Illinois WC Caselaw Update In City of Zion Police Dept. v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n , 2025 IL App (2d) 240758WC-U (Ill. 2nd DCA 2025), the court found that CL was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues of causation. The pension board found that CL’s injury was not incurred in the line of duty. The CL did not appeal the pension board’s decision and had a full and fair opportunity to contest the issues. The issue of whether CL’s injury was incurred in the line of duty was identical to the issue of whether the injury arose in the course and scope of employment. In Kransky v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n , 2025 IL App (1st) 232483WC-U (Ill. 1st DCA 2025), the court reinstated the arbitrator’s maintenance award. CL was not entitled to wage differential benefits. Although CL was earning less than his pre-accident wages, CL’s own vocational expert opined that the CL was underemployed and that CL could earn between $15.00 and $20.00 per hour. This was sufficient to find CL did not sustain a loss in earning capacity. CL was entitled to maintenance benefits while from 9/11/12-5/8/17 due to the CL’s job search efforts. In Martin v. Goodrich , 2025 IL 130509 (Ill. 2025), the Supreme Court of Illinois found that 820 ILCS 310/1(f) was a period of repose which applied prospectively. A statute of repose creates a bar on the right to bring a claim after a defined period of time regardless of when the action accrued, as opposed to a SOL which determines the time which a lawsuit may be brought after a cause of action has accrued. Under §1(f), CL no longer had a right to seek compensation through work comp because his last exposure was in 2012. Under 830 ILCS 310/1.1, the exclusivity provisions of work comp do not apply to bar civil actions where an injury was not compensable due to a statute of repose. The court further found that prospective changes applied to cases filed after the change in law. In Ramirez v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n , 2025 IL App (1st) 242467WC (Ill. 1st DCA 2025) the 1st DCA set aside the Commission’s determination of CL’s AWW based on payroll records. To set the foundation for records admitted under the business records rule, the testimony of the records custodian or someone familiar with the records is required. EC did not present any testimony concerning the payroll records and they could not rely on the business records exception to the rule against hearsay to admit the records into evidence. The commission’s decision to admit the records and their reliance on those records in determining the AWW was clearly erroneous. In City of Chicago v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n , 2025 IL App (1st) 002432WC-U (Ill. 1st DCA 2025), the court affirmed the commission’s order finding causation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although records from treating physician Dr. Abusharif noted a diagnosis of “postlaminectomy syndrome, lumbar”, there was no evidence of a laminectomy. The only evidence of a spinal surgery was the cervical discectomy performed as a result of the accident. Earlier records documented “postlaminectomy syndrome, cervical” and it was unclear why they changed to say lumbar, nor could Dr. Abusharif explain the change. We hope this information has been helpful. It is not intended as legal advice. Let us know if you have any questions, or would like to discuss further by contacting ALevy@LevyandLevyLaw.com, or calling (813) 259-5389. Do you like this caselaw update? Follow us! Levy & Levy, LLC Editor: Adam Levy, Esq. Writers: Daniel Baquerizo, Esq.,Zachary Williams, Esq. Unsubscribe Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.