Illinois Lawyer Referrals and Legal Guidance
Illinois Workers' Compensation Case Law Analysis
Findgreatlawyers.com helps people looking for Illinois workers compensation attorney referrals or general Illinois workers compensation legal advice. When you contact our office you speak with an Illinois workers compensation attorney who will answer any questions you have (within reason) and if needed will refer you to an independent workers compensation law firm that best fits your needs. If you would like our help please call us at (312) 346-5320 or (800) 517-1614 or fill out our contact us form and we will contact you. We help people with claims throughout Illinois and all calls are confidential.
This page discusses some recent significant cases relating to Illinois workers' compensation law. We also provide some brief analysis. If you have any questions about these cases or your case please let us know.
APPELLATE COURT RULES INTEREST CAN ACCRUE ON MEDICAL EXPENSES AWARDED IN ARBITRATOR'S DECISION.
In Vulcan Materials v. Industrial Commission 04 L 50886, the Appellate Court of the First District addressed the issue of interest accruing on medical expenses awarded in an Arbitrator's decision.
FACTS:
Petitioner was awarded TTD, PPD and $25,506.90 in medical expenses by the Arbitrator. After the Industrial Commission upheld the Arbitrator's ruling, respondent paid the award including interest on the TTD and PPD, but did not pay interest on the medical expenses. Petitioner demanded an additional amount of $294.84 for interest on the medical expenses award. Petitioner then filed for penalties and fees under Section 16 and 19(k). Penalties were not awarded.
HELD:
The Appellate Court of the First District found that medical expenses are considered "compensation" which interest can accrue on, pursuant to Section 19(n).
RATIONALE:
The Court relied on the case of McMahan v. Industrial Commission, indicating that "compensation" includes payments of medical expenses for the purposes of section 19(g), and section 19(k). The Court went on to say, "under the basic principles of statutory construction, where the same word appears in different parts of the same statute, they should be given the same meaning, unless something in the context indicated that the legislature intended otherwise." Accordingly, the Supreme Court has already found that Section 8(a) has been construed to include medical expenses within the term "compensation".
"Where a statute is clear and unambiguous, the court is not free to depart from the plain language and meaning of the statute by reading into its exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express. First Chicago v. Industrial Commission. Section 19(n) contains no language that could be read as creating an exception for medical expenses.
Without a written exception, medical expenses are defined pursuant to Section 8(a), which deems them compensation. Since they are considered compensation, the amount owed pursuant to an award can accrue interest.
The Court did distinguish Section 19(n) and 8.2(d), stating that 19(n) is pursuant to an arbitrator's award while, Section 8.2(d) compensates a provider for an employer's delay in paying undisputed medical bills.
POINTS OF INTEREST:
The Court noted that McMahan v. Industrial Commission overruled the cases of Folks v. Hurlburt's Wholesale and Childress v. Industrial Commission. By doing so the Court found that a delay in paying medical expenses is a basis for awarding penalties and fees pursuant to section 16 and 19(k), both which deal with a delay in paying "compensation".
THE PLACE OF THE CONTRACT 0F HIRE IS THE SOLE DETERMINING FACTOR FOR THE EXISTENCE OF JURISDICTION OVER EMPLOYMENT INJURIES OCCURRING OUTSIDE OF ILLINOIS
On January 20, 2006 the Illinois Supreme Court issued the long anticipated decision in Mahoney v. Industrial Commission. No. 100239, 2006 Ill. LEXIS 13 (Jan. 20, 2006). The Court unambiguously held that "the place of the contract of hire is the sole determining factor for the existence of jurisdiction over employment injuries occurring outside of this state."
FACTS:
The plaintiff, Robert Mahoney, was hired by United Airlines in 1969 and worked at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois. In 1993 the plaintiff requested and was granted a transfer to United facilities in Orlando, Florida. There was no interruption between the plaintiff's last day of work in Chicago and his first day of work in Orlando. The plaintiff purchased a home in Orlando, remarried in Florida, had a Florida driver's license and paid taxes in Florida. After 1993 the plaintiff returned to Illinois only for family visits and on three occasions for United training sessions. The plaintiff did not pay any taxes in Illinois.
In 1999 and 2001 the plaintiff sustained compensable injuries while working for United in Orlando. Mahoney applied for and received workers compensation benefits under Florida law. Later, he filed two applications for adjustment of claims with the Illinois Industrial Commission (n/k/a Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission) for the injuries sustained in Florida.
The two cases were consolidated for hearing and the arbitrator found that Illinois did not have jurisdiction over the claims. The arbitrator noted that the plaintiff relied exclusively on the fact his initial contract of hire was in Illinois. The arbitrator, however, considered other factors in determining Illinois did not have jurisdiction: (1) the continuity of employment between the time of contract and the time of injury; (2) whether the transfer was voluntary; (3) the length of time between the departure from Illinois and the injury; and (4) the significance of the plaintiff's contacts with Illinois following his departure from the state.
The Commission, as well as the Circuit Court on review, affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's decision that Illinois lacked jurisdiction over the case.
The First District Appellate Court reversed. 355 Ill. App.3d 267 (1st Dist. 2005). The Appellate Court found that the clear language of the Act clearly stated that the site of the contract for hire is the exclusive test for determining applicability of the Act to persons whose employment is outside Illinois when the contract of hire is made in Illinois. 355 Ill.App.3d at 269.
ISSUE:
The chief issue addressed by the Illinois Supreme Court was whether the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission had jurisdiction over a petitioner injured outside of the state when the initial contract of hire was made inside of Illinois.
HOLDING:
The Court held that the specific language of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, as well as interpreting case law, conferred jurisdiction to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission over injuries occurring outside of Illinois when the contract of hire was made within Illinois.
RATIONALE:
In affirming the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court's analysis began by examining the plain language of the Act and its definition of "employee" and an "unbroken" line of case law stretching back to 1930. United Airlines argued that allowing nonresident to file claims could unfairly burden Illinois by increasing taxpayer costs due to a congested Commission docket, loss of potential employers who will fear high insurance premiums and distorted statistics on work-related injuries which would affect promulgation of Illinois safety regulations and laws. The Court rejected United's arguments, noting that adoption of a different standard was for legislative action. The Court was clear in their finding that the ''plain, unambiguous language of section 1(b)(2), as consistently interpreted by this court in an unbroken line of cases dating to 1930, confers jurisdiction to the Commission over injuries occurring outside Illinois when the contract of hire is made within Illinois.''
POINTS OF INTEREST:
Under the Act, employee is defined as: ''Every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, including persons whose employment is outside of the State of Illinois where the contract of hire is made within the state of Illinois.'' 820 ILCS 305/1(b)(2).
In Beall Bros. Supply Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 341 Ill. 193 (1930), the Illinois Supreme Court upheld compensation for a traveling salesman hired in Illinois but based in Denver, Colorado.
Findgreatlawyers.com focuses on finding lawyers in every part of the state of Illinois. From Chicago to Rockford, to Central Illinois, down to Southern Illinois, and every county in between. Whatever the legal area or location within the state of Illinois, we know the perfect lawyer for you Please call us at (312) 346-5320 or (800) 517-1614 or fill out our contact us form and we will contact you. All inquiries are kept in strict confidence.