Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

While a personal injury claim is subject to a jury's decision, Illinois workers' compensation claims are decided by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission. Rather than undergoing a jury trial, workers' compensation cases undergo an arbitration process in which both parties present their case to the arbitrator, who then determines an appropriate award. And because the Illinois workers' compensation damages are clearly laid out in the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, there are generally few surprises when it comes to workers' compensation cases.

However, disputes can arise when a company does not honor the terms set out in the arbitration agreement. The Illinois Appellate Court recently reviewed an Illinois workers' compensation lawsuit involving a dispute over payment of attorney fees and costs. In Patel v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2012 IL App. (1st) 103217, the plaintiff brought a claim against its employer after it stopped paying his workers' compensation benefits. A Circuit Court judge had entered a decision in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant company to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees, costs, and interests.

On two separate occasions, the plaintiff Naresh Patel was injured while working at the Home Depot. As a result of these injuries, Home Depot was paying temporary total disability (TTD) to Patel. However, at least twice Home Depot suddenly stopped those payments to Patel without providing any written notice or warning. And while Patel was able to reinstate the TTD payments, doing so required him to hire an attorney and an arbitrator.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Rules That Employer May Not Offset Worker's Compensation Award with Credit - Patel v. Home Depot USA" »

An Illinois District judge denied the U.S. government's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the government had failed to establish that the plaintiff's claim was not valid in James D. Fowler v. The United States of America, 08-CV-2785. The U.S. government had attempted to prove that the plaintiff was barred from receiving compensation from the post office because he had already received workers' compensation directly from his employer. However, the district court disagreed with the U.S.'s classification of the plaintiff as a "borrowed employee," thereby denying its motion for summary judgment.

The claims in Fowler arose out of an injury that James Fowler sustained at a while delivering mail to a Libertyville Post Office. Fowler was an employee of Eagle Express, a company which regularly contracted with the U.S. Postal Service to move mail between its various facilities. Under these "highway contract routes" (HCR) agreements, Eagle Express was responsible for covering all of the costs and duties associated with delivering mail on its required routes, including the payment and insuring of Eagle Express employees.

So even though Fowler was injured at the Libertyville Post Office while engaged in work for the U.S. Postal Service, his workers' compensation claim was covered by Eagle Express. However, he sought to recovery additional damages from the U.S. Post Office based on the negligence of its employees in causing his injury based on the Federal Tort Claims Act. The FTCA allows parties to sue the U.S. for personal injury "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of any federal government employee "while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

However, the U.S. argued that it was not liable for Fowler's injuries because he was a borrowed employee. Because the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act is an exclusive remedy, an employee's employer and any borrowing employer are immune from tort liability arising from an injury. Jorden v. U.S., Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2011. U.S. argued that just as Fowler was barred from pursuing a lawsuit against Eagle Express because he had already recovered workers' compensation, so was Fowler barred from suing the U.S. Post Services based on his status as a borrowed employee.

Continue reading "U.S. Court Finds Injured Worker Is Not a Borrowed Employee of Post Office - Fowler v. U.S. " »

An Illinois employee who was involved in a car accident during the course of his employment sought to recoup payments from both his employer's workers' compensation policy and its car insurance policy. When the insurance company denied his claims, the employee filed a lawsuit in order to recoup those costs. And while the Illinois Appellate Court allowed some of the plaintiff's claims, it denied others in Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035.

In 2007, the plaintiff, Curtis Burcham, was driving a truck for his employer, P&M Mercury Mechanical Corporation (P&M), when he was struck by an uninsured motorist. Burcham sustained multiple injuries from the truck accident and had to undergo several surgeries. Because the accident occurred while Burcham was working, his employer, P&M, paid for his medical expenses and lost wages out of its workers' compensation policy. To date, P&M has paid $490,000 for medical expenses, more than $100,000 for temporary-total incapacity, and continues to pay $925 per week based on Burcham's 2/3 weekly wage.

P&M also had an uninsured and underinsured motorist policy through West Bend Mutual Insurance Company. Since the other driver involved in Burcham's truck accident was not insured, he sought to receive additional payments from West Bend under P&M's truck insurance policy. However, West Bend denied the claim, citing a provision in its policy that it "will not pay for any element of loss if a person is entitled to receive payment for the same element of loss under any worker's compensation, disability benefits or similar law." West Bend's position was that since Burcham was already receiving workers' compensation payments for the truck accident that he was not entitled to any money from West Bend's uninsured motorist policy.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Limits Uninsured Motorist Claim for Workers' Compensation Benefit Claim - Burcham v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co." »

According to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, workers' compensation is "a no-fault system of benefits paid by employers to workers who experience job-related injuries or diseases." The idea behind workers' compensation is that when an employee is injured during the scope of his/her employment, that the employer will cover medical fees associated with that injury.

