In United Airlines, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission gave the petitioner weekly wage differential payment of $277.06. The Workers’ Compensation Commission indicated that the payments should continue the duration of the disability he suffered as a consequence of his employment. In this case the arbitrator had ruled that the wage differential benefit should end effective April13, 2018. The arbitrator had found that United Airlines had proved that the claimant will be earning more in a new job than if he had remained a ramp service worker (old job). The arbitrator concluded that he could fairly determine Read more…
Category: Springfield Injury Lawyer Blog
Was he a “traveling employee” or an employee traveling to work? In Venture-Newberg Perini Stone and Webster v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, the injury victim appealed the decision of the Sangamon County court. The facts are close and probably could have gone either way at the commission. In one sense, they did go both ways, with the arbitrator ruling against the victim and the commission ruling in his favor. Pipe Fitter Injured The claimant was a 50-year-old pipe-fitter who lived in Springfield, Illinois. He was a Union member with the Plumbers & Pipe-fitter Union, Local 137. As a Union member, he Read more…
In McRoberts v. Porter, the Appellate Court considered the application of the Health Care Services Lien Act and its application to uninsured/under-insured claims. What is the Health Care Services Lien Act? The Health Care Services Lien Act provides that any healthcare professional who renders any service in the treatment, care, or maintenance of an injured person…should have a lien upon all claims and causes of action of the insured person for the amount of the healthcare professionals or healthcare providers reasonable charges up to the date of payment of damages of the injured person. The total amount of liens, under this act, however, Read more…
The court in DeMambro v. City of Springfield discussed local governments obligation to use reasonable care when repairing the roadways. The issue arose under the Tort Immunity Act, specifically section 3-102. That section provides as follows: “Accept as otherwise provided in this article, a local public entity has the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for the use in the exercise of ordinary care of people whom the entity intended and permitted to use the property in a manner in which and at such times as it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used.” Read more…
In Mlynarczyk v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission the petitioner was getting into her car after a break, when she slipped and fell. The arbitrator ruled that she was a traveling employee, and therefore entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Then Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed that finding and held that she was not entitled to compensation. The trial court confirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Appellate Court the reversed the Workers’ Compensation Commission. In this case the claimant and her husband, Edward, were hired by employer to clean houses, churches, and offices. They were paid by the job. They drove Read more…
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Robert Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s. The case involved two issues. The first issue was whether or not the plaintiff’s complaint alleged sufficient duty to puruse a claim against Jimmy John’s for several counts, including negligent training of its employees and negligent supervision. The second involves the procedure of dismissals of claims. This case arises from a car/motorcycle accident. The plaintiff was driving his motorcycle on Iles Avenue. The defendant contracts with “independent contractors” to drive their food to be delivered. Sawyer, the Jimmy John’s driver, had driven across the parking lot in front of Read more…
In the case of Spears v. The Association of Illinois Electric Cooperatives, the Appellate Court discussed the Release of Liability signed by a party prior to an injury. The plaintiff was enrolled at Lincoln Land Community College to learn to be a lineman. As part of the program, plaintiff took a pole climbing class, which the defendant taught. Prior to enrolling in the lineman program, the plaintiff watched a climbing class. Plaintiff also signed an Indemnification and Release of Liability. Plaintiff did not read the release. There was a dispute as to whether the instructor explained the release and the possibility Read more…
The Center for Justice and Democracy released a study discussing the contingency fee system in the United States of America. It is titled “Courthouse Cornerstone: Contingency Fees and Their Importance for Everyday Americans.” The report discussed the contingency fee system. Contingency fees are frequently used by lawyers in order to help their clients. They are especially useful for people who cannot afford to pay high lawyer fees associated with litigation. The study concluded that contingency fees are helpful to attorneys and clients. Contingency fee lawyers take large risks associated with a claim. They invest a great deal of time and Read more…
In the case of Center Partners, LTD v. Growth Head GP, LLC, state of Illinois Supreme Court clarifies the law about waiver of the attorney-client privilege in a business transaction. Anything said between an attorney and their client is normally privileged. Parties cannot get at the substance of the conversation during discovery. In this case the attorney client privilege came up in a business transaction. The parties to an agreement all discussed with their attorneys, various aspects of the transaction. There was litigation over the transaction. During the discovery depositions one of the parties testified as follows: “[Stefanek]: Well, we all Read more…
In Supreme Catering v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, the victim got injured in a car accident while working for Supreme Catering. The victim presented medical bills in the amount of $141,017.00 and claimed temporary total disability benefits, TTD, of $200.00 per week for 52 5/7 weeks. The respondent disputed the matter on the issue of employer-employee relationship, denying the claim for compensation. The arbitrator found that the claimant was not an employee of the employer. The claimant filed a petition for review of the arbitrator’s decision. The commission found that an employer-employee relationship did exist between the respondent and the victim. Read more…