Baldwin v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission
409 Ill. App. 3d 472
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Cathy Baldwin, a security guard for Securitas, sustained two injuries from falls on October 8, 2006 and November 19, 2006 while employed by Securitas.
- The October 8 fall occurred on a metal staircase; Baldwin could not identify the cause of the slip and testified moisture from a freezer work area might have contributed, but she offered no direct evidence of causation.
- After the October fall, Baldwin received medical treatment, was given a cane and a TENS unit, and was placed on off-work status with follow-up appointments.
- Baldwin returned to light-duty work on November 16, 2006, later returning to full duty, but on November 19, 2006 she fell on stairs, alleging her leg cramps caused the fall.
- Medical opinions included Dr. Nelson finding the October 8 injury did not cause or contribute to the November 19 injury, and Dr. Fletcher arguing the first fall contributed to the second fall.
- The arbitrator denied benefits in both claims; the Commission affirmed, and Baldwin sought circuit court review in Vermilion County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction for single petition | Baldwin substantially complied with 19(f)(1) by filing a single summons for two cases. | Securitas argues lack of two separate petitions deprives circuit court of jurisdiction. | Circuit court had jurisdiction; substantial compliance OK. |
| October 8, 2006 injury arising out of employment | Slip arose from employment-related risks and moisture could be a contributing factor. | No proof of causation; fall due to neutral/explained risk; no employment-related risk shown. | Not proven; injury not arising out of employment. |
| November 19, 2006 injury arising out of employment | Fall resulted from ongoing effects of the first injury; injuries linked to employment conditions. | Idiopathic fall; no employment-related contributor shown. | Not proven; idiopathic fall not arising out of employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Cash Financial Services v. Industrial Comm'n, 367 Ill.App.3d 102 (2006) (risk analysis for arising out of employment; neutral risks not compensable)
- Builders Square, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 339 Ill.App.3d 1006 (2003) (unexplained falls require evidence linking to employment risk)
- Elliot v. Industrial Comm'n, 153 Ill.App.3d 238 (1987) (physical conditions of premises bearing on fall risk)
- Illinois Consolidated Water Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 314 Ill.App.3d 347 (2000) (stair-climbing and general public risk considerations)
- Chicago Transit Authority v. Industrial Comm'n, 238 Ill.App.3d 202 (1992) (substantial compliance with 19(f)(1) where two decisions reviewed via single summons)
- Stapleton v. Industrial Comm'n, 282 Ill.App.3d 12 (1996) (idiopathic falls require significant contribution by employment conditions)