And while the employer may sometimes dispute the extent and nature of the injured worker's injury, that was not the basis for the Illinois lawsuit of Elite Labor Services, Ltd. as subrogee of Fulgencio Nunez v. William Dudek Manufacturing, 09 L 14859. Rather, the lawsuit involved a dispute about who should pay the workers' compensation benefits - the injured worker's employer, or the company he was performing work for.

Fulgencio Nunez was employed by Elite Labor Services, a staffing agency specializing in contract and temp employees. Elite had agreed to supply staff to William Dudek Manufacturing, a manufacturing company that specialized in creating precision metal stampings and wire forms. In addition to supplying staff to Dudek, Elite had agreed to cover all workers' compensation benefits for the workers it supplied to Dudek. However, the agreement regarding the workers' compensation benefits was not formally set down in any contract, but rather was a verbal agreement between Elite and Dudek.

Continue reading "Companies Dispute Responsibility for Workers' Compensation Claim - Elite Labor Services, Ltd. v. William Dudek Manufacturing" »

Three Cook County construction workers secured a $5.4 million settlement from Walsh Construction Company in a Will County personal injury lawsuit. The settlement during the middle of the Cook County trial regarding the 2006 construction site accident.

In 2006, the three plaintiffs were working on a construction of a bridge that would extend Interstate 355 over the Des Plaines River. The bridge project was intended to have three lanes of traffic in each direction and rise to over 100 feet above the ground. The project was overseen by Walsh Construction Company, who in turn hired various subcontractors to handle different components of the construction project.

The three plaintiffs were employed as ironworkers by one of the subcontractors hired by Walsh Construction and were working on the bridge's foundations at the time of the construction site accident. The plaintiffs became injured after a steel rebar cage collapsed. The rebar cage is meant to provide structure to the bridge and hold the concrete in place. The structure is typically composed of reinforced steel, with the cages generally being constructed off site.

As a result of the Cook County construction accident, one of the plaintiffs sustained two herniated discs in his back and broke his ankle. Another tore his rotator cuff and also suffered aggravation of a prior anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. And the last faired the best of the three injured workers, sustaining only a contusion, or bruise, to his elbow.

Continue reading "$5.4 Million Settlement for Workers Injured in Construction Accident" »

Workers' compensation claims arise as a result of an employee being injured on the job. Because of the unique nature of these cases, Illinois workers' compensation claims are handled by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission (IWCC) instead of a civil court. However, just like other court systems, sometimes the IWCC does not rule correctly and claimants need to appeal its decision to a higher authority.

For example, in the case of Pactiv v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (Juan Luna, Appellee, No. 1-10-0086 WC, both the employer and employee appealed the decision made by the IWCC. The Illinois worker injury lawsuit arose out of an injury that the claimant, Juan Luna, received while working for his employer, Pactiv. Mr. Luna operated an extrusion machine, which created plastic rolls that weighted between 70 and 80 lbs., and was responsible for making simple repairs and basic adjustments.

However, while operating the extrusion machine in 2004, Luna lost five fingers on his right hand, which was also his dominant hand. Mr. Luna underwent extensive physical therapy and was able to eventually lift up to 5 lbs. with his right hand. His physician cleared Mr. Luna to return to medium or heavy duty at work. While Pactiv initially placed Mr. Luna on light duty, he was eventually returned to his prior job of running the extrusion machine.

Continue reading "Illinois Workers’ Compensation Decision Affirmed - Pactiv v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission" »

In Illinois if you are injured on the job, or develop future injuries as a result of your employment, then you are able to bring an Illinois workers' compensation claim, which would be handled by the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission (IWCC). However, if your injuries were the result of your career as a pro-football player, then you would not be able to bring a workers' compensation claim under the IWCC. As a pro-football player your only option to recover medical payments under a workers' compensation system is under the Industrial Commission of California.

These cases are brought in the Industrial Commission in California because that’s the only jurisdiction that allows long-retired professional athletes to pursue workers’ compensation for injuries they suffered and continue to suffer from their playing days. Illinois has no similar provision for recovery in the Illinois Industrial Commission.

Many of these retired National Football League (NFL) players are represented by Ron Mix and Mel Owens, two former NFL players turned lawyers. Mix and Owens represent over 1,000 retired NFL players in the workers’ compensation system in California. Like many Illinois workers' compensation cases, decisions have to be made by the injured party as to whether to accept a lump sum settlement that would end any future payment of medical care or to leave open medical in case that the worker requires future medical treatment.

