{
  "id": 5797388,
  "name": "DENNIS ECHELBARGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIXON PUBLISHING COMPANY, a/k/a Dixonweb Printing Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Echelbarger v. Dixon Publishing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1991-11-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 2\u201491\u20140374",
  "first_page": "457",
  "last_page": "459",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 Ill. App. 3d 457"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "102 Cal. Rptr. 815",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "818-19"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "498 P.2d 1063",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1066-67"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Cal. 3d 616",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2277312
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "620-21"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-3d/7/0616-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill. 2d 441",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3112113
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/95/0441-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 Ill. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5597145
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "11"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/146/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 383,
    "char_count": 5551,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.789,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.436057418262789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2781978794902714
    },
    "sha256": "27be949898b72033f0d017ffacf415490a95977044b3949d9648a7346d780239",
    "simhash": "1:ffd3cfdbaf7c965c",
    "word_count": 877
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:34.404944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DENNIS ECHELBARGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIXON PUBLISHING COMPANY, a/k/a Dixonweb Printing Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McLAREN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Dennis Echelbarger, appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Lee County dismissing his first amended complaint. The court held that plaintiff\u2019s cause of action was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.). Plaintiff argues in this appeal that the Act does not foreclose a common-law cause of action. We affirm.\nCount I of plaintiff\u2019s first amended complaint alleged that he was employed by defendant Dixon Publishing Company, d/b/a Dixonweb Printing Co. (Dixonweb). On May 15, 1985, plaintiff suffered a work-related injury which resulted in the filing of a worker\u2019s compensation claim. The claim was disposed of in 1988.\nPlaintiff further alleged that Dixonweb \u201c[rjepeatedly, and as a pattern of conduct\u201d withheld or delayed numerous payments, which conduct caused plaintiff to suffer \u201cmental anguish, physical trauma, loss of services essential for sustaining normal family life, and other traumas.\u201d This \u201coutrageous delay\u201d forced plaintiff to settle his claim \u201cfor far less than it was worth.\u201d\nCount II of the complaint was against codefendant Martin Boyer Company (Boyer). Count II repeated the substantive allegations of count I. Count II further alleged Boyer was a service company which administered workers\u2019 compensation claims on behalf of Dixonweb and that Boyer \u201cindependently or in concert with\u201d Dixonweb withheld or delayed plaintiff\u2019s payments.\nBoth defendants filed motions to dismiss in which they contended, among other things, that plaintiff\u2019s exclusive remedy was under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act and thus his cause of action was barred. The court granted the motions, holding that section 19(k) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 138.19(k)) is the exclusive remedy for unreasonable delay in making workers\u2019 compensation payments.\nIn reviewing the dismissal of a complaint, we must accept as true all properly pleaded facts, and a cause of action should not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it clearly appears that no set of facts can be proved which will entitle plaintiff to recover. People ex rel. Daley v. Datacom Systems Corp. (1991), 146 Ill. 2d 1, 11.\nIn dismissing plaintiff\u2019s complaint, the trial court relied on Robertson v. Travelers Insurance Co. (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 441. In Robertson the supreme court held that section 19(k) is the exclusive remedy for a plaintiff whose damages arise solely from unreasonable or vexatious delay in payment. Section 19(k) provides:\n\u201cIn case where there has been any unreasonable or vexatious delay of payment or intentional underpayment of compensation *** then the Commission may award compensation additional to that otherwise payable under this Act equal to 50% of the amount payable at the time of such award.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 138.19(k).\nIn his one-page argument, plaintiff contends that Robertson does not foreclose every conceivable cause of action by an injured employee against his employer. Rather, it only bars causes of action for conduct which is not alleged to have caused any harm other than the delay itself. Plaintiff contends that his complaint alleged \u201cfar more than merely vexatious delay,\u201d specifically, actual harm to plaintiff and the diminution in value of his claim.\nThe holding in Robertson is not nearly so narrow as plaintiff would have it. Like plaintiff in the instant case, Robertson also sought consequential damages for \u201csevere emotional distress\u201d as well as financial strain. Moreover, contrary to plaintiff\u2019s contention, the only issue specifically left open by the Robertson court was whether an independent cause of action might exist for outrageous conduct which goes beyond mere delay in payment. As an example of such conduct, the court cited Unruh v. Truck, Insurance Exchange (1972), 7 Cal. 3d 616, 498 P.2d 1063, 102 Cal. Rptr. 815. In that case, one of the insurer\u2019s investigators pretended to befriend plaintiff, to the point where the two began dating, while a second investigator secretly took films of plaintiff. These films were shown at the administrative hearing. 7 Cal. 3d at 620-21, 498 P.2d at 1066-67, 102 Cal. Rptr. at 818-19.\nWe need not decide the issue allegedly left open by the supreme court in Robertson. Here, as in that case, plaintiff does not allege any outrageous conduct by defendants other than withholding the payments. That different results may have flowed from that conduct is not the significant issue, although we have already noted that in Robertson, as in the instant case, plaintiff alleged emotional as well as financial damages. Ultimately, plaintiff seeks damages solely for defendant\u2019s vexatious delay in payment. His exclusive remedy is section 19(k), and he has failed to state a cause of action.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Lee County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGEIGER and NICKELS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McLAREN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen G. Terrando, of La Salle, for appellant.",
      "Richard A. Palmer, of Ward, Murray, Pace & Johnson, P.C., of Sterling, for appellee Dixon Publishing Co.",
      "John A. Sandberg, of Thomas & Hinshaw, Culbertson, of Rockford, and D. Kendall Griffith and Stephen R. Swofford, both of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago, for appellee Martin Boyer Company."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DENNIS ECHELBARGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIXON PUBLISHING COMPANY, a/k/a Dixonweb Printing Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nSecond District\nNo. 2 \u2014 91\u20140374\nOpinion filed November 22, 1991.\n\u2014 Rehearing denied December 20, 1991.\nStephen G. Terrando, of La Salle, for appellant.\nRichard A. Palmer, of Ward, Murray, Pace & Johnson, P.C., of Sterling, for appellee Dixon Publishing Co.\nJohn A. Sandberg, of Thomas & Hinshaw, Culbertson, of Rockford, and D. Kendall Griffith and Stephen R. Swofford, both of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago, for appellee Martin Boyer Company."
  },
  "file_name": "0457-01",
  "first_page_order": 479,
  "last_page_order": 481
}