Walker Bros v IWCC & Iannoni v City of Chicago

Walker Bros v. Ill. Worker’s Comp. Comm’n, 2019 Ill. App (1st) 181519WC

Issues:  Arising out of

The Petitioner, a Cook at Walker Bros. restaurant, slipped and fell in an Ace Hardware parking lot on his way to work.  The employer and Ace Hardware had an informal (and unwritten) agreement that Walker Bros. employees could park in Ace’s lot.  The employer did not pay Ace for use or maintenance of the lot, and the owner of the Ace store testified (by deposition) that he allowed the restaurant employees to park in the lot as a courtesy.  The Appellate Court concluded that the Commission erred in finding that Petitioner sustained accidental injuries arising out of his employment.  In doing so, the Appellate Court examined the Illinois Supreme Court’s “parking lot exception” to the general premises rule, which allows compensation where an employer provides a parking lot to its employees (regardless of whether the employer owns or maintains the lot).  In determining whether the employer “provides” the lot to employees, the Appellate Court noted that three considerations are made: (1) whether the employer owns the parking lot (2) whether the employer exercised control or dominion over the lot and (3) whether the parking lot was a route required by the employer.  None of the factors favored Petitioner’s case.  The Appellate Court explained that Ace’s parking lot was owned and maintained solely by Ace, that the parking lot was available to the general public, that employees of the restaurant could park in various other places, and the Ace parking lot was not part of a route required by the employer. The Circuit Court’s decision affirming the Commission’s award for benefits was reversed, and compensation was denied.

 

 

Iannoni v. City of Chi, 2019 IL. App. (1st) 182526

Issue: Periodic Payments Preferred

The Claimant suffered a compensable work injury, culminating in a final decision from the Arbitrator which included both TTD and PPD.  After Arbitration, the employer sent the Claimant a check for the total remaining TTD due and approximately 40% of the PPD award.  Thereafter, the employer (the City of Chicago) sent the Claimant approximately 4 weeks of PPD.  The Claimant filed a Complaint against the City, alleging that all the PPD was due in a lump sum, while the City argued that periodic monthly payments were proper.  The Appellate Court agreed with the City, concluding that the legislature expressed preference for periodic payments in Section 9 of the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Act.  If the Claimant wished to receive a lump sum, the Court explained that he would need to file a petitioner under Section 9 of the Act and demonstrate that a lump sum payment would serve the best interests of the parties.

 

 

Upcoming Events

LegetøjBabytilbehørLegetøj og Børnetøj