{ "id": 4303488, "name": "BOYD ELECTRIC, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. (William Dee, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Boyd Electric v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission", "decision_date": "2010-07-13", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201409\u20140766WC", "first_page": "256", "last_page": "260", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "403 Ill. App. 3d 256" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "421 N.E.2d 918", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "factual issue arose where respondent offered testimony of three coworkers who stated that they had personally observed claimant perform manual labor and claimant offered testimony of himself and his two sons as to the nature of that labor" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5470137 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "factual issue arose where respondent offered testimony of three coworkers who stated that they had personally observed claimant perform manual labor and claimant offered testimony of himself and his two sons as to the nature of that labor" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/85/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "681 N.E.2d 107", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "110" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 Ill. App. 3d 6", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 350985 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/289/0006-01" ] }, { "cite": "818 N.E.2d 1242", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1245-46" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 Ill. App. 3d 555", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3364465 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559-60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/353/0555-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ill. Reg. 8221", "category": "laws:admin_register", "reporter": "Ill. Reg.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "724 N.E.2d 896", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "898" }, { "page": "899" }, { "page": "899" }, { "page": "899" }, { "page": "900" }, { "page": "900-01" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 Ill. 2d 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1224798 ], "weight": 7, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "171" }, { "page": "172" }, { "page": "172" }, { "page": "172" }, { "page": "174-75" }, { "page": "175" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/189/0167-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 532, "char_count": 11040, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14486192052123503 }, "sha256": "7411daa0250db5494054640265e16c4d88d326ba6c321e4cb9eafd94c8da717a", "simhash": "1:b826a492e7c1cfb8", "word_count": 1802 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:11:09.619155+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "BOYD ELECTRIC, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS WORKERS\u2019 COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. (William Dee, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE DONOVAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent, Boyd Electric, filed a petition for modification of a permanent total disability (PTD) award granted to claimant, William Dee, and sought an order requiring claimant to produce income tax records and earnings records. The Illinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission (Commission) (820 ILCS 305/13 (West 2006)), denied respondent\u2019s petition. Respondent filed a timely petition for administrative review in the circuit court of Cook County. The circuit court confirmed the Commission\u2019s decision. On appeal, respondent contends that the decision to deny its petition to modify benefits is contrary to the plain reading of the Illinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2006)) and the applicable Illinois law.\nOn March 16, 2001, claimant suffered an injury to his hip when he lifted a heavy spool of electric cable while performing duties in the course of his employment with respondent. Claimant experienced increasing hip pain that eventually required bilateral hip replacement surgery. He did not return to work for respondent.\nClaimant filed an application for adjustment of claim alleging that he sustained a work-related injury on March 26, 2001, while lifting a heavy spool of electrical cable in the course of his employment with respondent. During the evidentiary hearing on September 7, 2006, the parties stipulated that claimant sustained a work-related injury to his hip on March 26, 2001, and that he was not a candidate for vocational rehabilitation. Upon considering the stipulation and the medical records submitted by claimant, the arbitrator found that claimant was permanently and totally disabled under section 8 of the Act (820 ILCS 305/8 (West 2006)). The arbitrator awarded claimant temporary total disability benefits for a period of 2842/? weeks, from March 27, 2001, through September 6, 2006, and a weekly PTD benefit of $866.67 for the remainder of claimant\u2019s life or the duration of the disability. The arbitrator\u2019s decision was filed with the Commission on October 10, 2006.\nOn June 25, 2008, respondent filed a petition to modify claimant\u2019s benefits pursuant to section 8(f) (820 ILCS 305/8(f) (West 2006)) and alleged that it had made an inquiry into claimant\u2019s \u201ccurrent and recent earnings with counsel for claimant and he has unequivocally refused to provide earnings information.\u201d Respondent claimed that it had a right \u201cto seasonably inquire into either the medical status or earnings of claimant.\u201d Respondent sought an order requiring disclosure of claimant\u2019s current and recent earnings information or a termination of benefits until claimant disclosed the information. Claimant filed a response and asserted that he refused respondent\u2019s request for his income tax records and earnings records on grounds that respondent is not entitled to the records and the requested information is extant.\nThe Commission considered respondent\u2019s petition for modification of benefits during a hearing on July 14, 2008. There is no record of the proceedings before the Commission, and neither party filed a bystander\u2019s report (210 Ill. 2d R. 323(c)). In an order dated July 14, 2008, the Commission denied respondent\u2019s petition. Respondent filed a petition for administrative review in the circuit court of Cook County. The circuit court confirmed the Commission\u2019s decision. In its written order, the court specifically ruled that respondent was not entitled to review claimant\u2019s tax returns as part of its petition for modification.\nOn appeal, respondent contends that pursuant to section 8(f) of the Act and King v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 189 Ill. 2d 167, 724 N.E.2d 896 (2000), it has a right to inquire into the medical status or the earnings of claimant for the purpose of determining whether claimant\u2019s benefits should be modified or terminated. Respondent asserts that section 8(f) allows it to conduct an occasional and timely investigation into claimant\u2019s medical condition or earnings status, and that it merely requested copies of claimant\u2019s income tax returns to verify claimant\u2019s employment and earnings status.