Reichling v. Touchette Regional Hospital, Inc.
37 N.E.3d 320
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Reichling, a registered nurse employed by temporary agency ReadyLink, was injured at Touchette Regional Hospital on Dec. 26, 2010, after slipping on a wet floor while working an assigned shift at Touchette.
- ReadyLink paid Reichling, provided her insurance (including workers’ compensation), and had a written staffing agreement with Touchette that made ReadyLink responsible for payroll and benefits while assigning supervision, scheduling, and patient-treatment control to Touchette.
- Reichling worked at Touchette for years under Touchette schedules and policies, signed Touchette orientation materials and a Touchette job description, was supervised and disciplined by Touchette staff, and received directions from Touchette physicians and supervisors.
- No ReadyLink supervisors were present at Touchette; Touchette provided supplies, set hours, assigned departments, and could refuse or remove agency nurses from its premises and notify the agency.
- Reichling settled a workers’ compensation claim against ReadyLink; she then filed a premises-liability suit against Touchette. Touchette moved for summary judgment arguing Reichling was its borrowed employee and thus barred by the Act’s exclusive-remedy provision.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Touchette; the appellate court affirmed, finding no genuine issue of material fact that Reichling was a borrowed employee of Touchette.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reichling was a "borrowed employee" of Touchette under the Workers’ Compensation Act | Reichling contends she remained ReadyLink’s employee and thus could sue Touchette in tort; disputed factual issue exists | Touchette argues it had the right to direct/control Reichling’s work and she impliedly consented, making her a borrowed employee and barring tort suit | Held: Reichling was Touchette’s borrowed employee as a matter of law; exclusive remedy bars the tort claim |
| Whether the ReadyLink–Touchette indemnity (ReadyLink assumes WC responsibility) removes Touchette from Act liability | Reichling argues the indemnity shows Touchette is not liable under the Act and so not protected by exclusive remedy | Touchette argues the Act makes borrowing and loaning employers jointly/severally liable regardless of contractual indemnity | Held: Indemnity does not avoid Act liability; Touchette remains a borrowing employer under the Act |
| Whether collateral estoppel prevents Touchette from denying employer status after WC award naming ReadyLink | Reichling asserts the WC determination that ReadyLink was her employer estops Touchette from denying employer status | Touchette notes Reichling did not raise collateral estoppel below; issues not preserved | Held: Collateral estoppel argument waived — not raised in trial court, cannot be asserted on appeal |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Reichling: factual disputes preclude summary judgment | Touchette: undisputed facts permit only one inference — borrowed-employee relationship — warranting summary judgment | Held: Summary judgment affirmed — undisputed facts support only one inference that Reichling was a borrowed employee |
Key Cases Cited
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill. 2d 455 (1990) (describing Workers’ Compensation Act quid pro quo and exclusive remedy)
- A.J. Johnson Paving Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 82 Ill. 2d 341 (1980) (establishing two-prong borrowed-employee test: control and contract of hire)
- Chaney v. Yetter Mfg. Co., 315 Ill. App. 3d 823 (2000) (temporary-agency nurse found borrowed employee where defendant directed work and could dismiss from site)
- Chavez v. Transload Servs., L.L.C., 379 Ill. App. 3d 858 (2008) (affirming borrowing-employer status where employer controlled schedule, discipline, and training)
- Illinois State Bar Ass’n Mut. Ins. Co. v. Law Office of Tuzzolino & Terpinas, 2015 IL 117096 (2015) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)