{
  "id": 2465991,
  "name": "TANYA KOSHEL, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants (The County of Cook, Intervening Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Koshel v. Public Building Commission",
  "decision_date": "1990-05-24",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 1\u201489\u20140186, 1\u201489\u20140562 cons.",
  "first_page": "545",
  "last_page": "548",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 3d 545"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "532 N.E.2d 595",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 Ill. App. 3d 615",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3621787
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/177/0615-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 N.E.2d 391",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. App. 2d 124",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2587453
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/71/0124-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "406 N.E.2d 219",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. App. 3d 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3196625
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/85/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "495 N.E.2d 1269",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 Ill. App. 3d 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3537119
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/145/0304-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "491 N.E.2d 84",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 963",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3495413
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/141/0963-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "389 N.E.2d 211",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. App. 3d 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5580586
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/71/0158-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "537 N.E.2d 784",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. 2d 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5563972
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "475-76"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/127/0453-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "528 N.E.2d 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 Ill. App. 3d 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3517195
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "431"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/174/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "373 N.E.2d 666",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 3d 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3418374
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "427"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/57/0423-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 437,
    "char_count": 7609,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.764,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3464972282167802
    },
    "sha256": "5957085fb6d0529a93fcdbe2e49c327dc0389359dc4aa37fbba5756348b2a54e",
    "simhash": "1:022724d7eb4c5400",
    "word_count": 1255
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:12.040900+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TANYA KOSHEL, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants (The County of Cook, Intervening Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McMORROW\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nTanya Koshel (Koshel) appeals from the trial court\u2019s denial of her motion to strike the workers\u2019 compensation lien filed by the County of Cook (Cook County) in Koshel\u2019s personal injury suit. We affirm.\nThe record reveals the following pertinent evidence. Koshel filed a personal injury suit against the Public Building Commission of the City of Chicago and others, for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on a newly waxed floor at the Daley Center. At the time of her injuries, Koshel was working for the clerk of the circuit court of Cook County (the Clerk). In addition to her personal injury suit, Koshel also sought workers\u2019 compensation benefits from the Clerk. Cook County paid these benefits to Koshel pursuant to her workers\u2019 compensation action against the Clerk. Koshel eventually settled her personal injury, suit and Cook County consented to this settlement. Thereafter Cook County sought a workers\u2019 compensation lien on Koshel\u2019s personal injury settlement, in order to recover the workers\u2019 compensation benefits Cook County had previously paid to Koshel.\nKoshel moved to strike Cook County\u2019s request for a workers\u2019 compensation lien on the grounds that at the time of her injuries, she was employed by the Clerk, and that as a result, Cook County was not her employer under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (111. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 138.2). Koshel also claimed that Cook County had no statutory obligation to pay, on behalf of the Clerk, the amounts due Koshel in workers\u2019 compensation. In addition, Koshel argued that Cook County had no right of subrogation with respect to the funds paid by Cook County to her. Koshel renews these arguments on appeal from the trial court\u2019s denial of her motion to strike.\nWe need not and do not decide whether Cook County was Koshel\u2019s employer at the time of her injuries for purposes of workers\u2019 compensation liability. Assuming arguendo that Cook County was not Koshel\u2019s employer under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 138.2), Cook County nevertheless had a right of subrogation to recover the funds Cook County paid to Koshel in workers\u2019 compensation.\nKoshel argues that Cook County is not entitled to subrogation because it had no legal obligation to pay the workers\u2019 compensation claim on behalf of the Clerk of the circuit court. As a general rule, \u201cwhen one who is not acting as a mere volunteer or intruder pays a debt for which another is primarily liable and which in equity should have been discharged by the latter, the doctrine of subrogation applies.