Breaking the Chain of Causation: Blaming the Later Accident
November 2018
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
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
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
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.
2018 Employment Law Update
2018 Employment Law Update
September 2018
Employment Law Legislative Update
Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner recently signed off on two new legislative amendments of which employers in Illinois should be aware. The first is an amendment to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 260/10, which requires employers to reimburse employees for all necessary expenses incurred which are directly related to services performed for the employer. The second is an amendment to the Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act, 820 ILCS 115/9.5, under which Illinois employers will now be required to provide nursing mothers with paid breaks to nurse or express breastmilk. These important amendments, and their impact on Illinois employers, are discussed below.
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
The recent amendment to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, which becomes effective on January 1, 2019, will require Illinois employers to reimburse employees for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee within the employee's scope of employment and directly related to services performed for the employer." Under the new law, "necessary expenditures" means "all reasonable expenditures or losses required of the employee in the discharge of employment duties and that inure to the primary benefit of the employer." The employee has 30 days to submit a request for reimbursement with supporting documentation. While most employers reimburse employees for necessary business expenses, this new statute could capture expenses incurred by employees not contemplated by employers such as cell phone data charges for work-related calls and expenses incurred by remote employees for home internet access and related equipment.