"ARISING OUT OF" and "IN THE COURSE OF" CASES - Back to Table of Contents

Traveling Employees--Petitioner Overboard - Back to WC Index
Petitioner's injuries which occurred while attempting to reach for her employer's infant niece were compensable because those injuries were suffered during a trip which had a dual purpose. While the yacht trip where the injury occurred was a recreational outing and no business was transacted, petitioner did work for her boss while in Acapulco, and her salary and expenses were paid. As a result, her injuries were compensable. The trip was both for business and personal purposes, and the injury trying to prevent her boss's infant niece from falling off the boat was foreseeable. Johnson v. Industrial Comm'n, 278 Ill. App. 3d 59, 662 N.E.2d 156, 214 Ill. Dec. 802 (3d Dist. 1996)

Intoxicated Employees -- .197 BAC Equals Sole Cause - Back to WC Index
Petitioner's voluntary intoxication was the sole cause of his injury, and a complete bar to his workers' compensation claim despite driving his employer-owned vehicle to a business meeting where he consumed drinks. Merely traveling home in transportation provided by his employer was not conclusive. This is the first decision where the court has held that a blood alcohol level (.197) was high enough to have been the sole cause of his injury. Where an employee's work involves driving, the court will now apply the legal standard of intoxication as a bar to a workers' compensation claim. Beattie v. Industrial Comm'n, 276 Ill. App. 3d 446, 657 N.E.2d 1196, 212 Ill. Dec. 851 (1st Dist. 1995)

HEART ATTACK CASES - Back to Table of Contents

Medical Opinion Insufficient: Not Compensable - Back to WC Index
Petitioner failed to establish the work environment as a causative factor despite petitioner's work as a highway flagman for an asphalt paving company. Petitioner's treating physician's opinion as to causation was weak. He testified that medical records did not provide sufficient information for him to make a definite determination regarding the cause of death and any relationship between decedent's death and the environmental circumstances surrounding this sudden death.

Respondent's examining cardiologist testified there was no connection between the decedent's work activities and the work environment and his death.

The court also held that section 12's requirement that records be presented to the opposing side no later than 48 hours prior to the arbitration hearing applies not only to IME reports but to treating physician's records. Ghere v. Industrial Comm'n, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 663 N.E.2d 1046, 215 Ill. Dec. 532 (4th Dist. 1996)

No Proof Of Heavy Lifting: Not Compensable - Back to WC Index
Petitioner failed to prove decedent’s death occurred as the result of an acute cardiac incident brought on by physical or emotional stress. His treating physician testified if he did not lift or move heavy magazines on the day of death, then work was probably not the cause of decedent's heart attack. Evidence of no heavy lifting on the day of death was crucial to petitioner's expert's opinion and supportive of respondent's expert's testimony. Chidichimo v. Industrial Comm'n, 278 Ill. App. 3d 369, 662 N.E.2d 611, 214 Ill. Dec. 1045 (1st Dist. 1996)

CAUSATION CASES - Back to Table of Contents

"Chain Of Events" - Back to WC Index
Petitioner's injury was compensable since the accident could have aggravated his preexisting condition. Petitioner was a process server who injured his neck and back while pursuing a burglary suspect. His medical history of neck and shoulder problems included extensive treatment within two weeks of the date of accident. Petitioner's claim was compensable despite no accident history given to his doctor or the emergency room physician. The court found the accident could have been an aggravating condition. His treating physician was not sure that it actually did aggravate his preexisting condition but was able to say that it "could or might have." It was determined that petitioner’s testimony and medical records established a "chain of events" demonstrating a causal connection. Price v. Industrial Comm'n, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 663 N.E.2d 1057, 215 Ill. Dec. 543 (4th Dist. 1996)

Temporary Aggravation/Apportionment - Back to WC Index
The Illinois Supreme Court in a decision early this year reversed an Industrial Commission finding of permanent partial disability for respiratory ailments which were caused by exposure to coal dust during employment. The arbitrator determined petitioner did not suffer from black lung but instead found petitioner's exposure to coal dust temporarily aggravated his smoke induced emphysema and asthma. The Supreme Court agreed with petitioner's argument that it was improper for the Commission to reduce the award by an apportionment between employment and non-employment causes of disability. Once the propriety of an award is established, the size of the award is not affected by whether the disease is employment-caused or employment-aggravated. Once causation is found, a claimant is entitled to an award for the full nature and extent of his disability. Fitts v. Industrial Comm'n, Docket No. 78978, 1996 WL 143911 (filed March 28, 1995)

