Bayer v. Panduit Corp., 2016 IL 119553

Ronald Bayer, an ironworker, was injured on the job and received workers’ compensation from his employer, Area Erectors; he later sued Panduit and obtained a $64 million jury judgment for negligence.
Area Erectors obtained credit against that third‑party recovery for compensation it had paid and for future benefits it would be relieved from paying, and the court suspended future workers’ compensation payments.
Under 820 ILCS 305/5(b), when an employee’s attorney’s services substantially contribute to a third‑party recovery that reimburses the employer, the employer must pay 25% of the gross reimbursement as attorney fees absent other agreement.
Bayer’s attorneys sought 25% of both past payments and the value of future benefits (including future medical expenses) for which Area Erectors would be relieved.
Area Erectors contested the inclusion of future medical expenses in the “gross amount of such reimbursement.” The trial court awarded fees on future medical expenses; the appellate court reversed that portion; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 25% statutory fee under §5(b) applies to the value of future medical expenses for which the employer is relieved by a third‑party recovery	Bayer: §5(b) covers reimbursement for "compensation paid or to be paid," which includes future medical expenses; attorney fee applies to gross reimbursement including future medical costs	Area Erectors: Future medical expenses are not truly "reimbursed" (no actual payment), §16a(D) or policy reasons exclude undisputed medical fees, and calculation uncertainty/avoidance of double recovery counsel against including them	The Court held §5(b)’s 25% fee applies to the value of future medical expenses the employer is relieved from paying; trial court affirmed on this point

Zuber v. Illinois Power Co., 135 Ill.2d 407 (1990) (held "reimbursement" in §5(b) includes future compensation payments the employer is relieved from making)
In re Estate of Dierkes, 191 Ill.2d 326 (2000) (explains §5(b) purpose—prevent double recovery and require employer contribution to litigation costs when employer benefits)
Freer v. Hysan Corp., 108 Ill.2d 421 (1985) (approving credit/suspension mechanism to protect employer’s reimbursement rights)
McMahan v. Industrial Comm’n, 183 Ill.2d 499 (1998) (medical expenses are compensation under §8(a))
Crispell v. Industrial Comm’n, 369 Ill. App. 3d 1022 (2006) (recognizes medical payments under §8(a) are recoverable as part of §5(b) reimbursement)
Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty P.C. v. Indiana Ins. Co., 729 N.E.2d 117 (Ind. 2000) (Indiana decision the appellate court considered but the Illinois Supreme Court declined to adopt)