Illinois Workers Compensation Lawyer Blog

The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed the arbitrator's award of 16 weeks of temporary total disability benefits (TTD) to the claimant, who injured his left knee in a work accident.

Thomas v. Caterpillar, 17 ILWCLB 7 (Ill. Ind. Comm. 2006)

Thomas, a Caterpillar employee, underwent surgery for a work-related left knee condition Sept 25, 2006,. He was taken off work starting that day and was not returned to light-duty work until Nov. 7, 2006. At that time, the doctor noted that Thomas was doing well, had played doubles tennis and could perform sedentary duties. Thomas testified that he had tried finding other work once released to light duty but received nothing official until he was released to full duty. An office note dated Dec. 5, 2006, explained that the doctor examined the knee, found it to be normal and stated it was "very likely" Thomas could have a full release to work. The physical therapist noted that Thomas was pursuing physical activity with occasional complaints of soreness and would not attend therapy sessions when his knee was not bothering him After playing two doubles matches on a Saturday, he experienced increased soreness and returned to physical therapy Dec. 4, 2006. The arbitrator found that Thomas was entitled to 16 weeks of TTD, until Jan 16, 2007, at the date that Thomas' doctor found him at maximum medical improvement.

In awarding TTD, the arbitrator noted it was irreelevant that Thomas had stopped working for Caterpillar in 2005 or that he was playing doubles tennis while on light duty. Furthermore, the doctor was aware of Thomas' tennis habits. He continued to keep Thomas at a sedentary level until Jan, 16, 2007.

Upon review, the Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the arbitrator.

What it means: In awarding TTD benefits, it is irrelevant that the worker had stopped working for Caterpillar or that he was playing recreational sports while on light duty. Where the doctor is aware of the worker's activities and yet continues to keep him at a sedentary level, a TTD award is warranted.

Posted by Donald W. Fohrman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

Upon remand from the Cook County Circuit Court, an Illinois Worker's Compensation Commission majority determined that the claimant was not a traveling employee and his use of his employer's vehicle for personal errands was a violation of his employer's regulations.

Romano v. Melrose Park, Village of, 17 ILWCLB 1 (Ill. Ind. Comm. 2008)

Romano, an undercover narcotics agent, worked on a task force headed up by the Drug Enforcement Administration. As a member of this task force, he was assigned a car leased by the Cook County Sheriff's Police Department to the task force. On the evening of the accident at issue, Romano drove his assigned vehicle from work to a school board meeting at his child's school. Romano testified that after this meeting, he planned to meet a co-worker and conduct a surveillance. He was injured in a car accident after leaving the meeting. Romano argued that he was not prohibited from using his assigned vehicle under these circumstances. However, a DEA supervisor contradicted this testimony, contending that Romano was precluded from any personal use, or a combination of personal and business use, of the assigned vehicle. On remand from the Cook County Circuit Court, a Commission majority found that Romano was not a traveling employee and that Romano's use of the assigned vehicle for personal errands was a violation of his employer's regulations. The majority also found that Romano's work shift was over and he was not in the scope of his employment at the time of his accident. Even if Romano was a traveling employee, the majority found his actions on the evening of the accident were not foreseeable by his employer.

The dissenting commissioner argued that Romano was a traveling employee engaged in a resonable and foreseeable activity at the time of his acciddent. The commissioner contended that the fact that Romano might have violated policy by using the vehicle to drive his child's school to attend a meeting was immaterial since the accident did not occur while he was on the way to, at or leaving the meeting. The accident took place away from the school premises and while he was headed to a stakeout. Although the defendant disputed whether Romano was heading to a surveillance, no one questions that Romano was in his assigned area and traveling along a route that led toward his house. The dissent noted that the DEA supervisor's contention that Romano could not mingle personal and official business with his assigned vehicle was at odds with the fact that Romano was permitted to use his official vehicle to travel to and from his home. The dissent further noted that Romano's ability to use the assigned vehicle to get to and from home extended his workday and thus benefited the employer.

Posted by Donald W. Fohrman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and medical expenses to a laborer who aggravated a preexisting condition when she bent over at work.

Riley v. International Paper, 17ILWCLB 3 (ILL.Ind.Comm. 2008).

Riley, a laborer, operated seven machines at her employer's facility. Her duties required that she lift stacks of paper blanks, push carts and lift and dump barrels. On Nov. 15, 2006, Riley bent down to pick up a stack of blanks when she felt pulling and popping in her back. She acknowledged prior mild low back problems and that she began to feel some pain one week before the work incident. Riley reported that on the day of the incident, she had rotated to a different department which required more repetitive bending and twisting at the waist and more walking than normal. X-rays performed Nov. 8, 2006, showed spondylolisthesis with degenerative disk disease. The arbitrator denied benefits, reasoning that the claimant's act of bending down was not covered by the Workers' Compensation Act. However, the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission reversed, finding that Riley's risk of back injury was greater than that of the general public.

In awarding benefits, the Commission relied on Komatsu Dresser Co. v Industrial Commission in which the appellate court affirmed a benefit award to a machine operator. The Komatsu court ruled that the frequency at which the claimant was bending and the method in which the claimant had to bend and lift without bending his knees increased his exposure to a risk of injury greater than that of the general public. Therefore, the fact that bending is a normal activity did not preclude a finding that the claimant's injury arose out his employment

Similarly, Riley's duties in this case required much more bending and lifting than ordinary activities of daily life would necessitate. Also, Riley indicated that to retrieve blanks, she had to bend in a somewhat awkward position. Thus, Riley's risk of back injury was greater than that of the general public.

Posted by Donald W. Fohrman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Workers Compensation

Bookmark: