Practice Alerts

312-425-3131

10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60603

211 Landmark Drive, Suite C2, Normal, IL 61761

Facebook Linkedin

Legislative Update

By: Francis M. Brady

As a statutory remedy(1.), Illinois Workers’ Compensation practice can be shifted abruptly and drastically by the Illinois General Assembly. Examples of this particular feature include the implementation of a Fee Schedule in 2005 and the adoption of AMA Guidelines in 2011. By pushing buttons, literally, in Springfield, legislators fundamentally alter the operation of Work Comp in Illinois.

It behooves those interested in the Comp system to remain abreast of events in the State Capitol. Indeed, monitoring our Governor, Senators, and Representatives is critical to sustaining the rights of business. But as the vigil is kept, it becomes clear that those making the rules do not always have a solid grasp of what they are ruling on. That misapprehension can lead to unintended legislative outcomes.

Breaking the Chain of Causation: Blaming the Later Accident

November 2018

By Steven L. Miller

Hamm hurt his right arm on June 16, 2014. He hurt it again in two later job connected accidents, one on April 1, 2015 and the other on April 3, 2015. He filed three Applications, one for each loss date. The first was filed against “Pars” while the second and third named another employer, “Henkel.”

The cases were all consolidated and tried at the same time, with the Arbitrator concluding that Hamm’s right shoulder problems were causally linked to all three accidents. Accordingly, he apportioned TTD and the cost of medical care so that Pars and Henkel each paid a portion of the benefits awarded.

Part-Time Keyboarding Insufficient to Prove CTS

November 2018

By Nicholas A. Rubino

Erin Green was a part-time customer service representative for Teletech. The job required she answer phone calls and perform computer input. She used a headset for calls and operated a keyboard and mouse regarding the computer function.

Green handled just 13-16 customer service calls per day and the only repetitive use of her hands came with keyboarding. She was not obligated to squeeze, grasp, or use any kind of vibratory equipment. Green began to experience numbness and tingling from the fingertips of her right hand all the way up to the right elbow.

Illinois Has No Jurisdiction Over Company with 3,000 Employees in Illinois and $1 Billion in Revenue from Illinois Sales: Campbell v. ACME Insulations, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 173051

October 2018

By Courtney Morso Driscoll

The First District Appellate Court recently held Illinois did not have jurisdiction over General Electric (GE) although GE earned over $1 billion in revenue from its business in Illinois. In Campbell v. ACME Insulations, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 173051, the First District reversed the decision of the circuit court, which found Illinois had personal jurisdiction over GE.

The plaintiff, Arlin Campbell, brought suit against various entities, including GE, alleging he was diagnosed with mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos in Illinois through GE products. GE filed a motion to dismiss, claiming plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to confer personal jurisdiction over GE in Illinois. The circuit court denied GE’s motion to dismiss, which GE appealed. The appellate court reversed the circuit court with direction that GE be dismissed from the lawsuit. It found Illinois neither had general personal jurisdiction over GE nor specific personal jurisdiction over GE.

Illinois Appellate Court Examines Whether Arbitration Agreement Was Enforceable In Premises Liability Case

October 2018

By Anthony P. Ulm

A recent decision from the First District Appellate Court, Kero v. Palacios, et al., 2018 Ill. App. (1st) 172427, addressed the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in connection with a premises liability case.

In the complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was a patient at defendant, Symphony of Lincoln Park, LLC’s (“Symphony”) rehabilitation facility in July 2016. During his stay at Symphony, plaintiff further alleged that he fell out of his bed on July 19 and July 31, 2016, and sustained injuries. Plaintiff alleged negligence in his complaint against Symphony.

Appellate Court Broadens Need for Expert Testimony

October 2018

By Robert J. Winston

In Campbell v. Autenrieb 2018 Il App (5th) 170148 ( July 2018) the appellate court held that a defendant could not cross examine a treating doctor about other possible causes for plaintiff’s injuries unless defense counsel supported the cross examination with expert testimony.

Mr. Campbell was knocked down by defendant’s unleashed dog. He claimed severe spinal cord injuries and over $200,000.00 in lost wages. Plaintiff’s neurosurgeon testified the injuries were caused by the fall. Defense counsel asked the doctor if a person’s back could go out for no specific reason, i.e. idiopathic. Counsel then asked if a plethora of other reasons could also cause a back to go out. The doctor answered yes to both questions. Defense counsel offered no expert testimony to support these two questions.

  • Chicago Bar Association
  • Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association
  • DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar
  • The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
  • Chicago Bar Association
  • Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association
  • DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar
  • The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-425-3131
211 Landmark Drive, Suite C2
Normal, IL 61761
Phone: 309-862-4914
Back to Top