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
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
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.
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” 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
Siekierka v. United Steel Deck No. 3-06-0365 In the case of Siekierka v. United Steel Deck, the claimant contended that United Steel had wrongfully discharged him in retaliation for his assertion of his rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act. United Steel contended that the discharge was based on a company policy and not because of
Consolidated Freightways v. Workers’ Compensation Commission and Mota v. Griffin Wheel Co. No. 1-06-1919WC and 07 I.W.C.C. 0365 In Consolidated Freightways case, the Commission had awarded maintenance payments for 58-5/7 weeks of additional benefits and further ordered Consolidated to provide the claimant with meaningful vocational rehabilitation. This finding was reversed by the appellate court which
Burgess v. Tashonda Brooks No. 5-06-0273 In our April, 2005 Newsletter and the January, 2007 Newsletter, we reported on the issues being created because of the terminology, or lack thereof, in the settlement contract. In the Borrowman case decided by the Fourth District Appellate Court, the settlement contract constituted a full release of all causes
Virginia Surety Company v. Bill’s Builders, et al No. 3-06-0606 In our July, 2003 Newsletter and supplemental September, 2003 Alert, we reported to you on the case of General Casualty Company v. Carroll Tiling Service where the Illinois Second District Appellate Court awarded compensation benefits to a corporate officer who had signed a Benefits Rejection
Airborne Express, Inc. v. Industrial Commission No. 1-06-1960WC A most significant case has just been decided by the Special Appellate Court and will frequently be cited as the Airborne Express case. Ron Bronke, a delivery driver for Airborne Express, was involved in three accidents, two in 2000 and one in 2001. The three cases were
One North Franklin
13200 Metcalf Ave.
Overland Park, KS
11 North Third St.
2990 N. Perryville Rd.
101 S. Hanley
St. Louis, MO