"Report It Or Lose" - Back to WC Index
The court affirmed the Commission's denial of benefits. Petitioner did not seek medical treatment until one month after the accident. She did not fill out an injury report despite knowing the procedure for doing so and did not go to the employee health service. She failed to tell treating physicians about her accident history. Medical records did not document any history of a work injury. Without the above, petitioner could not establish a causal relationship between her back injury and the alleged work incident. LeFebvre v. Industrial Comm'n, 276 Ill. App. 3d 791, 659 N.E.2d 1, 213 Ill. Dec. 371 (1st Dist. 1995)

TTD CASES - Back to Table of Contents

IME Doctor's Opinions Rejected - Back to WC Index
The appellate court reversed the Commission's decision reducing a TTD award. Where the IME physician's initial reports support the treating doctor's diagnosis, treatment and opinion as to disability, his later deposition testimony to the contrary did not support a finding reducing the TTD awarded by the arbitrator. His testimony did not overcome other evidence in the case which supported petitioner's inability to return to work.

Petitioner was a 43-year-old part-time secretary who injured her back on June 26th. On June 30, she was in the emergency room and called and reported the accident to her supervisor. She continued to treat in July and by February of the next year had a laminectomy. Clark v. Industrial Comm'n, 276 Ill. App. 3d 429, 657 N.E.2d 1082, 212 Ill. Dec. 737 (1st Dist. 1995)

JURISDICTION CASES - Back to Table of Contents

No Jurisdiction Over Longshoremen - Back to WC Index
Maritime employees who are performing traditional maritime work and who are injured over navigable waters cannot recover benefits under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. Since petitioner was a longshoreman injured over navigable waters, his claim for compensation was exclusively federal. The Illinois Industrial Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his application for benefits. Wells v. Industrial Comm'n, 277 Ill. App. 3d 379, 660 N.E.2d 229, 214 Ill. Dec. 38 (1st Dist. 1995)

SUBROGATION/LIEN CASES - Back to Table of Contents - Back to WC Index

Where an employer asserts a lien on the proceeds of an action brought against a defendant by an injured employee or his personal representative, there is no statutory requirement that the damages recovered by the employee or his personal representative match up with the workers' compensation benefits paid on behalf of the employee by the employer. Despite plaintiff and defendant's allocation of settlement proceeds solely as wrongful death damages, the court found that the employer was entitled to full reimbursement for all expenses it incurred including those incurred between the time of accident and the employee's death. Borden v. Servicemaster Management Serv., ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 663 N.E.2d 153, 215 Ill. Dec. 403 (1st Dist. 1996)

CONTRIBUTION/KOTECKI CASES - Back to Table of Contents

Waiver Case #1 - Back to WC Index
This case upheld a trial court's dismissal of the employer after waiver of its workers’ compensation lien. Kotecki applies to third-party actions where a Structural Work Act claim was at issue. Duncan v. Church of the Living God, 278 Ill. App. 3d 588, 662 N.E.2d 1371, 215 Ill. Dec. 231 (1st Dist. 1996)

Waiver Case #2 - Back to WC Index
The court replaced its original opinion reported in our Fall 1995 review holding the trial court properly dismissed the third-party claim for contribution against the employer since the employer had paid compensation benefits to the employee and had waived its lien. The court once again construed the Schrock opinion as primarily expressing the Supreme Court's concern with balancing the rights of the parties without exposing the employer to excessive liability in violation of the Kotecki rule. To allow the loss of consortium claim in excess of the employee's workers' compensation liability would obviously undermine the Kotecki rule. Christensen v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 276 Ill. App. 3d 58, 657 N.E.2d 725, 212 Ill. Dec. 524 (2d Dist. 1995)

Waiver Case #3 - Back to WC Index
This decision reaffirmed Herington v. J.S. Alberici Construction Co., 266 Ill. App. 3d 489 (1994) holding the liability cap in third-party actions provided to an employer who pays an injured employee's workers' compensation benefits may be waived by contract. An employer cannot knowingly bargain away its Kotecki liability cap prior to the origin of the liability cap itself. This contract was unenforceable. It required the employer to pay for all loss even if it were only 1% liable. If the contract were one for contribution, the defendant and employer would each be responsible for their own acts or admissions. Braye v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 276 Ill. App. 3d 1066, 659 N.E.2d 430, 213 Ill. Dec. 514 (4th Dist. 1995)

The Kotecki Cap/25% Fee - Back to WC Index
Plaintiff's co-employee can be liable to a third-party plaintiff for contribution. Plaintiff was injured when a truck driven by a co-employee collided with defendant's vehicle. Both the defendant and co-employee were held 50% liable. The rule in Kotecki did not protect the co-employee from liability for his pro rata share under the Contribution Act.