Continue reading "Illnios Workers’ Compensation Claims Not Allowed By Ex-Football Players: Forced to Take Their Claims to California" »

A recent Illinois jury verdict against a railroad company illustrates the difference between Federal Employee Liability Act (FELA) claims and Illinois workers' compensation claims. The plaintiff was a railroad conductor who suffered severe injuries after being run over by a railroad car while working. As a result of the Illinois train accident the plaintiff required amputations of both his legs.

If the plaintiff had been working for a construction company instead of a railroad company, than his injury would have been handled by the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission (IWCC) and he would have received immediate payments for his injury, medical care, and lost time from work. However, railroad employee injuries are covered under FELA, which puts the burden on the employee to prove that the injury was the result of the railroad's negligence and not the employees.

Similarly, employers whose employees are ruled by Illinois workers' compensation law are exempt from any lawsuits being filed against them by their employees as the result of an injury sustained at work. This protection is granted to those companies because of the assumption that if their employee is injured at work then the company will already be paying them under Illinois workers' compensation rules.

However, under FELA, the railroads do not have to pay the employee anything if the company deems that the injury was a result of the employee's negligence. So while the employee does not automatically receive any compensation from the railroad, the employee is also not barred from filing a lawsuit directly against their railroad employer. So while this Illinois train accident lawsuit was brought by a railroad employee against his railroad employer, Iowa Interstate Railroad, if the plaintiff had not been employed by a railroad he would not have been able to sue his employer.

Continue reading "Illinois Railroad Injury Verdict: FELA Claims Are Different Than Workers' Compensation Claims" »

An Illinois Appellate Court decision upheld a Cook County wrongful death verdict in U.S. Bank v. Lindsey, No. 1-07-2606 (2009). By doing so the Appellate Court discussed liability, specifically the issue of "logo liability" under the Interstate Commerce Act.

In Lindsey, it was alleged that the plaintiff, Willie Taylor, died after a fellow employee backed a truck into Taylor. The case becomes complicated because the truck was rented by their employer, Open Kitchens, from Carmichael Leasing Company.

Even though both workers were employed by Open Kitchens and were operating within the confines of their employment, both the employee who caused Taylor's death and Open Kitchens are insulated from common law liability under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. So while Taylor would have been able to bring an Illinois workers' compensation claim against his employer if he had simply been injured on the job, the fact that he died barred his estate from filing an Illinois workers' compensation claim.

Instead the estate would need to bring an Illinois wrongful death claim that proved that a given entity was responsible for Taylor's death - and under Illinois law that entity could not be the employer or fellow employee. Therefore the administrator of Taylor’s estate brought an action against the leasing company asserting its negligence as the owner of the truck based on “logo liability” under the Interstate Commerce Act.

Continue reading "Cook County Wrongful Death Case Highlights Issues of Logo-Liability Under the Interstate Commerce Act" »

Illinois construction companies have an obligation to provide a safe work environment for their employees and do what they can to avoid Illinois construction site accidents. Because of this duty on the part of construction companies, Illinois construction workers can generally assume that the equipment and materials at a construction site are safe and hazard-free.

However, sometimes this is not the reality, in which case an Illinois construction site injury can result from the failure of a construction company to provide a safe and healthy work environment. Consider the case of Diaz v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 07 L 142 (Ill., Macon County), in which a 26 year-old construction worker was fatally injured as a result of an Illinois construction site accident.

At the time of his Illinois construction site injury, Francisco Garcia was working for a contractor who had been hired to perform work at the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) Bioproducts plant. Garcia was busy insulating pipes 15 feet in the air while harnessed to a scissors lift. While Garcia was working, a nearby waste compression system over-pressurized, spraying him with scalding steam, toxic chemicals and boiling water.

Continue reading "Illinois Chemical Accident at Construction Site Leads to Worker's Death: Illinois Jury Finds For Worker's Estate" »

Cook County construction workers face dangerous on the job conditions that your typical office employee does not encounter. And even with the best safety measures in place, sometimes construction site accidents happen. But in those situations where proper precautions were not taken by the construction company, there may be cause for a Cook County workers' compensation claim.

A recent Cook County verdict illustrates such a situation. The case involved a 20 year-old construction worker who sustained a broken femur and a back injury after a fall from a scaffold while working as a construction laborer on a project at a public library in Mt. Prospect, Illinois.

