Illinois Workers’ Compensation Decision Affirmed - Pactiv v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission
Workers' compensation claims arise as a result of an employee being injured on the job. Because of the unique nature of these cases, Illinois workers' compensation claims are handled by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission (IWCC) instead of a civil court. However, just like other court systems, sometimes the IWCC does not rule correctly and claimants need to appeal its decision to a higher authority.
For example, in the case of Pactiv v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (Juan Luna, Appellee, No. 1-10-0086 WC, both the employer and employee appealed the decision made by the IWCC. The Illinois worker injury lawsuit arose out of an injury that the claimant, Juan Luna, received while working for his employer, Pactiv. Mr. Luna operated an extrusion machine, which created plastic rolls that weighted between 70 and 80 lbs., and was responsible for making simple repairs and basic adjustments.
However, while operating the extrusion machine in 2004, Luna lost five fingers on his right hand, which was also his dominant hand. Mr. Luna underwent extensive physical therapy and was able to eventually lift up to 5 lbs. with his right hand. His physician cleared Mr. Luna to return to medium or heavy duty at work. While Pactiv initially placed Mr. Luna on light duty, he was eventually returned to his prior job of running the extrusion machine.
These cases are brought in the Industrial Commission in California because that’s the only jurisdiction that allows long-retired professional athletes to pursue workers’ compensation for injuries they suffered and continue to suffer from their playing days. Illinois has no similar provision for recovery in the Illinois Industrial Commission. 
If the plaintiff had been working for a construction company instead of a railroad company, than his injury would have been handled by the 
In Lindsey, it was alleged that the plaintiff, Willie Taylor, died after a fellow employee backed a truck into Taylor. The case becomes complicated because the truck was rented by their employer, Open Kitchens, from Carmichael Leasing Company. 
However, sometimes this is not the reality, in which case an 
A recent Cook County verdict illustrates such a situation. The case involved a 20 year-old construction worker who sustained a broken femur and a back injury after a fall from a scaffold while working as a construction laborer on a project at a public library in Mt. Prospect, Illinois. 
In 2002 the worker fractured his right leg while playing wallyball – a version of volleyball that’s played on a racquetball court. At the time of the incident he was employed by the 
Upon appeal the Illinois Appellate Court for the Second District found that in cases where employees who are exposed to asbestos fibers at work then bring the deadly mineral home on their work clothes and thereby expose family members that it does not result in liability to the employer. The Appellate Court concluded that Aurora Equipment Company owed no duty to the wife of an employee under premises liability law because the wife was not on Aurora's land. 
In Grabs, et al. v. 
The employee, Clinton Dwyer, testified that a co-worker had asked for his help in dislodging a bag of snack chips from a vending machine near an employee break room at his Circuit City store. Dwyer said that he tried shaking the machine, but failed to dislodge the chips. He then shook the machine from side to side, which still did not dislodge the chips. Then he hit the machine with his shoulder and hip, at which point he fell to the floor and was complaining of hip pain. 
In Interstate Scaffolding, an Illinois worker was injured on the job when the emergency team dropped him from a backboard. The worker hit his head and suffered a concussion, blurred vision and other medical issues. 
The profits, losses and liabilities resulting from the project were to be shared 60-40 between the two companies, with Midwest getting the larger share. As part of this agreement, Midwest was responsible for providing the labor and covering the workers' compensation insurance. 
This situation applies when the control of the job's safety clearly rests in the hands of the builder or owner of the project. The relevant company can be held responsible for a construction accident when one of its workers is placed in such a dangerous situation that his/her injuries were foreseeable and predictable.
Michael Hadrys, an Adjustable Forms employee, was injured while working on a construction project in Illinois called the River East Project. And as is typical in the construction industry, his insurance was an owner controlled insurance program (OCIP) meaning that it was covered through the owner of the job and not his direct employer. The OCIP was being covered by Reliance Insurance Co., who have since folded, and that's when things get complicated.
Brzinski arrived at work in Orland Park, Illinois, to investigate an accident. He was walking along the service road that ran parallel to the railroad tracks for the purpose of taking photographs. While he was walking, the ground gave way and Mr. Brzinski stepped into an 18-inch sinkhole with his left foot and injured himself. 
Because of 
The statute seeks to protect construction parties from having to defend against stale claims. Since its inception the statute has been a balancing act between the rights of the injured party and the rights of the party responsible for the construction. Illinois courts generally have limited the statute to apply to claims of construction or improvement to real property. However, where some courts differ is on claims brought as to duties of maintenance and inspection.
