Circuit Court Acquired Jurisdiction Over Workers' Compensation Appeal When Copy of Bond was Filed with the Circuit Court in a Timely Manner

In Walmart Stores, Inc. v. The Industrial Commission, (No. 4-01-0037), the Fourth District Appellate Court discussed the documentation which has to be filed at the Circuit Court to provide the Circuit Court with jurisdiction (i.e., the power to hear a claim) to hear an appeal of an Industrial Commission decision.

FACTS

The claimant was injured in a slip and fall on the employer’s parking lot on November 11, 1995. The Industrial Commission held that the claimant suffered an injury which arose out of an in the course of her employment. The employer appealed the Industrial Commission’s decision to the Circuit Court in a timely manner. With the proper appeal documentation, the employer filed a copy of an appeal bond that had been properly executed. The original bond was not filed until five days after the period for filing an appeal had expired.

HELD

The Circuit Court obtained jurisdiction over the employer’s appeal even though only a copy of the bond, as opposed to the original bond, was filed at the Circuit Court in a timely manner.

RATIONALE:

The copy of the bond that was filed with the Circuit Court achieved the purpose of filing a bond because the copy confirmed that a sufficient bond was, in fact, procured, and proper coverage had been obtained by the employer.

POINTS OF INTEREST IN CASE

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: In a workers' compensation appeal, the Circuit Court does not have general jurisdiction over matters before it, but only possesses special statutory jurisdiction. §19(f)(2) of the Act requires a party seeking Circuit Court review to follow certain statutory steps, including the filing of an appeal bond, to vest the Circuit Court with jurisdiction over the workers' compensation appeal.

2. In the instant case, evidence that the employer was covered by a bond was filed within the statutory period outlined for filing an appeal. A copy of the bond which was filed clearly showed that the amount of the bond, the principals and the surety. In other words, the Court held that the copy of the bond filed at the Circuit Court established that there was no question that the employer had obtained a sufficient bond for the appeal. Of note, the Court did designate the filing of a copy of the bond, as opposed to the original bond, was “irregular.” Therefore, it was recommended that the original bond be filed.

3. Merits of Underlying Claim: After determining the jurisdictional issue in the employer’s favor, the Appellate Court addressed the merits of the claimant’s awarding of benefits. In the instant claim, the claimant had fallen in the only parking lot provided by the employer, which was used by employees and patrons. The Court held that the claimant’s injuries from her fall were not compensable because the Walmart parking lot was available for the use of both patrons and employees. Therefore, the claimant was exposed to a hazard to which the general public was equally exposed, so her injuries did not arise out of her employment. In other words, the Appellate Court reversed the Commission and the Circuit Court finding that the claimant did not suffer an injury which arose out of or in the course of her employment.

LAST EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF EMPLOYEE’S HEARING LOSS

In Terry Hamilton v. The Industrial Commission, et al., (No. 4-00-0876), the Fourth District Appellate Court addressed the application of §1(d) of the Workers’ Occupational Disease Act to a hearing loss claim.

FACTS

The claimant began employment with American National Can Company (hereinafter ANCC), a manufacturer of tin cans (1970). On August 1, 1995, Silgan Corporation bought ANCC. On January 23, 1996, the claimant filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim under the Workers’ Occupational Disease Act seeking hearing loss benefits from both employers. The Industrial Commission awarded the claimant hearing loss benefits and held that liability for those benefits was the responsibility of Silgan, stating that ANCC was not claimant’s last employer as required by the act.

HELD

Silgan is solely responsible for all liability for claimant’s hearing loss.

RATIONALE

In §1(d) of the Occupational Disease Act, it states that only claimant’s last employer is liable for benefits.

POINTS OF INTEREST IN CASE

1. §1(d) of the Act: §1(d) of the Act provides:

2. In the instant case, the Court held that the record clearly established that Silgan Container Corporation was the employer in whose employment the claimant was last exposed to the hazard causing his hearing loss. Therefore, Silgan Container Corporation was solely liable for the claimant’s hearing loss, even though the claimant was employed by ANCC for 15 years and Silgan Corporation for approximately six months.

IF YOU WISH TO BE PLACED ON OUR MAILING LIST OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASES DISCUSSED OR WOULD LIKE COPIES OF THEM, PLEASE CALL TOM HENNESSY AT (312) 346-5313 OR JIM ROACH AT (312) 346-5314 OR ANY OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS AT (312) 346-5310. ADDITIONALLY, WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR LUNCHTIME SEMINARS ON VARIOUS ISSUES RELEVANT TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION. PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE NUMBER TO INQUIRE.