Bagwell v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n
2017 IL App (4th) 160407WC
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Darrell Bagwell, a Nestle USA employee for 27 years, suffered workplace back injuries on June 2, 2008, and March 23, 2009, leading to surgeries and disability.
- While employed at Nestle, Bagwell also served as pastor at Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church, receiving a $600/week housing allowance; he testified he never told Nestle he was paid for pastoral services.
- Arbitrator found Bagwell sustained work accidents and awarded TTD, TPD, and medical benefits; awarded wage-differential benefits but excluded pastor wages from average weekly wage because Nestle lacked knowledge he was paid.
- The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed (vacating medical-expense award); the circuit court affirmed the Commission. Bagwell appealed to the Appellate Court.
- Central legal question: whether, under 820 ILCS 305/10, Nestle had prior knowledge that Bagwell’s concurrent activities constituted paid employment such that those wages must be included in his average weekly wage.
Issues
| Issue | Bagwell's Argument | Nestle's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer knowledge of claimant’s concurrent pastoral work requires knowledge that work was paid before including those wages in average weekly wage under §10 | Bagwell: employer knew he worked as a pastor (preaching, officiating, complaints) so his pastoral earnings must be included | Nestle: employer knew of religious activity but not that it was paid employment; without knowledge of pay §10 does not apply | Court held §10 requires employer knowledge that the claimant was engaged in paid employment; evidence did not show Nestle knew Bagwell was paid, so pastoral wages properly excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Sylvester v. Industrial Comm'n, 314 Ill. App. 3d 1100 (Illinois Appellate Court) (claimant bears burden to prove average weekly wage)
- Zanger v. Industrial Comm'n, 306 Ill. App. 3d 887 (Illinois Appellate Court) (average weekly wage is fact question for commission)
- United Airlines, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 382 Ill. App. 3d 437 (Illinois Appellate Court) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- Flynn v. Industrial Comm’n, 211 Ill. 2d 546 (Illinois Supreme Court) (when de novo review may apply for statutory construction)
- Greaney v. Industrial Comm'n, 358 Ill. App. 3d 1002 (Illinois Appellate Court) (discussion of review standards and fact/law distinctions)
- Gilster Mary Lee Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 326 Ill. App. 3d 177 (Illinois Appellate Court) (manifest-weight review applied where reasonable inferences from facts differ)