Illinois laborer wins benefits evn though his smoking contributed to failed back fusions
The Appellate Court of Illinois, 1st District held that a worker's smoking did not rise to the level of an nitervening cause or sufficient injurious practice to warrant the denial of enefits even though the smoking may have been the cause of the worker's failed back fusions. However, the court reversed the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission's award of penalties and attorney's fees as the emploeyr could reasonably rely on the opinion of the independent medical examiner.
Case Name: Global Products v. Hall, (IWCC), 17ILWCLB 98 (Ill.App.Ct., 1st 2009).
Hall, a laborer, injured his lower back when he slipped and fell at work. He underwent two fusions for a recurrent herniated disc. However, both fusions failed. The employer refused to authorize a third fusion, contending that Hall's smoking resulted in the failure of the fusions. In awarding benefits, penalties and attorney's fees, the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission found that the need for a third fusion surgery was related to Hall's work accident and that his smoking was not a reasonable basis to deny the surgery. The Circuit Court confirmed the Commission's decision. On appeal, the employer argued that the Commission should have denied benefits because Hall's use of cigarettes constituted an injurious practice. The employer further argued that it should not be subject to penalties and fees because Hall's continued smoking was a reasonable basis for it to deny benefits. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the Commission's award of benefits, as Hall's smoking did not rise to the level of an intervening cause. However, because the employer could reasonably rely on the opinion of its independent examiner, the court reversed the imposition of penalties and fees.
In addresing the employer's injurious practice defense, the court explained that an employer takes its employees as it finds them. Here, Hall was a smoker prior to his first surgery. Although smoking cuases problems with healing after a surgery, Hall was not engaged in deliberate actions for the purpose of retarding his recovery from the work accident. Furthermore, Hall did make an unsuccessful attempt to quit smoking. Nothing indicated that this was not a bona fide attempt. A reasonable person could conclude that Hall should not be penalized when he made a good faith attempt to prevail over his addiction.
As for the imposition of penalties and attorney's fees, the employer asserted that its denial of benefits was reasonable based on the medical opinion of the examier and case law. The court explained that the case law upon which the employer relied-Gallego v. Industrial Commission and Beebe v. Transport Leasing Contract, were clearly distinguishable. However, the examiner's testimony that he instructed Hall to quit smoking prior to surgery and that the smoking resulted in the failure of the spinal fusion- was relatively compelling even if it ultimately did not persuade the Commission. Therefore, the employer could reasonably rely ypon the examiner's testimony in denying benefits.
