Joiner v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n
2017 IL App (1st) 161866WC
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Alfred Joiner (claimant) settled a civil suit and a workers’ compensation claim via a global settlement allocating $750,000 total: $430,000 from a third-party and $320,000 from the employer’s workers’ compensation insurer; a separate document also listed the WC settlement as $1.00.
- Claimant had cycled through three WC attorneys (Sostrin, Leonard, Fishel); each filed fee petitions after being discharged; fee agreements provided for 20% of recovery.
- At an arbitration hearing approving the lump-sum settlement, the parties and arbitrator treated the WC portion as $320,000; the arbitrator ordered Joiner (and plaintiff’s civil counsel Plouff) to pay the three former WC attorneys $21,333.33 each (20% of $320,000 total $64,000).
- Joiner appealed only the attorney-fee award to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission; the Commission affirmed, concluding the WC settlement was $320,000 and that Joiner had agreed to pay attorneys’ fees.
- Joiner sought judicial review in Cook County without posting the appeal bond required by 820 ILCS 305/19(f)(2); his former WC attorneys moved to quash summons and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and the circuit court dismissed with prejudice.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the bond statute was triggered because Joiner was “one against whom the Commission rendered an award for the payment of money” (the $64,000 fee award), so failure to post bond deprived the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 820 ILCS 305/19(f)(2) bond requirement applied to Joiner | Celeste and other authority exempt employees; bond applies only to employers/insurers, so Joiner (employee) need not post bond | Statute applies to any party “against whom the Commission shall have rendered an award for the payment of money” — includes Joiner because Commission ordered him to pay $64,000 | Bond requirement applies; Joiner had to post bond; failure divested circuit court of jurisdiction (affirmed dismissal) |
| Whether “award for the payment of money” in §19(f)(2) is limited to compensation awards | Only compensation awards count under Nickum; fee award is not same as a compensation award, so bond not required | §19(f)(2) plain language is broad and not limited to compensation; Nickum addressed §19(g) and its compensation-specific language, not §19(f)(2) | §19(f)(2) not limited to compensation awards; applies to the attorney-fee award ordering Joiner to pay money |
| Whether the Commission lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to award $64,000 in fees because the lump-sum listed $1.00 | Commission exceeded statutory fee cap (20% of $1.00 = $0.20); any fee issues for claimant can be resolved in circuit court | Commission has statutory authority to determine and apportion attorneys’ fees and disputes under §§16 and 16a(J); parties and arbitrator treated the WC settlement as $320,000 | Court did not decide merits because of bond defect but noted Commission likely had jurisdiction to resolve fee disputes and the fee award may have been appropriate |
| Whether Celeste controls to exempt employees from bond requirement | Celeste held employees need not post bond when appealing a denial of interest because employer was the only payor | Celeste is distinguishable; its holding was limited and does not create a categorical employee exemption from §19(f)(2) | Celeste does not create a categorical exemption; §19(f)(2)’s plain language controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois State Treasurer v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2015 IL 117418 (Supreme Court of Illinois) (§19(f)(2) bond requirement applies to any party against whom the Commission rendered an award for payment of money; plain-language construction)
- Celeste v. Industrial Commission, 205 Ill. App. 3d 423 (Ill. App. Ct.) (employee in limited context was not required to post bond where employer paid award; fact-specific)
- Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469 (Ill. 1994) (§19(g) reduced-judgment rule limited to awards providing for payment of compensation; distinguishes compensation-specific provisions)
- Berryman Equipment v. Industrial Commission, 276 Ill. App. 3d 76 (Ill. App. Ct.) (statutory bond requirement is jurisdictional; strict compliance required)
- Alvarado v. Industrial Commission, 216 Ill. 2d 547 (Ill. 2005) (Commission authority to determine reasonableness and amount of attorneys’ fees)