Appellate Court Finds That Attack on Jewel Food Stores Truck Driver While Making a Delivery Was Compensable as Traveling Employee -Reverses Commission Denial of Benefits

Potenzo v. IL Workers’ Compensation Comm. No. 1-07-0077-WC On February 27, 1995, Thomas Potenzo, a truck driver for Jewel Food Stores, was attempting to make a delivery at the Jewel store located at 4355 North Sheridan Road, Chicago.  The claimant backed his truck up to a hydraulic lift used in the process of unloading trucks

Caterpillar Allegedly Promises to Pay for Medical Services Provided to Its Employee by Rosewood Care Center

Rosewood Care Center v. Caterpillar, Inc No. 103212 Background of Case All of the evidence in the case is provided by the pleadings.  Rosewood is a skilled nursing care facility.  It alleges that on October 21, 2001, Betty Jo Cook, suffered injuries while working for Caterpillar and was hospitalized on that date until January 30,

Trial Court Has No Authority to Adjudicate Employer’s Workers’ Compensation Lien

Smith v. Louis Joliet Shoppingtown, et al No. 1-07-2988 All of us have had the experience of appearing for pre-trial conferences where the trial judge attempts to adjudicate the distribution of the settlement proceeds between the recovery being made by the employee in his third party case and the employer who seeks reimbursement for his

All Members of a Joint Venture are not Necessarily Entitled to Immunity if the Terms of the Joint Venture

Ioerger vs. Halverson Construction Co., et al No. 3-06-0399 In the case of Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co., et al, the plaintiffs were ironworkers who fell from a scaffold suspended above the Illinois River when the scaffold collapsed plunging the ironworkers into the river below.  Three ironworkers were injured and one was killed.  Suit was

Cab Driver Was Not the Employee of the Cab Company When Fatally Shot While Driving a Leased Taxicab

West Cab Co., et al v. Industrial Commission No. 1-06-2566WC Michael Gray leased a taxicab from West Cab Company on a regular basis.  While in the leased taxicab, he was shot and killed by an armed assailant.  West Cab, Northwest Cab and Northwest Package Delivery, Inc. were managed and owned by the same persons.  On

Employee’s Release of Injury Claim Against His Employer’s Underinsured Motorist Insurance Policy Did Not Release His Workers’ Compensation Claim

Maxit, Inc. v. John Van Cleve, et al No. 2-06-1025 On December 21, 2006, John Van Cleve sustained injuries while driving a truck being operated in the course of his employment with Maxit. Van Cleve filed a claim under Maxit’s underinsured motorist insurance policy. He also filed a workers’ compensation claim for which Maxit had

Supreme Court Upholds Employer’s Right of Subrogation – An Employer’s Lien Not Waved by Settlement Contract Terms

Gallagher v. Jaroslaw, et al No. 103522 In previous newsletters, your Editor has commented on the contradictory decisions by several appellate courts which addressed the contention that settlement contract terms deprived the employers of the subrogation rights for compensation payments.  The two most significant cases were Borrowman v. Prastein, where the court held that the

Employee’s Release of Negligent Driver Did Not Prevent Employer’s Workers’ Compensation Carrier from Making Subrogation Recovery

Chubb Group Insurance Cos. v. Carrizalez No. 1-06-1746 On December 5, 2003, Eric Matthews, employed by Caliber Auto Transport, was operating the company van in the course of his employment when the van was struck by Jose Carrizalez.  Matthews recovered workers’ compensation benefits from Caliber’s carrier, Chubb Group.  Chubb paid Matthews compensation benefits of $3,072.94. 

Loaning and Borrowing Employers Both Immunized From a Common Law Liability Claim Because of Exclusivity Provisions of Section 5

Behrens v. California Cartage Company, Inc. and Staffing Resources, Inc. No. 1-06-2729 In Behrens v. California Cartage Company, Inc. and Staffing Resources, Inc., the court addressed the issue of the possible liability of loaning and borrowing employers and concluded there existed a complete absence of common law liability for all possible defendants. On November 17,

Loaning Employer Denied Reimbursement from Borrowing Employer Because of an “Agreement to the Contrary”

Loaning Employer Denied Reimbursement from Borrowing Employer Because of an “Agreement to the Contrary” Surestaff, Inc. v. Azteca Foods, Inc No. 01-06-1994 Customarily, the respective liabilities of loaning and borrowing employers are determined by agreement. Most loaning employers are day labor services. Even in the absence of an agreement, most borrowing employers tend to expect