Venture-Newberg Perini, Stone & Webster v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission
2013 IL 115728
| Ill. | 2014Background
- Ronald Daugherty, a Springfield pipefitter and union member, took a temporary 200-mile job with Venture at Exelon’s Cordova plant because no local work was available.
- The job required long hours (12-hour days, 7 days/week); Daugherty and a coworker stayed at a motel ~30 miles from the plant.
- While a coworker drove him to the plant early one morning, their truck slid on ice and Daugherty was seriously injured.
- The arbitrator denied workers’ compensation; the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, finding two exceptions applied (traveling employee and travel determined by job exigencies).
- The Sangamon County circuit court set aside the Commission’s decision; the appellate court reversed the circuit court, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Daugherty) | Defendant's Argument (Venture) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daugherty was a "traveling employee" | He was traveling away from his home community at employer’s request and thus fits the traveling-employee exception | He was a temporary, nonexclusive hire; Venture didn’t direct relocation, reimburse travel, or require travel | Not a traveling employee; Commission’s finding against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether travel was "determined by demands/exigencies of the job" | His lodging and commute were functionally required (be within ~1 hour) to be available for work | Relocation and route were personal choices; Venture didn’t direct route, pay travel time, or reimburse expenses | Travel was based on personal choice, not job exigency; Commission’s finding against manifest weight |
| Whether injury arising during commute is compensable under exceptions | Commuting from employer-assigned remote site is foreseeable and reasonable conduct incident to duties | Ordinary commuting rule applies unless traveling-employee exception clearly fits | Ordinary rule applies; exceptions do not apply here |
| Standard of review on Commission factual findings | Commission’s factual findings should be upheld (manifest weight) | Commission’s decision not supported by facts; reverse under manifest weight or de novo | Court concluded plaintiff’s arguments fail under either standard; affirmed circuit court reversal of Commission |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Industrial Comm’n, 62 Ill. 2d 65 (traveling-employee exception and when acts incident to duties are compensable)
- Sjostrom v. Sproule, 33 Ill. 2d 40 (travel determined by employment demands can make commute compensable)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 86 Ill. 2d 534 (general rule that ordinary commute is not compensable)
- Chicago Bridge & Iron, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 248 Ill. App. 3d 687 (application of traveling-employee analysis to temporary/out-of-area workers)