MEDINA v. ONE STOP CENTER, INC., 2:22-cv-01031

Carlos Mendez Medina, Jr. (Medina) and his passenger sued after a collision involving Masud A. Omar (Omar), who was driving for One Stop Center, Inc.; GTS was Medina's contracting company.
The accident took place on black ice, causing multiple vehicles to crash.
Medina argued GTS was liable as his employer via the "borrowed servant" doctrine, while GTS claimed immunity under workers’ compensation law despite not securing such insurance.
Plaintiffs also sought punitive damages against Omar and One Stop Center, alleging reckless indifference.
GTS and Omar/One Stop filed motions for summary judgment on these respective issues.
The Court reviewed whether GTS had immunity and whether the punitive damages claim against Omar/One Stop could proceed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
GTS's WC immunity via borrowed servant doctrine	GTS should be liable as no WC insurance was obtained for Medina	GTS immune as Medina was a "borrowed servant" despite no WC insurance	GTS not immune; WC immunity requires participation
Proximate cause and comparative fault	Omar acted with reckless indifference contributing to the crash	Omar acted similarly to other drivers & tried to avoid crash; no reckless indifference	No reckless indifference by Omar; punitive damages denied
Admissibility of plaintiff's expert report	Expert showed Omar’s negligence via speed/brake issues	Expert report flawed, irrelevant, invaded jury function, contradicted eyewitness	Expert report not admissible under Rule 702
Appropriate standard for summary judgment	Evidence should be viewed favorably to plaintiffs	Evidence should favor GTS and Omar on immunity and punitive issues	Summary judgment for GTS denied; for Omar/One Stop granted

Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 585 N.E.2d 1023 (Ill. 1991) (limits employer liability to recoverable WC benefits under Illinois law)