\nThe issue raised in this appeal involves a question of statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. King, 189 Ill. 2d at 171, 724 N.E.2d at 898.\nSection 8(f) of the Act provides in pertinent part:\n\u201cIn case of complete disability, which renders the employee wholly and permanently incapable of work, or in the specific case of total and permanent disability as provided in subparagraph 18 of paragraph (e) of this Section, compensation shall be payable at the rate provided in subparagraph 2 of paragraph (b) of this Section for life.\nIf any employee who receives an award under this paragraph afterwards returns to work or is able to do so, and earns or is able to earn as much as before the accident, payments under such award shall cease. If such employee returns to work, or is able to do so, and earns or is able to earn part but not as much as before the accident, such award shall be modified so as to conform to an award under paragraph (d) of this Section. If such award is terminated or reduced under the provisions of this paragraph, such employees have the right at any time within 30 months after the date of such termination or reduction to file a petition with the Commission for the purpose of determining whether any disability exists as a result of the original accidental injury and the extent thereof.\u201d 820 ILCS 305/8(f) (West 2006).\nSection 12 of the Act provides in pertinent part:\n\u201cAn employee entitled to receive disability payments shall be required, if requested by the employer, to submit himself, at the expense of the employer, for examination to a duly qualified medical practitioner or surgeon selected by the employer, at any time and place reasonably convenient for the employee, either within or without the State of Illinois, for the purpose of determining the nature, extent and probable duration of the injury received by the employee, and for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of compensation which may be due the employee from time to time for disability according to the provisions of the Act. An employee may also be required to submit himself for examination by medical experts under subsection (c) of Section 19.\u201d 820 ILCS 305/12 (West 2006).\nSection 8(f) sets forth a procedure for seeking modification of a PTD award. See King, 189 Ill. 2d at 172, 724 N.E.2d at 899. In accordance with the plain language of section 8(f), a petition for modification of a PTD award is addressed to whether the employee has returned to work or is able to do so and to the employee\u2019s earnings or ability to earn. King, 189 Ill. 2d at 172, 724 N.E.2d at 899. The employer bears the burden to show that the employee\u2019s award should be modified pursuant to the provisions of section 8(f). King, 189 Ill. 2d at 172, 724 N.E.2d at 899.\nIn accordance with section 12, an employee entitled to receive disability payments is required to submit to medical exams at the employer\u2019s request in order to ascertain \u201cthe amount of compensation which may be due the employee from time to time for disability according to the provisions of this Act.\u201d 820 ILCS 305/12 (West 2006). The Illinois Supreme Court has concluded that an employee who receives PTD benefits is an employee entitled to receive disability payments under section 12 of the Act. The supreme court further concluded that the plain language in section 12 allows an employer to request an employee who receives PTD benefits to submit to a medical examination even though the employer has not filed a section 8(f) petition for modification. King, 189 Ill. 2d at 174-75, 724 N.E.2d at 900. The supreme court noted that a change in claimant\u2019s physical disability is relevant in considering whether claimant is able to return to work or is able to earn, and that a section 12 medical evaluation may be required in order for an employer to determine whether grounds exist for filing a section 8(f) petition to modify. King, 189 Ill. 2d at 175, 724 N.E.2d at 900-01.\nIn this case, respondent argues for an extension of the holding in King to require an employee who receives PTD benefits to produce his income tax records and earnings information upon a request from his employer. We note that respondent has not pointed to any provision in the Act, akin to section 12, that would authorize an employer to demand income tax records from an employee receiving PTD benefits or that would require an employee to produce such records. The Commission has been granted statutory authority to make and publish procedural rules, and in exercising its authority, the Commission is under a mandate to make the rules and procedures \u201cas simple and summary\u201d as is reasonable. See 820 ILCS 305/16 (West 2006). The procedural rules made and implemented by the Commission do not provide for pretrial discovery. See 50 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a77020.10 et seq., amended at 15 Ill. Reg. 8221, eff. May 17, 1991; Walton v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 353 Ill. App. 3d 555, 559-60, 818 N.E.2d 1242, 1245-46 (2004). In addition, the Act does not provide for a formal pretrial discovery process. See Chidichimo v. University of Chicago Press, 289 Ill. App. 3d 6, 11, 681 N.E.2d 107, 110 (1997). Amendments or additions to the Commission\u2019s procedural rules are within the purview of the Commission. 820 ILCS 305/16 (West 2006). The changes advanced by respondent are properly directed to the legislature or the Commission and not to a court of review.\nIn this case, respondent has not presented any authority to support its request for production of claimant\u2019s income tax records and earnings information. There is no indication in the record that respondent sought a section 12 examination, the statutory provision for evaluating any possible change in claimant\u2019s disability status, or that it presented witnesses to testify in regard to claimant\u2019s capacity to work. See, e.g., Keystone Steel & Wire Co. v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 85 Ill. 2d 178, 421 N.E.2d 918 (1981) (factual issue arose where respondent offered testimony of three coworkers who stated that they had personally observed claimant perform manual labor and claimant offered testimony of himself and his two sons as to the nature of that labor). The Commission did not err in denying respondent\u2019s petition for modification and its request for production of earnings information.\nAccordingly, the decision of the circuit court confirming the decision of the Commission is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcCullough, ej., and hoffman, Hudson, and hold-ridge, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE DONOVAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Eugene F. Keefe, of Keefe, Campbell & Associates, LLC, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Richard E. Aleksy and Megan C. Kivisto, both of Corti, Aleksy & Castaneda, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BOYD ELECTRIC, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS WORKERS\u2019 COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. (William Dee, Appellee).\nFirst District (Illinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission Division)\nNo. 1\u201409\u20140766WC\nOpinion filed July 13, 2010.\nEugene F. Keefe, of Keefe, Campbell & Associates, LLC, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRichard E. Aleksy and Megan C. Kivisto, both of Corti, Aleksy & Castaneda, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0256-01", "first_page_order": 272, "last_page_order": 276 }