Retaliatory Discharge Evidence Presented a Genuine Issue for the Jury to Decide

Herman v. Power Maintenance & Constructors No. 04-08-0509 Plaintiff, William T. Herman, brought a tort action against Power Maintenance & Constructors for discharging him, or refusing to call him, in retaliation for his filing a workers’ compensation claim.  The trial court entered a summary judgment in defendant’s favor but the appellate court reversed. Defendant laid

Signed, Sealed Settled Guidelines for Perfecting Settlement Agreements

Whenever settlement discussions result in a final settlement, make sure that the agreement is documented or recorded with proof of consent by all parties to the agreement.  Failing to do so could spur additional litigation and end up costing clients more than they bargained for.  The recent case of K4 Enters. v. Grater, Inc., No.

Defending Fire Claims 101: Investigation

“The temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes A thorough scene investigation of your next fire case may be the difference between a claim being dropped and a claim being litigated. The timeliness of the investigation and methods employed will ensure

Cases of the Quarter

Garcia v. Wooton Construction Ltd. (1st Dist. December 22, 2008) The First District Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court’s finding of summary judgment when it decided that a general contractor owed a duty of care to an ironworker who was injured unloading bolts at a Chicago condominium development.  The Plaintiff, an ironworker employed by a

Attorney Held Liable for Reimbursement of Medicare Conditional Payments – It Could Be You!

USA v. Paul J. Harris No. 5:08CV102 Dan Anders of our office issues the following warning when the parties ignore the set aside requirements. In a strong example of Medicare’s right to recover for payments it claims are related to an accidental injury, a federal district court in West Virginia issued a decision on November

Employer May Be Liable for Both Disability and Death Claims Arising Out of One Incident

Freeman United Coal Mining Company v. The Workers’ Compensation Commission No. 04-07-0905WC, 04-07-0907WC The recent case of Freeman United Coal Mining Company has called attention to the possibility that an employer may be held liable for a claim for disability due to lung disease, as well as for a death claim, when both claims arise

Overtime Wage Income Requires That It Be Both Regular and Mandatory

Dominick’s Finer Foods v. Michael G. Stell, et al No. 08L50792 Our firm represented Dominick’s Finer Foods in a very important case involving the question of overtime hours being included in the claimant’s average weekly wage. The Commission found: Petitioner earned a total of $50,220.04 for the 52 weeks prior to the accident, including overtime,

Retaliatory Discharge Action Can Be Available to Borrowed Employee

Hester v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corporation No. 5-07-0283 Carrie Hester was assigned to work for Gilster by her employer, Manpower, Inc.  During her entire time at Gilster, Hester had no contact with Manpower.  In her suit against Gilster, she alleged as follows: On September 13, 2006, under threat of subpoena, Hester gave testimony in the workers[‘]

Former Commissioner Joins Firm

Wiedner & McAuliffe is proud to announce Diane Dickett Smart as a new member of our firm.  Ms. Dickett Smart was a member of the Illinois Industrial Commission for nine years.  As the public member of the Commission panel, she reviewed arbitrator’s decisions in conjunction with the other Industrial Commission members representing labor and business. 

Credit Under Uninsured Motorist Provision Does Not Permit an Attorney’s Fee Under Section 5(B) of the Workers’ Compensation Act

Taylor v. Pekin Insurance Company No. 105158 In Taylor v. Pekin Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of Illinois had occasion to consider the application of Section 5(b) of the Workers’ Compensation Act as opposed to the credit allowed the employer under the uninsured motorist provisions of the employer’s automobile liability policy.  In interpreting the provisions