State News : Illinois

NWCDN is a network of law firms dedicated to protecting employers in workers’ compensation claims.


NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.  


Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.


Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.


Illinois

RUSIN LAW, LTD

  312-454-6166

In the case of Tazewell County v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, the Illinois Appellate Court addressed the issue of whether repetitive trauma resulting in pain from a pre-existing condition is compensable under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. The claimant, Dora Potts, worked as a dental hygienist for Tazewell County, performing duties that involved repetitive arm movements. In 2019, she began experiencing left shoulder pain while performing her work duties. Medical examinations revealed that she had a pre-existing rotator cuff tear, impingement syndrome, and arthritis, which were not caused by her work but were aggravated by it. All experts agreed that there was no structural change to the MRI or her condition. The only change was an increase in pain while doing her work related activities.

The court held that when a pre-existing asymptomatic condition becomes painful due to work-related repetitive trauma, and not due to the natural progression of the condition, the resulting pain is considered an aggravation of the pre-existing condition and is compensable under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act.  The court found that the evidence in the record satisfied the claimant's burden of proving that her repetitive trauma and resulting left shoulder pain arose out of and in the course of her employment with Tazewell County.

The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court, which had confirmed the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission's award of benefits to the claimant. The court's rationale was that the symptomatic condition resulting from work-related activities is an aggravation of the pre-existing condition, even in the absence of an organic or structural change to the underlying condition.

 

Kisa P. Sthankiya

ksthankiya@rusinlaw.com


312-454-5127

In Town of Cicero v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 2024 IL App (1st) 230609WC, the Illinois Appellate Court expanded the traveling employee doctrine to apply to employees who are injured leaving their worksite on their way to their employer-provided vehicle.

The court noted that determining whether an injury to a traveling employee arises out of and in the course of his employment is governed by different rules that other employees. The test for whether an injury to a traveling employee arises out of his employment is if he was injured while engaging in conduct that is “reasonable and foreseeable” by his employer.”

There was no dispute that the employee was a travelling employee while performing his inspection duties in the Town of Cicero. The question was whether he was a travelling employee at the time he was leaving  the worksite after obtaining his work phone, downloading his assignments, and attempting to make his way down a flight of stairs to his employer-provided vehicle. The court concluded that after he obtained his assignments and phone, he was performing actions incidental to his employment and a travelling employee.


 Kisa Sthankiya

ksthankiya@rusinlaw.com

312-454-5127 

In Illinois, we are seeing a trend with the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission awarding benefits under multiple provisions of the statute for conditions arising from the same date of injury. These awards are increasing the overall value of cases and creating a growing body of caselaw to support multiple avenues of recovery from the same injury.

In American Coal Company v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission et al. 2024 IL App (5th) 230815WC, the Illinois Appellate Court found that an employee could receive permanent total disability benefits under 8(e)(18) and was also entitled to benefits under 8(d)(2), 8(c) and 8(e) for injuries resulting from the same date of accident. The employer stipulated that the employee was entitled to permanent total disability benefits for the loss of use of both eyes. Permanent total disability benefits are one of the maximum recoveries under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act entitling an employee to a substantial weekly benefit for life. The employee argued that he should also receive additional benefits under for losses under Section 8(d)(2), 8(a) and 8(e). Under Section 8(d) they award benefits for spinous fractures, 100% loss of use each eye under Section 8(c) and 60% loss of use of MAW under Section 8(d)(2). The court held that the employee was entitled to recover additional benefits under Section 8(d)(2), 8(c) and 8(e) for injuries to claimant’s hip, spine, abdomen, and psychological issues in addition to permanent total disability. They relied on a prior case,  Beelman Trucking v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 233 Ill. 2d 364 (2009), where the supreme court held that the claimant could recover under  two sections of the Act also. (8(e)(18) and 8(e)(10)) They found that an award for the additional benefits would address his further diminished earning capacity as a result of the injury and adequately address the full scope of his injuries.

 

Kisa Sthankiya

ksthankiya@rusinlaw.com

312-454-5127