If you're a lexis.com subscriber, click on the links to access cases within your subscription plan. Note that expert commentary articles can be accessed for an additional fee on lexis.com. If you're not a lexis.com subscriber, please contact Customer Support for information about subscription plans.

Klein Construction/ Ill. Ins. Guar. Fund v. Illinois Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 675 (July 8, 2008). Appellant employer sought review of a decision of appellee commission which modified an arbitrator's decision, finding that appellee worker established a causal connection between his work injury and the condition of ill-being of both his cervical spine and thoracic spine. The Circuit Court of Cook County confirmed the commission's decision. The employer appealed. The employer argued that the worker's failure to file a statement of exceptions with the commission in violation of Ill. Admin. Code tit. 50, § 7040.70 (2006) constituted a waiver of all issues on review before the commission, and that, therefore, the commission erred in modifying the arbitrator's decision. The appellate court disagreed. The worker raised all of the issues upon which the commission ruled in his petition for review. Although the worker's failure to file a statement of exceptions acted as a waiver of his right to an oral argument and an election not to advise the commission of any reason to change the arbitrator's decision or to grant his petition, the commission was nevertheless required by 820 ILCS 305/19(e) (2000) to review all questions of law or fact which appeared from the transcript of evidence. It appeared that the commission discharged its statutory duty in this regard and, as a consequence, modified the arbitrator's decision. There was no error of law. In any event, the commission, in furtherance of its responsibility to provide a just result, was permitted to override considerations of waiver. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 124.08.

Palmer v. Freightliner, LLC, 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 531 (June 4, 2008). The employee of the employer was installing a security system at the corporation's Illinois facility. The employee, an Ohio resident, was assigned to the employer's Ohio office. The employee leaned a ladder against some overhead dock doors. The facility worker began to open the doors. The employee fell from the ladder. He sued the facility worker and corporation for negligence. In the meantime, the employer settled in Ohio the employee's Ohio workers' compensation claim against it. The facility worker and corporation filed a third-party action in Illinois for contribution against the employer. The trial court found that Ohio law applied and that the employer's settlement with the employee required dismissal of the Illinois contribution action. The appellate court found that Illinois law applied because it had the most significant relationship to the contribution action. It then found that in Illinois, an employer's immunity from suit in tort by its employee was not a bar to a claim for contribution against the employer pursuant to the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act, 740 ILCS 100/1 et seq. (2006), and, thus, the Illinois contribution action should not have been dismissed. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 121.02.

Masters v. Workers' Comp. Comm'n (Youanis), 889 N.E.2d 684, 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 458 (May 20, 2008). Appellant employer sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which confirmed a decision by appellee Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission awarding appellee workers' compensation claimant $ 44,659.83 in medical expenses based on a finding that the claimant did not exhaust his two physician choices under 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 305/8(a)(2) and (3) (2004) before obtaining treatment. The claimant injured his back in two industrial accidents. He obtained medical treatment from a doctor and several other providers in a chain of referrals. The claimant later moved to New Mexico and commenced treatment with another doctor and other providers in a chain of referrals. At the hearing before the arbitrator, the employer noted that the claimant's first doctor wrote in his notes that the claimant had received some chiropractic treatments. Despite the claimant's testimony that the treatment was performed by his wife's best friend, who was an acupuncturist, not a chiropractor, the arbitrator found that the claimant exhausted his two physician choices on the first doctor and the acupuncturist. The Commission disagreed and found that the claimant was entitled to the medical charges incurred in New Mexico. The court held that, since the acupuncturist was not a physician, surgeon, or hospital, her treatment could not exhaust the claimant's second choice under 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 305/8(a)(3). That choice occurred when the claimant sought treatment from the doctor in New Mexico. As a result, the Commission properly ordered the employer to pay those bills. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 94.02.

Virginia Surety Co. v. Adjustable Forms, Inc., 888 N.E.2d 733, 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 427 (May 16, 2008). An owner-controlled insurance program (OCIP) provided workers' compensation coverage to the employer for the project at which the employee was hurt. The program's provider became insolvent. The appellate court held the employer's regular workers' compensation insurer was not liable for the employee's injury despite issuing a workers' compensation policy for the period during which the employee was injured because, in return for the OCIP coverage, the employer reduced its bid by the cost of this coverage, and the insurer returned the premium the employer paid for coverage of Illinois job sites during this period, so the insurer provided no workers' compensation coverage to the employer covering the injury. The insurer's policy was not "other insurance" which had to be exhausted before the guaranty fund was liable because the insurer did not collect and retain a premium for workers' compensation coverage at Illinois job sites. The insurer returned the estimated premium the employer paid since the payroll at the project where the employee was hurt was included in another policy. Income from premium payments for coverage at the project was not included in the insurer's income. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 150.01.