An employer's Kotecki cap is for 100% of the workers' compensation liability not 75%. The employer could not deduct the 25% attorneys' fee from the amount due the third-party plaintiff. Ramsey v. Morrison v. Ricky Baker and Tony Baker, d/b/a Baker's Auto Repair, 276 Ill. App. 3d 111, 658 N.E.2d 843, 213 Ill. Dec. 94 (5th Dist.1995)

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE CASES - Back to Table of Contents

Reliance On Sick Leave Policy: ER Loses - Back to WC Index
An employer's reliance on a portion of its sick policy as a reason for termination to be narrow and misguided. The same sick leave policy addressed workers' compensation leave. The company nurse testified the employee was fired because of his workers' compensation leave. He established the workers' compensation leave portion of the agreement had no time limitation that would allow his discharge. After his discharge, the employer hired 600 new employees while rejecting five applications from the plaintiff. The jury awarded plaintiff $200,000 for lost wages, $50,000 for emotional pain and suffering and $750,000 for punitive damages. Heldenbrand v. Roadmaster Corp., 277 Ill. App. 3d 664, 660 N.E.2d 1354, 214 Ill. Dec. 405 (5th Dist. 1996)

Statute Of Limitations/No Discovery Rule - Back to WC Index
In a case of first impression, the court held the discovery rule did not apply to plaintiff's claim of wrongful termination where circumstances surrounding the termination should have put the officer on notice that his termination may have been wrongfully caused. In January of 1992, he was injured while initiating a road block at an accident scene. He did not return to work for six weeks and applied for workers' compensation benefits. His police chief accused him of fraud and conspiracy relating to his workers' compensation claim. He recommended the plaintiff be terminated. The police and fire commission terminated the plaintiff on May 12, 1992. When asked why he was terminated, no explanation was offered. The statute of limitations mandated by the local Tort Immunity Act was one-year. Plaintiff argued his complaint was timely pursuant to the discovery rule which postpones commencement of the statute of limitations until a plaintiff knew or should have known his injury was wrongfully caused. Plaintiff was put on immediate notice the termination may have been wrongfully caused when the police chief informed him he was not at liberty to offer any explanation. The discovery rule was inapplicable to plaintiff's cause of action. The trial court properly dismissed his complaint as time-barred. Ericksen v. Village of Willow Springs, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 660 N.E.2d 62, 213 Ill. Dec. 805 (1st Dist. 1995)

MISCELLANEOUS CASES

Section 7(i) Is Constitutional - Back to Table of Contents - Back to WC Index
The Supreme Court held that non-resident aliens do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of provisions of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. The Court held section 7(i) of the Workers' Compensation Act which limits the amount of death benefits payable to dependents of a deceased employee if those dependents are aliens who do not reside in the United States, Mexico or Canada was constitutional. Petitioners as non-resident aliens do not have standing to assert the Equal Protection Clause. The Court upheld the arbitrator's application of section 7(i) of the Act which reduced the award of compensation by 50%. Jarabe v. Industrial Comm'n, Docket No. 79666, 1996 WL 143906 (filed 3/28/96)

Section 19(g)/Attorneys' Fees - Back to Table of Contents - Back to WC Index
Petitioner was entitled to interest on an award pursuant to section 2-1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondents are responsible for payment of interest on awards even if awards are subsequently modified on review. Where there are no liability disputes as to payment and responsibility for benefits, interest will accrue even if the eventual award is altered in some degree. Only when there are disputes as to liability will the court consider a dispute over the amount of interest to be reasonable. Ponthieux v. Fernandes, 278 Ill. App. 3d 104, 662 N.E.2d 169, 214 Ill. Dec. 815 (4th Dist. 1996)

Collateral Estoppel/Circuit Court Judgment - Back to Table of Contents - Back to WC Index
The doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply to prevent plaintiff's common law action where the workers' compensation case was settled on review and dismissed with prejudice. The court found there was no final judgment on the merits. While the issues decided in the workers' compensation case were identical with the ones presented in the common law action, the plaintiff was not able to show a final judgment on the merits of the causation issue in the prior litigation. The finality requirement of the doctrine of collateral estoppel had not been met. Arnett v. Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc., 275 Ill. App. 3d 938, 657 N.E.2d 668, 212 Ill. Dec. 467 (3d Dist. 1995)

Timeliness Of Appeal - Back to Table of Contents - Back to WC Index
Failure to file a petition for immediate review within 20 days of receipt of the decision deprives the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Industrial Commission is not required to compare addresses. Attorneys have an obligation to notify the Commission of a change of address. A copy of the Commissions decision was received at the former law office of petitioner's attorney. The attorney had not provided the Commission with a specific notice of his change of address. His failure to file within the 20 days due to confusion regarding his address made no difference. Frank v. Industrial Comm'n, 276 Ill. App. 3d 214, 658 N.E.2d 488, 213 Ill. Dec. 18 (4th Dist. 1995)

We recommend the entire opinion be read and counsel consulted concerning the effect these decisions may have upon your claims.