{
  "id": 564658,
  "name": "THE KENDALL COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Bradley Schwager, Appellee)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kendall County Public Defender's Office v. Industrial Commission",
  "decision_date": "1999-04-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 2\u201498\u20140486WC",
  "first_page": "271",
  "last_page": "274",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "304 Ill. App. 3d 271"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "298 Ill. App. 3d 666",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1073551
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "671-72",
          "parenthetical": "remand necessary for recalculation of claimants' average weekly wage"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/298/0666-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 Ill. App. 3d 445",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5155325
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "446-48"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/238/0445-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5456306
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "124"
        },
        {
          "page": "125"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/69/0120-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 Ill. App. 3d 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        365938
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "414"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/269/0412-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 Ill. 2d 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3126543
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "54"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/109/0052-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 Ill. App. 3d 988",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        75407
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "996"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/279/0988-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 Ill. Dec. 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Dec.",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 368,
    "char_count": 6058,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.758,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.020214692053474932
    },
    "sha256": "8b80eb69cb5dee4002f4c7fb1c543e566267dc484be22ef6e0f4f897a08809e9",
    "simhash": "1:255f4df77ee9cc14",
    "word_count": 955
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:24.702805+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE KENDALL COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER\u2019S OFFICE, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Bradley Schwager, Appellee)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE COLWELL\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent, Kendall County Public Defender\u2019s office, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Kendall County confirming in part and reversing in part a decision of the Industrial Commission (Commission) which awarded claimant, Bradley Schwager, permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 1996)). We hold that the order of the circuit court of Kendall County was not a final order and remand the cause to the Commission for want of jurisdiction.\nClaimant worked part-time as a public defender and part-time as a self-employed attorney in private practice. On the morning of March 30, 1995, claimant went to the old Kendall County courthouse to argue a motion in a case he was handling for respondent. His client in that case was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), and claimant sought to suppress the results of his client\u2019s field sobriety test. A field sobriety test entails standing on one leg for 30 seconds and walking heel-to-toe in a straight line. Claimant\u2019s argument was unsuccessful.\nClaimant thereafter went into an adjacent \u201canteroom,\u201d where three others were present. Claimant and two of those individuals attempted to demonstrate one-legged stands. While attempting a one-legged stand on his left leg, claimant\u2019s left knee gave out and he fell to the floor. He suffered injuries from the fall.\nClaimant subsequently filed an application for adjustment of claim alleging that his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment with respondent. In May 1996, an arbitrator agreed with claimant and found that claimant had reached his maximum level of recovery. Claimant\u2019s tax form from the year preceding his injury showed that claimant earned $25,454 as a public defender and $45,746 in net profits as a private attorney, and the arbitrator calculated claimant\u2019s average weekly wage at $1,369.23. The arbitrator awarded him $396.89 per week in PPD benefits for 90 weeks for a 45% loss of use of his left leg. Respondent appealed, and the Commission, with one commissioner dissenting in part, affirmed and adopted the arbitrator\u2019s decision. The commissioner who dissented in part disagreed with the majority\u2019s decision to include claimant\u2019s private practice income in the calculation of claimant\u2019s average weekly wage.\nRespondent again appealed. In an order dated March 17, 1998, the circuit court of Kendall County confirmed in part and reversed in part the Commission\u2019s decision. The court agreed that claimant\u2019s injury arose out of his employment and that claimant was entitled to PPD benefits. However, regarding the calculation of claimant\u2019s average weekly wage, the circuit court stated: \u201cThe decision of the Industrial Commission on the question of the computation of the average weekly wage is reversed in reliance on Paoletti v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 279 Ill. App. 3d [988], 216 Ill. Dec. 447 (1996).\u201d Paoletti stands for the proposition that income from a claimant\u2019s own business generally should not be included in the calculation of average weekly wage. Paoletti v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 279 Ill. App. 3d 988, 996 (1996). The circuit court did not order a remand for a recalculation of claimant\u2019s average weekly wage, nor did the court recite a recalculated figure.\nRespondent now brings this appeal, maintaining that claimant\u2019s fall was idiopathic and therefore did not arise out of claimant\u2019s employment. Alternatively, respondent urges us to recalculate claimant\u2019s average weekly rate and permanency rate and to consider whether claimant\u2019s PPD award was excessive in light of his alleged failure to complete medical treatment.\nPrior to reaching the merits of respondent\u2019s arguments, we must decide, sua sponte, whether jurisdiction is proper. See A.O. Smith Corp. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 109 Ill. 2d 52, 54 (1985). It is well settled that only final determinations of the Commission are reviewable. Honda of Lisle v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 269 Ill. App. 3d 412, 414 (1995). An order in which the circuit court reverses an award and remands the cause to the Commission is interlocutory and not appealable. Stockton v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 69 Ill. 2d 120, 124 (1977). Where a party attempts to appeal an interlocutory or nonfinal order to this court, we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. West v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 238 Ill. App. 3d 445, 446-48 (1992).\nWe hold that the circuit court\u2019s order of March 1998 was not final and that we therefore lack jurisdiction. First, the circuit court\u2019s order reversed the Commission\u2019s decision to include claimant\u2019s private practice income in the calculation of his average weekly wage. Second, a remand to the Commission for a recalculation of claimant\u2019s average weekly wage is implicit in the circuit court\u2019s order. The circuit court\u2019s order does not recite an award amount, and without a remand order, the amount of claimant\u2019s benefits would remain undetermined. We find that it is for the Commission to recalculate claimant\u2019s award in this case. See Swearingen v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 298 Ill. App. 3d 666, 671-72 (1998) (remand necessary for recalculation of claimants\u2019 average weekly wage).\nOur decision does not deprive the parties of the right to judicial review. Indeed, once the Commission recalculates claimant\u2019s award on remand, the Commission\u2019s decision will be reviewable. See Stockton, 69 Ill. 2d at 125.\nRespondent\u2019s appeal is dismissed and the matter is remanded to the Commission for a recalculation of claimant\u2019s average weekly wage consistent with the circuit court\u2019s March 1998 order.\nAppeal dismissed and cause remanded.\nMcCULLOUGH, EJ., and RAKOWSKI, HOLDRIDGE and RAR-ICK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE COLWELL"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pamela K. Harman, of Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "R. Gary Gooding, of R. Gary Gooding, Ltd., of Aurora, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE KENDALL COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER\u2019S OFFICE, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Bradley Schwager, Appellee).\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201498\u20140486WC\nOpinion filed April 19, 1999.\nPamela K. Harman, of Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.\nR. Gary Gooding, of R. Gary Gooding, Ltd., of Aurora, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0271-01",
  "first_page_order": 289,
  "last_page_order": 292
}