At the time of the Cook County construction site injury, the construction worker was on a scaffold assisting bricklayers when he tripped over plastic wrap that had been placed to protect the construction project during the winter months. The worker tumbled through an opening in the scaffold and fell about 30 feet. In addition to his broken femur, he sustained a herniated disk in his lower back which later required multiple surgeries.

Continue reading "Cook County Construction Site Injury Lawsuit Receives Verdict for Plaintiff Who Was Injured Falling From Scaffold" »

An Illinois Appellate Court held that a suburban Chicago park district has been ordered to pay an Illinois worker’s compensation claim to an employee that got hurt playing a sport during his work shift because the activity didn’t technically qualify as “recreational". Elmhurst Park District v. Industrial Commission of Illinois, et al., No. 1-08-2289 WC.

In 2002 the worker fractured his right leg while playing wallyball – a version of volleyball that’s played on a racquetball court. At the time of the incident he was employed by the Elmhurst Park District as a fitness supervisor.

The worker sought benefits for his injury pursuant to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. The park district countered with an argument stating that Illinois law prevents employees from recovery for accidents that occur during a voluntary recreational program unless they are ordered by their employer to participate. The worker responded by arguing that it was within the scope of his job duties since those duties included promoting and implementing the classes and programs that the district offered to its patrons and therefore should be treated as an Illinois workers' compensation claim.

Continue reading "Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act Allows Worker To Recover For Injury Playing A Sport" »

In a case before the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals in Chicago, it was held that a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to an employee of a sub-contractor where it is shown that the general contractor has assumed a degree of the responsibility for his safety with which sub-contractors do their work. Jose Aguirre v. Turner Construction Company, et al., No. 08-3999.

The Illinois construction site accident occurred when the worker fell from a scaffold while working on the renovation of Soldier Field in Chicago. The Appellate Court reversed the decision for summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The lower court had ruled that the defendant did not owe any duty to the plaintiff because he was an employee of the subcontractor and that any negligence by the defendant was not relevant because it did not have exclusive control of the scaffold from which plaintiff fell.

Continue reading "Illinois Construction Accident General Contractor Held Responsible For Injury To Employee Of Sub-Contractor" »

We all know about the dangers of second-hand smoke, but lesser known is the danger of second-hand exposure to asbestos. A recent Chicago case hinged on this very issue and the trial court found that when an employee's family is exposed to asbestos fibers by way of the employee's clothes that the employer is not liable. Nelson v. Aurora Equipment Co., No. 2-08-0186 (May 29, 2009).

Upon appeal the Illinois Appellate Court for the Second District found that in cases where employees who are exposed to asbestos fibers at work then bring the deadly mineral home on their work clothes and thereby expose family members that it does not result in liability to the employer. The Appellate Court concluded that Aurora Equipment Company owed no duty to the wife of an employee under premises liability law because the wife was not on Aurora's land.

The case had been brought by the wife's husband after she died from mesothelioma and colon cancer in 2004. The mesothelioma was allegedly from second-hand exposure to asbestos from both her husband and son's clothes. The plaintiffs alleged that since the father and son were exposed to asbestos fibers and dust while working at Aurora Equipment and that the wife and mother was exposed to the same asbestos fibers found on their work clothes, that the estate would be entitled to recovery for her death.

Continue reading "Illinois Asbestos Case Resulting From Second-Hand Exposure Denied Recovery By Illinois Appellate Court" »

It makes sense that when an employee is injured on the job that the employer would want their physicians to examine the employee in addition to the employee's physician. However, according to a recent ruling by the Illinois First District Appellate Court while the employer may continue to have the employee examined by their own doctors they are not allowed to rely exclusively on their physicians' examinations when terminating an employee for not returning to work in a timely manner following an injury.

In Grabs, et al. v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, LLC, No. 1-08-3007, the plaintiff employee was injured while working at a Dominick's in Cook County and filed an Illinois workers' compensation claim. Initially Dominick's approved the workers' compensation claim and paid the employee's medical bills and temporary total disability benefits. But when the employee's physician continued to recommend that he remained off work Dominick's retained its own medical exam of the employee. During this "independent" medical exam, the employer's physician found that the employee's injury was not work-related and that he was able to return to work without any restrictions. However, the employee chose to continue to follow his own physician's advice and remained off of work.

When the employee did not show up for work Dominick's applied its no-fault attendance policy and terminated the employee. Under this policy an employee can be terminated for job abandonment if he or she fails to come into work or call in absences.

Continue reading "Illinois Workers' Compensation Cases May No Longer Soley Rely on "Independent" Medical Exams According to Illinois Appellate Court" »