{
  "id": 2646235,
  "name": "ROBERT W. LAGERSTROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES F. DUPRE, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lagerstrom v. Dupre",
  "decision_date": "1989-06-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 1-87-2964",
  "first_page": "1020",
  "last_page": "1023",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 3d 1020"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "481 N.E.2d 684",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 Ill. 2d 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3134628
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/107/0079-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N.E.2d 79",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 Ill. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5148421
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/317/0302-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.E.2d 49",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill. 2d 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2898605
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/46/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "490 N.E.2d 170",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 520",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3497297
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/141/0520-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N.E.2d 745",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill. 2d 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2841344
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/32/0190-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.E.2d 228",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. 2d 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2849593
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/42/0273-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 387,
    "char_count": 7081,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.360589685387119e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38996424115846134
    },
    "sha256": "d0704a75284bf7d49793748d2681acab94c9eae158e7c8a64fa6c493f96f50b2",
    "simhash": "1:77435cddc7cec7cd",
    "word_count": 1046
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:46.579667+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT W. LAGERSTROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES F. DUPRE, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McMORROW\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Robert W. Lagerstrom (plaintiff) filed suit against defendant James F. Dupre, M.D. (defendant), for work-related injuries plaintiff sustained after defendant rendered an allegedly erroneous medical opinion,- to the workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier of plaintiff\u2019s employer, that plaintiff was fit to return to work. The trial court entered summary judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Because we conclude that plaintiff\u2019s exclusive remedy against defendant is found in the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.), we affirm.\nThe following facts stand uncontradicted in the parties\u2019 pleadings and documents submitted with respect to defendant\u2019s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff sustained a back injury at work in January 1983 and for a time received workers\u2019 compensation benefits therefor. Plaintiff\u2019s injury was treated by physicians whom he selected and retained on his own behalf.\nIn July 1984, plaintiff was seen by defendant at the request of the workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier retained by plaintiff\u2019s employer. The purpose of this examination was to obtain the defendant\u2019s medical opinion with respect to plaintiff\u2019s fitness to return to work. Based upon his examination of plaintiff, defendant reported to the insurance carrier that plaintiff was healthy and could return to work without restriction in his work activities. Plaintiff understood at the time of the examination that defendant\u2019s role was not to treat plaintiff\u2019s injuries, but to report to the insurance carrier regarding plaintiff\u2019s fitness to work. Defendant was aware that his report could be used by the workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier in connection with plaintiff\u2019s claim for workers\u2019 compensation benefits.\nThe insurance carrier terminated plaintiff\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation benefits in July 1984. However, based on the advice of his treating physicians, plaintiff did not return to work in July 1984. In January 1985, defendant again examined plaintiff in response to the insurance carrier\u2019s request and reconfirmed his opinion that plaintiff was fit to work without restriction. Plaintiff did not feel capable of returning to work, however, and his treating physicians advised against his return.\nBecause of financial hardship, plaintiff returned to employment in April 1985. Following his resumption of work activities, plaintiff sustained additional job-related injuries. None of these subsequent injuries was compensated by the workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier. Plaintiff\u2019s work activities have been substantially curtailed, and he is no longer offered the opportunity to work overtime.\nPlaintiff filed a three-count complaint against defendant to recover damages for the personal injuries he suffered following his return to work. Count I of the complaint alleged the existence of a physician-patient relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and sought recovery based on defendant\u2019s alleged medical malpractice for having negligently recommended that plaintiff return to work. Count II acknowledged that defendant acted only as an examining physician with respect to plaintiff\u2019s injuries, and alleged that defendant breached a duty to plaintiff to exercise ordinary care in the preparation and submission of the medical evaluation report. Count III alleged that defendant\u2019s actions amounted to wilful and wanton misconduct and requested punitive damages. Defendant answered the complaint and later filed a motion for summary judgment. Following briefing and argument, the trial court allowed defendant\u2019s motion and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.\nWe determine that the trial court\u2019s summary judgment was properly entered in favor of defendant. The Workers\u2019 Compensation Act provides an exclusive remedy for plaintiff to attempt to recover damages from defendant for plaintiff\u2019s personal injuries following his return to work. The Act states in pertinent part that \u201c[n]o common law or statutory right to recover damages from the employer, his insurer *** or the agents or employees of any of them for injury *** sustained by any employee while engaged in the line of his duty as such employee, other than the compensation herein provided, is available to any employee who is covered by the provisions of this Act.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, par. 138.5(a).\nThe Illinois Supreme Court has held that a physician who is retained by a workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier to examine the fitness of a claimant is deemed an agent of the insurance carrier. (Keystone Steel & Wire Co. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 273, 246 N.E.2d 228; Nollau Nurseries, Inc. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 190, 204 N.E.2d 745; Tee-Pak, Inc. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 520, 490 N.E.2d 170.) Furthermore, recovery under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act is permitted for subsequent work-related injuries if these later injuries would not have occurred but for the initial work-related injuries. International Harvester Co. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1970), 46 Ill. 2d 238, 263 N.E.2d 49; Lincoln Park Coal & Brick Co. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n (1925), 317 Ill. 302, 138 N.E.2d 79; see also Unger v. Continental Assurance Co. (1985), 107 Ill. 2d 79, 481 N.E.2d 684.\nApplying this precedent to the case at bar, defendant was acting as the agent of the insurer of plaintiff\u2019s employer when the defendant examined plaintiff with respect to plaintiff\u2019s fitness to work. As plaintiff was aware, defendant\u2019s examination of plaintiff occurred only to assess plaintiff\u2019s eligibility for continued workers\u2019 compensation benefits for work-related injuries. If plaintiff had not sustained his original on-the-job injuries, plaintiff would not have been later required to submit to defendant\u2019s examination as directed by the workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier. As a result, plaintiff\u2019s subsequent work-related injuries, allegedly occasioned by defendant\u2019s negligence, would not have occurred but for plaintiff\u2019s initial on-the-job injuries. Accordingly, under section 5(a) of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, any alleged negligence on defendant\u2019s part was compensable to plaintiff as a workers\u2019 compensation claim. Because plaintiff\u2019s exclusive remedy against defendant fell within the purview of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant with respect to plaintiff\u2019s complaint.\nIn view of this disposition, we need not address the parties\u2019 remaining arguments, and plaintiff\u2019s motion to file a proposed amended complaint is denied.\nFor the reasons stated, the trial court\u2019s judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJIGANTI, P.J., and LINN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McMORROW"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter M. Ketchum, Ltd., of Chicago (Paul E. Peldyak, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, of Chicago (Joseph P. Switzer, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT W. LAGERSTROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES F. DUPRE, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 1-87-2964\nOpinion filed June 29, 1989.\nWalter M. Ketchum, Ltd., of Chicago (Paul E. Peldyak, of counsel), for appellant.\nWildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, of Chicago (Joseph P. Switzer, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1020-01",
  "first_page_order": 1046,
  "last_page_order": 1049
}