2011 IL App (2d) 100418
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Johnson was a Will County deputy assigned to the northwest COPSA; he had ~19 years on the job.
- From 11 p.m. on July 19, 2007, to 7 a.m. on July 20, 2007, Johnson patrolled the northwest COPSA north 50 area with limited personnel.
- He left his Will County patrol area to perform a personal errand in Du Page County (to collect personal mail) without permission or dispatcher notice.
- After the errand, he received a radio assignment to assist Deputy Kirsch and proceeded to the location, speeding, without informing dispatch of his outside-location status.
- Johnson was involved in a car crash in Du Page County at Route 59 and 75th Street; injuries included fractures and contusions; he returned to full duty on September 11, 2007.
- Arbitration awarded benefits; the Commission reversed, denying benefits, finding a personal deviation and misconduct; circuit court reversed the Commission and remanded for reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper standard of review? | Johnson argues de novo review. | Will County/Sheriff argue clearly erroneous review. | De novo review applies for this mixed-question context. |
| Did Johnson’s injuries arise out of employment? | Arising from dispatcher-directed assignment rendering injuries employment-related. | Argues deviation severed causal employment connection. | Yes, injuries arose out of employment. |
| Were Johnson’s injuries sustained in the course of employment despite deviation? | Proceeding to assist a deputy while on duty continued within course of employment. | Departure from duties constitutes a personal deviation breaking course of employment. | Yes, still in the course of employment at injury time. |
| Does a rule-violation deviation bar recovery if the injury remains within the employer’s sphere? | Violation does not automatically defeat eligibility if within the sphere of employment. | Disobedience of work rules weighs against course-of-employment. | Disobedience does not preclude compensation when acting within the sphere of employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 129 Ill.2d 52 (Ill. 1989) (defines arisings-out-of-employment standard)
- Saunders v. Industrial Comm'n, 189 Ill.2d 623 (Ill. 2000) (reaffirms sphere-of-employment concept despite misconduct)
- Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 302 Ill. 401 (Ill. 1922) (employee acting within employment when performing directed errand)
- Checker Taxi Cab Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 45 Ill.2d 4 (Ill. 1960) (personal deviation typically breaks course of employment)
- Public Service Co. of Northern Illinois v. Industrial Comm'n, 395 Ill. 238 (Ill. 1946) (limits on course-of-employment when deviation is personal)
- Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 131 Ill.2d 478 (Ill. 1989) (arising-out-of-employment and course-of-employment principles)
- J.S. Masonry, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 369 Ill.App.3d 591 (Ill. App. 2006) (discipline and work-rule violations weighed against course)
- Uphold v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 385 Ill.App.3d 567 (Ill. App. 2008) (cases where facts undisputed yield de novo analysis)