The Decorating Debacle: Illinois Court Examines Recreational Activity Exemptions in Workers' Compensation Claim

November 2024

Kelly M. Wiggins

Is an employee’s decision to decorate her supervisor's office for her birthday considered a recreational activity under Section 11 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, thus barring recovery after sustaining an injury? The Illinois Appellate Court recently provided some insight into this question in Helping Hands Center v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, a decision issued under Rule 23 (¹). According to Section 11 of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/11 (West 2016)), accidental injuries incurred while participating in voluntary recreational programs – including but not limited to athletic events, parties, and picnics – do not arise out of and in the course of the employment even though the employer pays some or all the cost thereof. Conversely, the exclusion in section 11 does not apply “in the event that the injured employee was ordered or assigned by his employer to participate in the program.” In Helping Hands, the employee decided, on her own and with no direction from anyone, to decorate her supervisor’s office for her birthday when she lost her balance, fell from a desk, and sustained injuries to her right foot and right side of body. Following a hearing, the Arbitrator found that the employee’s injuries arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment, and that the employee’s current condition of ill-being was causally related to the alleged work accident. The Arbitrator reasoned that the employee was not engaged in a “party” or “recreational program” at the time of the injury and thus was not barred by Section 11 of the Act. A majority of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the Arbitrator with the Circuit Court of Cook County affirming.

The oral arguments indicate the Court questioned the employer on whether it was intending to expand recreational activities to include decorating for a special occasion, despite the fact no official party or gathering was planned. The employer argued the employee’s official job duties of a Medical Assistant did not involve decorating offices for special occasions, and the act of decorating itself is an act of celebration contemplated by Section 11 of the Act. The employer further argued the employee admitted her decision to decorate her supervisor’s office was voluntary and not ordered by her employer.

Expanding Survivors: Appellate Court Opinion Regarding Dependent Benefits Sparks New Possibilities

November 2024

Micaela M. Cassidy

On July 19, 2024, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District issued an Opinion, in the matter of Kevin Cronk, son of Richard Cronk, Deceased v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (Kimball Hill Homes), 2024 Ill App (1st) 221878WC, 2024 WL 3465577. The Court overturned the Commission Decision denying the son’s Application seeking survivors’ benefits, even though he was over 18 and not enrolled in higher education when his father died. This may represent an expansion of dependent survivors’ rights under the Act. The matter was remanded to the Commission for further proceedings. The Commission will calculate the amount of benefits owed to Kevin Cronk.

Dual Recovery in Catastrophic Injury Cases: Recent Appellate Decision Expands Liability for Illinois Respondents

September 2024

Ashley L. Krenz

In the case of The American Coal Co. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation, the Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois determined that claimants may recover under both sections 8(e)(18) and 8(d)(2) of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act in catastrophic accidents. This ruling could lead to increased liability for respondents when recovery is awarded under both sections.

The petitioner, a longwall shear operator, was severely injured in a work accident in which he was crushed between a 20-ton piece of steel equipment and a coal block, causing him to lose consciousness. He was airlifted to the hospital and underwent multiple surgeries, including a colon resection requiring a temporary colostomy bag. The petitioner also permanently lost his vision due to optic nerve damage. After weeks in rehabilitation, he continued to suffer from various health issues, including severe pain in his lumbar spine, left hip, and a permanent lack of abdominal muscle control due to the extensive surgeries.

Osman Case Analysis: Powers of the Commission, Manifest-Weight Standard and Causation Review at the Appellate Level

September 2024

Christian K. Kotila

In the recent case of Scott Osman v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, et al., 2024 IL App (2d) 230180WC ("Osman"), the Illinois Appellate Court addressed critical issues regarding the Commission’s powers, the legal standard of review, and the causal connection between a claimant’s injury and subsequent medical conditions.

The Claimant was a shipping and receiving clerk and fireman for a school district who fell from a ladder when he was trying to pull orders for shipping and receiving. From the Claimant’s testimony, it was uncovered that he caught his foot between a wall and two pallets and injured his right ankle when he fell back, injuring his right ankle. He underwent ligament reconstruction, physical therapy, and received a custom orthotic, which allegedly caused him to walk with his right foot “splayed” to the right, resulting in a changed gait and pain to his knees and hips. The Claimant’s hip pain manifested five years after the date of the work accident, which he attributed to the altered gait from his ankle injury. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission initially awarded Osman 41.75 weeks of permanent partial disability for his right ankle injury but denied awarding permanent partial disability for the Claimant’s subsequent hip condition and denied associated medical costs.

Principal-Agent Theory Fails Against Shipping Company

May 2024

Jeffrey F. Clement

In Cornejo v. Dakota Lines, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 220633, the First District Court of Appeals declined to impose vicarious liability on a shipping broker because the broker exercised very little control over the driver or transportation company involved in a trucking accident. Without an adequate showing of such control, there was no evidence to support the jury’s finding of a principal-agent relationship.

The Exclusive Remedy Provision and “Purely Personal” Workplace Fights

May 2024

Emma L. Knowles

In Price v. Lunan Roberts Inc., Arby’s Restaurant Group, et al, the Illinois Appellate Court opined on the application of the “Exclusive Remedy” provision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act when an injury or death in the workplace stems from a fight. There is a general exception to the “Exclusive Remedy” provision, allowing Plaintiffs to file civil claims against employers, if the fight stemmed from a “purely personal” issue, although the basis for imposing liability on the employer under such circumstances would remain weak. Here, however, the Court clarified the rule and held that any evidence of whether an issue is “purely personal” cannot be speculative.

This case stems from a murder that occurred at an Arby’s fast-food restaurant in Hickory Hills, IL. Decedent John Price was working as an employee at the Arby’s restaurant, when he was stabbed and killed by a co-worker, Irvin Thomas. The stabbing, in which Thomas stabbed Irwin approximately twenty-seven times, occurred shortly after Thomas began his evening shift. A surveillance recording served as evidence of the stabbing, but had no sound, so it was unknown what the two men said to each other leading up to the murder. The murder investigation showed that the two men had some type of association outside the workplace, but the exact nature and depth of the relationship was unclear.