Section Newsletters

Articles on Workers’ Compensation Law

Village of Villa Park v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, et al., 2013 Ill App. 2(d) 130038 (filed 12/31/2013) By Patrick D. Czuprynski Workers’ Compensation Law, May 2014 The Appellate Court of the Second District of Illinois affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court and the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission decision, awarding benefits for Claimant’s low back injury due to a slip and fall down a flight of stairs.
What you talk’n ‘bout, Willis? By Richard D. Hannigan Workers’ Compensation Law, May 2014 A review of the recent case of James Paluch v. United Parcel Service.
Claimant’s motor vehicle accident constituted an independent intervening accident and leads to entitlement for two permanency awards By Carol A. Hartline Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2014 A summary of the recent case of National Freight v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n.
Editor’s notes By Richard D. Hannigan Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2014 Updates from Editor Rich Hannigan.
Excess insurance policies are covered workers’ compensation claims and the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund’s obligations are not subject to statutory cap. Windfall to self-insureds? By Kevin LeFevour Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2014 The recent Illinois Supreme Court decision in Skokie Castings, Inc. v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund presents an interesting interpretation of the Illinois Insurance Code as it applies to an employer’s coverage obligations under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Illinois State Treasurer, as ex officio Custodian of the Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund does and does not have sovereign immunity By John W. Powers Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2014 The Illinois Appellate Court recently issued two opposing decisions, in Dratewska-Zator v. Rutherford and Illinois State Treasurer, as ex officio Custodian of the Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission.
Traveling employee By Deborah A. Benzing & Anita M. DeCarlo Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2014 On December 19, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its Decision in The Venture-Newberg-Perini, Stone & Webster v. the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, a highly anticipated decision addressing the traveling employee doctrine.
Diaz: Something old, something new in mental-mental cases By Robert J. Finley Workers’ Compensation Law, October 2013 Diaz v. Ill. Workers Compensation Comm’n gives practitioners a chance to revisit the necessary proofs in “mental-mental” injury cases, i.e., psychological disability without physical injury.
A different standard must be applied for whether an injury is work-related for a “traveling employee” in workers’ compensation cases By Peter C. Wachowski Workers’ Compensation Law, October 2013 The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s findings in Kertis v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, when it held that the Commission erred by not applying the traveling employee standard in its determination of whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
Mailing = Filing for workers’ compensation review By Carl R. Draper Administrative Law, October 2013 On August 1, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed a long history of the process for review of decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Commission and found that the procedures for advancing the case from the administrative agency to the courts for judicial review was part of an appeal process very much like the appeal process in most civil litigation.
QBE Insurance: A cautionary tale By Kenneth F. Werts Workers’ Compensation Law, October 2013 In this recent case, QBE filed a motion with the Commission requesting that it be named a party to the case citing Section 4(g) of the Act.
TTD not available to workers subsequent to expiration of 19(h) By Boyd O. Roberts Workers’ Compensation Law, October 2013 The recent decision of Tony L. Curtis v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, et al. (The Village of Lansing) may have the effect of eliminating TTD benefits for workers who have surgery or seek medical treatment after the expiration of the statutory Section 19(h) time period.
7/1/13 interview with Chairman Michael Latz By Richard D. Hannigan Workers’ Compensation Law, August 2013 Get to know Michael Latz, Chairman of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission.
Calculation of AWW when considering future earning per a union contract By Megan Kivisto & Peter Corti Workers’ Compensation Law, August 2013 In addition to setting forth a clear rule regarding calculation of wage differential benefits, the case of United Airlines, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reminds us that speculative evidence has no place in our practice.
Custodial parent entitled to percentage of lump-sum workers’ compensation settlement as child support Workers’ Compensation Law, August 2013 The question on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court was “whether the Trials Courts have discretion, in awarding child support, to apportion a [workers’] compensation settlement that is intended, by its terms, as a life-time disability award to equitably meet all parties’ needs.”
Editor’s comments By Richard D. Hannigan Workers’ Compensation Law, August 2013 Updates of interest to Workers' Compensation Law practitioners from newsletter editor Rich Hannigan.
