Editor’s comment: In Keating v. 68th and Paxton, L.L.C., claimant was working on a commercial property when he fell and was impaled on a fence. Ouch. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which alleged the owners and property managers who hired him to work on the property were statutory employers under sections 1 and 3 of the Workers’ Compensation Act and were obligated to provide Plaintiff with the benefits of workers’ compensation insurance. He further alleged Defendants knowingly failed to provide him with such insurance. As a result, he alleged Section 4(d) of the Act permitted him to sue Defendants in circuit court, where proof of his injuries constituted a rebuttable presumption of liability against Defendants.
Defendants then filed a motion to strike those newly added paragraphs pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2006)). Defendants argued the allegations were legally insufficient to invoke section 4(d) of the Workers’ Compensation Act because Plaintiff failed to allege the Workers’ Compensation Commission made the requisite findings that Defendants were statutory employers and they knowingly failed to provide him with the benefits of workers’ comp insurance.
Following a hearing, the circuit court granted both of Defendants’ motions. On the motion to strike, the court found the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether Defendants were statutory employers under the Act and whether they knowingly failed to provide Plaintiff with required insurance.
The Appellate Court, First District ruled the demolition worker’s claims against the owner and managers of the apartment complex on which he was working knowingly failed to provide workers’ compensation insurance in violation of the Workers’ Compensation Act were required to be first presented to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission for hearing before any civil action against Defendants could be filed in circuit court.
The Appellate Court noted allowing an injured worker to bypass the Workers’ Compensation Commission would defy the stated purpose of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court also noted the Illinois legislature demonstrated a clear intent to vest the Commission with primary jurisdiction superior to that of the circuit court with respect to determining the existence of an employee-employer relationship.
As academicians, we agree with this legal outcome. We also caution the owners of all commercial properties that you need to insure anyone working on the property has to have workers’ compensation coverage for their workers and the workers for any contractor or sub-contractor on the job.
This is a ruling of first impression. Please do not hesitate to send your thoughts and comments.
Post Provided by Gene Keefe of Keefe, Campbell & Associates, LLC. The firm was started by
Eugene F. Keefe, Michael J. Danielewicz, John P.
Campbell, Joseph R. Needham and Shawn R. Biery with
the goal of providing high-quality and cost-effective
civil litigation services for the defense of
self-insured employers and insurance carriers.