\u201d (King v. King (1978), 57 Ill. App. 3d 423, 427, 373 N.E.2d 666.) Illinois courts have \u201cstressed *** the necessity for a legal liability to exist in order to invoke the subrogation doctrine.\u201d Inland Real Estate Corp. v. Tower Construction Co. (1988), 174 Ill. App. 3d 421, 431, 528 N.E.2d 421.\nCook County asserts that it has a legal obligation to pay the workers\u2019 compensation benefits owed by the Clerk pursuant to section 27.3 of \u201cAn Act to revise the law in relation to clerks of courts\u201d (Clerks of Courts Act), which states in pertinent part:\n\u201cThe county board shall provide the compensation of Clerks of the Circuit Court, and the amount necessary for clerk hire, stationery, fuel and other expenses.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 25, par. 27.3.\nIn our view, workers\u2019 compensation benefits fall within the purview of this statutory provision. Cook County is the entity responsible for the payment of salaries and related expenses of the Clerk and the Clerk\u2019s employees. (See Orenic v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board (1989), 127 Ill. 2d 453, 475-76, 537 N.E.2d 784.) In our opinion, the \u201cother expenses\u201d referred to in the Clerks of Courts Act include the payment of workers\u2019 compensation benefits to the Clerk\u2019s employees. Consequently, Cook County had a legal obligation to pay the amounts of workers\u2019 compensation benefits owed by the Clerk to the Clerk\u2019s employees.\nKoshel also asserts that Cook County is not entitled to subrogation from Koshel because the payments made by Cook County were intended to benefit the Clerk of the circuit court, and were not intended to benefit Koshel. To support this assertion, Koshel relies upon Estate of Woodring v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 158, 389 N.E.2d 211, and In re Estate of Hammond (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 963, 491 N.E.2d 84. In both of these cases, the courts held that medical insurers of parents had no right of subrogation against proceeds received by the estates of the parents\u2019 children. The courts reasoned that the insurers\u2019 payments had been made to satisfy debts of the parents to third parties and that the minors\u2019 estates received no benefit from the insurers\u2019 payments on behalf of the parents. The instant cause bears no factual resemblance to either of the decisions upon which Koshel relies, and they are inapposite to the case at bar.\nKoshel also appears to argue that Cook County has no right to subrogation because the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act expressly permits only the employer to obtain a lien upon an employee\u2019s recovery from a third party for injuries which formed the basis of the employer\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation payment to the employee. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 138.5(b).) However, Illinois decisions have permitted third parties, other than the employer, to obtain a workers\u2019 compensation lien based upon principles of subrogation. (See, e.g., Brandt v. John S. Tilley Ladders Co. (1986), 145 Ill. App. 3d 304, 495 N.E.2d 1269; Emberton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 247, 406 N.E.2d 219; Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Trimon Elevator Co. (1966), 71 Ill. App. 2d 124, 217 N.E.2d 391.) We can discern no sound reason to deviate from this precedent in the case at bar, and Koshel has offered none.\nFor these reasons, we affirm the trial court's denial of Koshel\u2019s motion to strike Cook County\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation lien.\nIn a cross-appeal, Cook County seeks reversal of the trial court\u2019s denial of Cook County\u2019s motion for sanctions under section 2\u2014611 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2\u2014611). Cook County argues that section 2\u2014611 sanctions should have been entered against Koshel because Koshel\u2019s attempt to strike Cook County\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation lien was not \u201cwell grounded in *** law.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2\u2014611.) Based upon our review of the record, we cannot say that trial court\u2019s denial of Cook County\u2019s sanction motion was an abuse of discretion, since the instant cause involves, in significant part, a question of first impression with respect to Cook County\u2019s legal obligation to pay workers\u2019 compensation benefits on behalf of the Clerk. See generally Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Anderson (1988), 177 Ill. App. 3d 615, 532 N.E.2d 595.\nFor the reasons stated, the orders of the circuit court of Cook County are affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nLINN and JIGANTI, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McMORROW"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Corboy & Demetrio, P.C.,'of Chicago (Philip H. Corboy, Thomas A. Demetrio, and Francis P. Murphy, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Cecil- A. Partee, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Joan S. Cherry, Myra J. Brown, and Frank J. Oles, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TANYA KOSHEL, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants (The County of Cook, Intervening Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant).\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNos. 1\u201489\u20140186, 1\u201489\u20140562 cons.\nOpinion filed May 24, 1990.\nCorboy & Demetrio, P.C.,'of Chicago (Philip H. Corboy, Thomas A. Demetrio, and Francis P. Murphy, of counsel), for appellant.\nCecil- A. Partee, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Joan S. Cherry, Myra J. Brown, and Frank J. Oles, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0545-01",
  "first_page_order": 573,
  "last_page_order": 576
}