Joiner v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n
2017 IL App (1st) 161866WC
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Alfred Joiner (claimant) filed a workers’ compensation claim for a trip-and-fall injury and later a parallel civil tort action; multiple attorneys (Sostrin, Leonard, Fishel, Plouff) represented him at various times.
- Parties executed a global settlement in the civil case allocating $750,000 overall ($430,000 from a third-party defendant; $320,000 attributed to the employer/insurer for workers’ compensation) but the lump-sum workers’ compensation contract also contained a line showing $1.00; the Commission found the true workers’ compensation settlement was $320,000.
- The arbitrator approved the lump-sum settlement and, based on the $320,000 workers’ compensation component, ordered Joiner to pay 20% ($64,000 total; $21,333.33 each) to his three prior WC attorneys; the arbitrator could not directly order the employer to pay those fees because the civil court directed the employer’s payment to claimant and civil counsel.
- The Commission affirmed the arbitrator, amended the lump-sum order to reflect a $320,000 WC settlement, and rejected Joiner’s attempt to avoid the fee obligations (finding estoppel and that Joiner agreed under oath).
- Joiner sought judicial review in Cook County but failed to post the appeal bond required by section 19(f)(2) of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act; his former WC attorneys moved to quash summons and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the circuit court dismissed with prejudice.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that section 19(f)(2)’s bond requirement applied to Joiner (he was “one against whom the Commission shall have rendered an award for the payment of money”) and strict compliance with the bond requirement is jurisdictional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 19(f)(2) bond requirement applies to Joiner | Joiner: bond inapplicable because employees are exempt (relying on Celeste) or because fee order is not an “award for the payment of money” under the Act | Respondents: section 19(f)(2) applies to any party "against whom" the Commission has rendered an award for payment of money; Joiner was ordered to pay fees | Held: bond requirement applies to Joiner; failure to post bond deprived circuit court of jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Celeste precludes applying the bond requirement to an employee ordered to pay money | Joiner: Celeste held employees are not subject to bond | Respondents: Celeste is distinguishable and limited; statute’s plain language controls | Held: Celeste does not create a categorical employee exemption; statute controls and applies to any party ordered to pay money |
| Whether “award for the payment of money” in §19(f)(2) is limited to compensation awards | Joiner: Nickum limits “award” to compensation awards; fee order not a qualifying award | Respondents: §19(f)(2) contains no such limitation; Nickum addressed a different statutory section (§19(g)) | Held: §19(f)(2)’s plain text covers any award for payment of money; Nickum does not limit §19(f)(2) |
| Whether Commission lacked jurisdiction to award $64,000 in fees because lump-sum listed $1 | Joiner: Commission exceeded jurisdiction because fees exceed 20 cents if settlement was $1 | Respondents: fee disputes fall within Commission’s authority; Commission found $320,000 WC component and awarded 20% | Held: Court did not decide merits because bond issue divested jurisdiction of trial court; appellate opinion notes Commission likely had authority under §16 and §16a(J) to resolve fee disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois State Treasurer v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2015 IL 117418 (statutory bond requirement is jurisdictional; plain language controls)
- Celeste v. Industrial Comm’n, 205 Ill. App. 3d 423 (1990) (interpreting bond requirement in factual context; not an absolute bar to application of §19(f)(2))
- Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469 (1994) (§19(g) judgments limited to awards providing for payment of compensation; does not constrict §19(f)(2))
- Alvarado v. Industrial Comm’n, 216 Ill. 2d 547 (2005) (Commission authority to fix attorneys’ fees)
- Muller v. Jones, 243 Ill. App. 3d 711 (1993) (Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over WC fee disputes)
- Berryman Equipment v. Industrial Comm’n, 276 Ill. App. 3d 76 (1995) (strict compliance with statutory bond requirement is necessary for jurisdiction)