Holocker v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n
2017 IL App (3d) 160363WC
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Claimant Scott Holocker was struck by a chainmail strap at work on Sept. 11, 2012, suffering facial fractures, tooth loss, and chest contusion; he underwent multiple surgeries and ongoing dental and psychological treatment.
- He returned to work Oct. 16, 2012, with restrictions (no crane operation), primarily performing non-crane duties as a transportation operator and later experienced a panic attack in July 2013 related to crane operation.
- Employer accommodated the restriction (offered a janitorial position; claimant declined) and claimant continued full-duty work within his job classification without regular crane exposure until his termination on Oct. 15, 2013, for failing to report/call in for three consecutive days per the CBA.
- Arbitrator awarded temporary total disability (TTD) from termination to arbitration (approx. 15 weeks) and computed an average weekly wage; denied penalties/attorney fees.
- The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed the TTD award and recalculated average weekly wage, finding claimant’s injuries had stabilized as to employability; the circuit court reversed the Commission; this appeal reinstated the Commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to TTD after termination | Holocker: not at MMI; condition had not stabilized, so TTD continues after termination | Komatsu: claimant was working full duty within his classification, employable despite restriction; injuries did not prevent reentry to workforce | Commission upheld: denial of TTD after termination; appellate court reinstated Commission (not against manifest weight of evidence) |
| Is MMI dispositive for post-termination TTD? | Holocker: because he had not reached MMI, TTD must continue as a matter of law | Komatsu: MMI is not alone dispositive; focus is on whether injury prevents reentry to workforce | Held: MMI not dispositive; proper inquiry is whether condition stabilizes so claimant can reenter workforce |
| Effect of job restrictions and employer accommodations | Holocker: restriction (no crane) limited ability and thus employability | Komatsu: restriction was accommodated; many transport-operator jobs did not require crane use; labor-market evidence showed suitable jobs locally | Held: evidence supported that restriction did not preclude employment; claimant remained employable |
| Penalties and attorney fees under Act | Holocker: sought penalties/fees for failure to pay TTD | Komatsu: payments and denials were reasonable | Held: Arbitrator and Commission denial of penalties/fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Interstate Scaffolding, 236 Ill. 2d 132 (clarifies test for post-termination TTD: whether claimant remains temporarily totally disabled and can reenter workforce)
- Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 138 Ill. 2d 107 (defines TTD and scope of benefits until claimant recovers as permanent character permits)
- Zenith Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 91 Ill. 2d 278 (TTD proper when claimant cannot perform services for which no reasonably stable labor market exists)
- Lukasik v. Industrial Comm’n, 124 Ill. App. 3d 609 (upholding termination of TTD where claimant released to light duty and recovery incomplete)