and direct the manner in which the plaintiff performed his work and whether there was an implied contract of hire between plaintiff and the defendant. (ROCHFORD and MARTIN, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking damages for the death of an individual who was murdered by a co-worker. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss finding that the lawsuit was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the exclusive remedy provision of the Act applied to her claim. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the plaintiff had not provided evidence that the dispute leading to the decedent’s death was unrelated to the employer’s work and to find so would require the factfinder to engage in speculation regarding the nature of the dispute. (ELLIS and COBBS, concurring)

Claimant appealed from a circuit court order reversing a decision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission awarding her benefits for injuries to her wrist sustained while employed as a crossing guard. The Commission had concluded that while claimant was traveling to work at the time of the injury, the injury arose out of and was in the court of her employment because she was on the village’s premises at the time of the injury. Claimant appealed the circuit court’s order and the appellate court found in her favor, reversing the circuit court order and reinstating the decision of the commission. (HOLDRIDGE, JUDSON, CAVANAGH, and BARBERIS, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the decision of the Will county circuit court confirming the decision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission denying its requests for credits against amounts awarded to the claimant under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the sum respondent sought to recoup was paid to the claimant pursuant to the make-whole [provision in the collective bargaining agreement that the parties were operating under and, as a result, there was no overpayment nor was there an early payment made toward satisfying a future obligation. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, CAVANAGH, and BARBERIS, concurring)

Plaintiff appealed from an order of the circuit court affirming the final decision of the Director of Insurance in favor of the defendant regarding a workers’ compensation insurance dispute. The parties disputed whether the plaintiff owed the defendant additional workers’ compensation insurance premiums because certain subcontractors hired by the plaintiff did not have additional coverage. In a prior proceeding, the Supreme Court had reversed an appellate court finding that the DOI lacked statutory authority to resolve the dispute and the matter was returned to the appellate court. On remand, the appellate court reversed the finding of the DOI on the basis that the record did not support the hearing officer’s finding that the employees at issue were subject to workers’ compensation coverage. (MIKVA and CONNORS, concurring)

Claimant appealed from an order of the circuit court confirming the decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Commission awarding him benefits for four separate injuries he sustained while working for the respondent, the City of Chicago. On appeal, claimant argued that the commission erred by declining to award wage-differential benefits under section 8(d)(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, declining to award penalties and fees under sections 19(k), 19(l) and 16 of the Act, and awarding respondent credit under section 8(j) of the Act. The appellate court affirmed the portion of the circuit court’s judgment confirming the commission’s decisions with respect to the permanency award and the imposition of penalties and fees, but vacated the portion of the circuit court’s judgment confirming the commission’s decisions regarding the section 8(j) credits. The appellate court remanded the matter back to the commission for clarification regarding the section 8(j) credits. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and CAVANAGH, concurring)

Petitioner sought payment from respondent employer for past and future medical expenses to treat a workplace injury. On appeal, petitioner argued that the Commission erred when it rejected his life care plan without support from utilization review. Petitioner also challenged the requirement that his future medical care be managed by a central treating physician. The appellate court held that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority and reversed on both issues. The appellate court also affirmed the trial court’s finding that certain conditions were not causally related to the injury and the trial court’s finding that petitioner was not entitled to penalties and attorney’s fees. (HOLDRIDGE, HOFFMAN, HUDSON, and BARBERIS, concurring)

Illinois Supreme Court held that the exclusivity provisions of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act do not bar a claim for statutory damages under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act where an employer is alleged to have violated an employee’s statutory rights under the Privacy Act. The court explained that whether the exclusivity provision of the Compensation Act bars an employee’s civil claim depends on the nature of the damages as it only applies if the injury is one that is covered by the Compensation Act. The injuries alleged by plaintiffs for the alleged violation of the Privacy Act were not the type of injuries that are compensable under the Compensation Act and, as a result, the claims were not barred. (ANNE M. BURKE, GARMAN, THEIS, NEVILLE, and CARTER, concurring and MICHAEL J. BURKE, specially concurring.)

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a general contractor, for injuries he sustained while an employee of the defendant’s subcontractor. The circuit court found defendant was immune under the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed.  The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding that the exclusive remedy provisions under sections 5(a) and 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Act do not extend to a general contractor who is not the employee’s immediate employer even where the general contractor has paid workers’ compensation premiums and benefits for employees of the subcontractor pursuant to a contractual agreement. (ANNE M. BURKE, GARMAN, THEIS, NEVILLE, MICHAEL J. BURKE, and OVERSTREET, concurring)