Intervening accident does not preclude permanency award on first accident By Stephen G. Baime Workers’ Compensation Law, August 2013 The case of National Freight Industries v. IWCC et al 2013 IL app. (5th) 120043WC stands for the proposition that an intervening accident does not preclude a permanency award for injuries sustained in the first accident. This is a most interesting case, and complicated, but the ruling of the Illinois Appellate Court is just.
Is the refusal to participate in Respondent’s chosen multidisciplinary pain management program equal to an injurious practice under The Act? What, if anything, does that have to do with the issue of Causal Connection? By Lawrence A. Scordino Workers’ Compensation Law, August 2013 Clearly, the long line of cases from numerous jurisdictions regarding the inability of the Commission to force a claimant to undergo a specific treatment remains unbroken. The no benefits “unless and until” the treatment is finished approach was rebuffed by the Court in Bryon Kawa v. IWCC.
The mailbox rule and Section 19(f)(1) By Richard D. Hannigan Workers’ Compensation Law, August 2013 On August 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois issued its decision in Gruszeczka v. IWCC. The issue in this case was whether a proceeding for judicial review of a Commission decision under section 19(f)(1) begins or is started when the Request for Summons and the proof of payment of the probable cost of the record are placed in a mailbox or when they are file stamped by the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
There is little interest in interest under the present WC Act By Christine M. Ory Workers’ Compensation Law, August 2013 If P.A. 83-1051 went into effect in July 1984, interest payments on an arbitrator’s award would have accrued at the rate of 9% per annum under §19(n). As of December 2008, the prime rate dropped to 3.25% where it remains. Therefore, if P.A. 83-1051 had gone into effect, the present interest rate on the arbitrator’s award would be at 4.25% per annum. This is nowhere near as good as it was in July 1984 and not as good as the 6% flat rate, but it certainly is better than what we have today.
Delay in seeking treatment does not bar recovery for “mental-mental” injury By Mark P. Matranga Workers’ Compensation Law, June 2013 A summary of Chicago Transit Authority v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission et al.
Early lessons from a post-AMA world By Robert J. Finley Workers’ Compensation Law, June 2013 With several Commission decisions on the horizon, what impact might these early post-reform AMA decisions have on practitioners?
Stipulation binding when signed By Shuaib Ahmed Workers’ Compensation Law, June 2013 In Ingrassia Interior Elements v. IWCC, the Appellate Court held that when a transcript is not filed within the time period specified by section 19(b) of the Act, the Commission is not deprived of its jurisdiction to review the Arbitrator’s Decision.
A worker’s compensation primer for non-work comp attorneys By Paul R. Popovic Young Lawyers Division, February 2013 This primer gives you an idea of how workers’ compensation works, why we have it, and to whom it applies. At the very least, you will have a response the next time a friend, family member or client asks you about their injury at work.
Appellate court reverses Commission’s finding “arising out of” to be against the manifest weight of the evidence By Richard D. Hannigan Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2013 In another Rule 23 case, Illinois State Treasurer, as ex officio Custodian of the Injured Workers Benefit Fund v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (Joseph Mese), the Appellate Court reversed the IWCC’s finding that the petitioner’s injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.
Bank teller’s alleged intentional-tort claim is “held up” by exclusivity provision of the Act By Cameron B. Clark Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2013 In Glasgow v. Associated Banc-Corp., a bank teller who was allegedly injured during a bank robbery brought an intentional tort action against the bank and branch where she worked.
Person as a whole vs. 8(d)(1) wage differential, a Rule 23 decision By Richard D. Hannigan Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2013 In Illinois Tool Works v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, filed January 3, 2012, the claimant injured his low back on March 21, 2003 and underwent a lumbar diskectomy at L4-5 on March 22, 2004.
Pipe-fitter fits the role of a traveling employee By Catherine Krenz Doan Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2013 A summary of Venture-Newberg Perini Stone and Webster v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission.
Prior stipulation by employer dooms its jurisdictional argument By Cameron B. Clark Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2013 In Ingrassia Interior Elements v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, the claimant filed a Petition for Review of the Arbitrator’s decision denying his claim pursuant to the Act.
Truck driver hauls in the necessary evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship and employer loses jurisdictional argument due to service on the Commission By Cameron B. Clark Workers’ Compensation Law, January 2013 In Labuz v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, both the claimant, a truck driver, and his purported employer sought review of the decision of the Commission awarding claimant certain benefits for neck, back and left shoulder injuries.

Select a Different Subject