{ "id": 1209162, "name": "THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Giuseppe Cianci, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "2002-05-23", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201401\u20142959WC", "first_page": "402", "last_page": "405", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "331 Ill. App. 3d 402" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "396 A.2d 1007", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 8040193 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "including retroactive earnings in AWW calculation despite statute defining AWW in terms of amount claimant was receiving when injured" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/a2d/396/1007-01" ] }, { "cite": "670 N.E.2d 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "423 Mass. 642", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 1027961 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/423/0642-01" ] }, { "cite": "477 So. 2d 624", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 7596060 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "distinguishing between wages actually earned and wages actually paid during relevant statutory period" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/477/0624-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 Ill. 2d 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 198899 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/166/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 Ill. 2d 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 781334 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/159/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 Ill. App. 3d 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1260434 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/284/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 Ill. 2d 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1224798 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/189/0167-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 428, "char_count": 6701, "ocr_confidence": 0.783, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08, "percentile": 0.31384300783559194 }, "sha256": "f38a40a9299ff8114ef4770c7c70cfc297246c298d8b9e331c95e38413591467", "simhash": "1:96355e83c6ef84ab", "word_count": 1060 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:37:46.779771+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Giuseppe Cianci, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nGiuseppe Cianci was injured during an industrial accident while working for the City of Chicago. He later received a retroactive pay raise covering work he performed before his accident. He filed an application for adjustment of claim seeking workers\u2019 compensation benefits for his injuries. The matter proceeded to an arbitration hearing. When calculating Cianci\u2019s average weekly wage (AWW), the arbitrator refused to consider his earnings from the retroactive pay raise. On review, the Illinois Industrial Commission (Commission) held that the retroactive earnings should be included in the AWW calculation. The Cook County circuit court confirmed the Commission\u2019s holding, and the City filed this appeal. We affirm.\nBACKGROUND\nCianci\u2019s industrial accident occurred on February 14, 1996. At that time, his labor union was negotiating a pay raise with a retroactive effective date of July 1, 1995. Cianci testified that he knew the negotiations were occurring when he was injured. The raise was later approved, and Cianci received a lump-sum payment for the amount that accrued between July 1, 1995, and his accident. He testified that he was familiar with this procedure and had received other retroactive raises in the past.\nAt the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator awarded permanent total disability benefits based on an AWW of $670.82. That figure did not include the earnings from Cianci\u2019s retroactive pay raise. The arbitrator excluded such earnings because \u201cthe retroactive pay raise was not in effect at the time of the injury.\u201d (Emphasis in original.)\nBoth parties sought review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision before the Commission, which modified Cianci\u2019s AWW to include the earnings from his retroactive pay raise. The modification resulted in an AWW of $698.83. The Commission otherwise affirmed and adopted the arbitrator\u2019s decision.\nThe City appealed the Commission\u2019s AWW modification to the Cook County circuit court. The court confirmed the modification, and the City filed this appeal.\nSTANDARD OF REVIEW\nThe City\u2019s claim turns on construction of section 10 of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/10 (West 2000)). Statutory construction involves a question of law invoking de novo review. King v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 189 Ill. 2d 167 (2000).\nANALYSIS\nThe primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature\u2019s intent. Modern Drop Forge Corp. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 284 Ill. App. 3d 259 (1996). The best indicator of legislative intent is the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language. Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469 (1994). We will not resort to extrinsic aids for construction in lieu of applying such meaning. See Bogseth v. Emanuel, 166 Ill. 2d 507 (1995).\nSection 10 reads:\n\u201cThe compensation shall be computed on the basis of the \u2018Average weekly wage\u2019 which shall mean the actual earnings of the employee in the employment in which he was working at the time of the injury during the period of 52 weeks ending with the last day of the employee\u2019s last full pay period immediately preceding the date of injury, illness or disablement excluding overtime, and bonus divided by 52 ***.\u201d 820 ILCS 305/10 (West 2000).\nAccordingly, a claimant\u2019s AWW is determined by (1) ascertaining how much money he actually earned during the 52 weeks preceding his injury, and (2) dividing that figure by 52.\nThe instant issue arises from the first step of this process. The relevant inquiry is whether Cianci\u2019s retroactive pay raise qualifies as \u201cactual earnings\u201d for purposes of section 10. The plain meaning of the term \u201cearnings\u201d warrants an affirmative answer. A claimant earns wages when he completes the work for which the wages are remuneration. See, e.g., Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 525 (7th ed. 1999) (to \u201cearn\u201d means \u201c[t]o do something that entitles one to a reward or result, whether it is received or not\u201d). There is no dispute that Cianci\u2019s retroactive pay raise was remuneration for work he completed during the relevant 52-week period. Thus, the Commission properly included the raise when calculating his AWW\nDuring its oral argument, the City emphasized the word \u201cactual\u201d to assert that only \u201cpresently existing\u201d wages should be included in an AWW calculation. However, since \u201cactual\u201d is an adjective that modifies the word \u201cearnings\u201d in section 10, the definition of \u201cearnings\u201d is dispositive. In any event, Cianci\u2019s retroactive wages are no less \u201cactual\u201d (i.e., existing in fact) than the wages he received before his injury. We realize that the City was not contractually bound to pay the disputed wages when Cianci was injured. However, we fail to see how this fact can benefit the City in light of its subsequent agreement to pay the wages based on work Cianci performed before his injury.\nMaintaining its focus on sequence, the City stresses the language from section 10 regarding the 52-week period preceding a claimant\u2019s injury. According to the City, that language excludes Cianci\u2019s retroactive wages because he did not receive them until after his injury. Again we note that the decisive factor in section 10 is the amount of money a claimant actually earns, not the amount he actually receives, during the prescribed 52-week period. The fact of earning is independent from the fact of receiving what has been earned. Cianci\u2019s AWW includes his retroactive pay raise because he earned the raise during the prescribed period. His receipt of the raise at a later date is immaterial in light of the language in section 10.\nAppellate courts in other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion. See Tampa Electric Co. v. Bradshaw, 477 So. 2d 624 (Fla. App. 1985) (distinguishing between wages actually earned and wages actually paid during relevant statutory period); The Carl Gunderson Case, 423 Mass. 642, 670 N.E.2d 386 (1996) (same); see also Coffin v. Hannaford Brothers Co., 396 A.2d 1007 (Me. 1979) (including retroactive earnings in AWW calculation despite statute defining AWW in terms of amount claimant was receiving when injured).\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court\u2019s judgment confirming the Commission\u2019s holding that Cianci\u2019s AWW includes the earnings from his retroactive pay raise.\nAffirmed.\nMcCULLOUGH, EJ., and HOFFMAN, O\u2019MALLEY and RARICK, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gerald F. Cooper, Jr., of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Joseph J. Spingola, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Giuseppe Cianci, Appellee).\nFirst District (Industrial Commission Division)\nNo. 1\u201401\u20142959WC\nOpinion filed May 23, 2002.\nRehearing denied June 20, 2002.\nGerald F. Cooper, Jr., of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, of Chicago, for appellant.\nJoseph J. Spingola, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0402-01", "first_page_order": 420, "last_page_order": 423 }