The elusiveness of the intoxication defenseBy Kevin S. BothaWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2007In a recent Rule 23 decision, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court that confirmed the decision the Worker’s Compensation Commission awarding benefits to claimant, where the defense was based on intoxication.
Notes from the EditorBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2007A message from the editor.
Radosevich, continued attorney fees under §19(g)By Mark P. MatrangaWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2007The last newsletter contained a discussion of the interest rate on Commission awards found in the Fourth District decision in Radosevich v. Industrial Commission, 367 Ill.App.3d, 856 N.E.2d 1, 305 Ill.Dec. 469(2006).
A Rule 23 decision with something for everyoneBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2007This particular case was appealed on the issue of the nature and extent of the injury.
Wage Loss DifferentialBy Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2007Under §8(d)1 of the Workers’ Compensation Act an injured worker is entitled to a wage loss differential when it is proved that he is partially incapacitated and permanently prevented from pursuing his usual and customary line of employment and there is an impairment of earnings.
Another confusing interest caseBy Mark P. MatrangaWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2007The Appellate Court, Fourth District, has ventured into the interest calculation thicket with Radosevich v. The Industrial Commission, 367 Ill.App.3d, 856 N.E.2d 1, 305 Ill.Dec. 469.
The injured workers’ benefit fundBy Vito D. DeCarlo & Anita M. DeCarloWorkers’ Compensation Law, March 2007The Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund (IWBF) was created by the 2005 amendments to Section 4(d) of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305).
First District Appellate Court holds that specific reservation of workers’ compensation lien in settlement contract not required for lien to be enforceableBy Michael A. MooreWorkers’ Compensation Law, December 2006An August 30, 2006, decision from the Illinois Appellate Court’s First District in the case of James Gallagher v. Lenart, No. 1-06-0065WC (2006 WL 2506210), held that an employer does not have to specifically reserve its workers’ compensation lien right in a workers’ compensation settlement agreement in order for that lien to be enforceable, and specifically rejected the reasoning of the Fourth District Appellate Court’s decision in Borrowman v. Prastein, 356 Ill.App.3d 546, 826 N.E.2d 600 (4th Dist. 2005).
GHERE no more? Certified Testing v. Ind. Comm’n, _ _ N.E.2d _ _ , 2006 WL 3060086 (Ill.App. 4th Dist.)By Brad E. BleakneyWorkers’ Compensation Law, December 2006If there is no discovery in Workers’ Compensation (except the subpoena), do you wonder why then the defense attorney always makes a demand for medical records supporting the claim when forwarding their appearance? The answer is the Section 12 objection, recently known as the Ghere objection.
Illinois jurisdictionBy William R. GallagherWorkers’ Compensation Law, December 2006The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act contains a provision which defines the term “employee.” Included as part of this definition of “employee,” the Act provides a basis for Illinois jurisdiction.
Payments related to replacing and servicing claimant’s prosthesis included in employer’s subrogation claimBy Janet D. PallardyWorkers’ Compensation Law, December 2006The Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, rendered a decision on October 4, 2006, allowing Respondent a lien credit against a third-party judgment for payments made under the Workers’ Compensation Act pertaining to replacing and servicing claimant’s prosthesis. Crispell v. Industrial Commission, __ N.E.2d __, 2006 WL2879068 (Ill.App. 5 Dist).
Supreme Court modifies repetitive trauma standardBy Mark CosiminiWorkers’ Compensation Law, December 2006Repetitive trauma cases have been recognized in Illinois since the Peoria Belwood decision was issued by the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Benefits slip away from claimantBy Carol A. CesarettiWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2006The First District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that claimant’s slip and fall in the employee bathroom did not arise out of her employment. First Cash Financial Services v. Industrial Comm’n, 2006 WL 2072314 (1st Dist.).
Illinois Appellate Court holds injury at company picnic not compensable when there was no penalty for non-attendanceBy Michael A. MooreWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2006A July 12, 2006, decision from the Illinois Appellate Court’s First District in the case of William Gooden v. The Industrial Commission, 2006 WL 1913879, denied compensation to an employee injured while participating in recreational activities at a company picnic pursuant to Section 11 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.
No causal connection for claimant, despite cracked helmetBy Michelle L. LaFayetteWorkers’ Compensation Law, September 2006In this Rule 23 decision, the Illinois Appellate Court held that a herniated disc was not causally connected to claimant’s work accident based upon a normal CT scan, unrestricted cervical range of motion, considerable gaps in medical care and treatment, and extended performance of full-duty activities.
No workers’ compensation benefits for injury at company-sponsored picnicBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, September 2006Allstate Insurance planned a company picnic for July 21, 2000. The picnic occurred on Allstate’s grounds, it was attended exclusively by Allstate employees, and Allstate provided all the materials and equipment.
Hospital Director of Nurses suffers stroke while giving speech at physician’s retirement dinner - held compensableBy James W. StevensonWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2006In Pinckneyville Community Hospital v. Industrial Commission, (Mary Downen) 2006 WL 922220 5th District Appellate Court March 30, 2006, Mary Downen, a Director of Nurses for the Pinckneyville Community Hospital, suffered an intracerebral hemorrhage and stroke while giving a speech at a dinner to honor a retiring physician.
Is it possible to file a 19(h) petition more than 30 months after a final award?By Richard D. HanniganWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2006The answer is: It depends. In Kenneth W. Behe v. Industrial Commission, 2006 WL 1382058 2nd District May 5, 2006 the Appellate Court discusses the issue of how many 19(h) Petitions can be filed.
Payment of award of medical bills directly to medical provider/Section 19(g) and hourly attorney fee set at $250By James W. StevensonWorkers’ Compensation Law, June 2006In Aurora East School District v. Don Dover, 363 Ill.App.3d 1048, 847 N.E.2d 623, 301 Ill.Dec. 298 2nd District March 21, 2006, Don Dover, employed by the Aurora East School District, received an award which included TTD benefits of $29,908.13, representing 59-6/7 weeks, and $85,015.04 in medical expenses.