Synopsis: IL Appellate Court, WC Division Awards WC Death Benefits From Passing in year 2006 in Odd Dispute.
Editor’s comment: In Cronk v. IWCC, the IL Appellate Court awarded IL WC Death Benefits to the son of a construction manager who passed 18 years ago!!
The facts indicate Decedent Cronk worked for Kimball Hill Homes as a construction manager. He complained of difficulty breathing shoveling snow at a build site in December 2006. Co-workers summoned paramedics, and Cronk went into cardiac arrest in front of them while they were at work. Decedent was taken to the hospital and passed there.
The coroner concluded the cause of death was hypertensive cardiovascular disease with coronary atherosclerosis as a significant contributing factor.
Dr. Richard Carroll a noted cardiologist based in Westmont, IL reported because of the "temporal relationship between [Cronk’s] shoveling activities and his development of chest pain, it would make sense that the two were related,” but he later testified Decedent Cronk’s coronary artery disease was most likely due to genetic factors, low “good” cholesterol and daily cigarette smoking. He suggested that the immediate cause of death was likely fatal cardiac arrhythmia and an abnormal heart muscle.
Decedent Cronk’s wife applied for IL WC death benefits. She supported her claim with a report from another cardiologist, Dr. Thomas Tamlyn, who opined that Cronk’s death was “obviously brought on or aggravated by physical exertion.”
Kimball Hill settled the wife’s claim in 2009, but the company maintained that Cronk’s death was unrelated to his employment.
With respect to the risk manager and others at this Respondent along with the hearing officer and IL WC Commission panel, I cannot imagine these facts would be the basis for a dispute—Claimant died on the job. That is about a 99.99% chance of a compensable death claim in this nutty “blue” state. Having settled with the wife, I cannot imagine why this employer didn’t bring it all to a reasonable close years ago.
Decedent Cronk’s son later filed a claim for IL WC death benefits. An Arbitrator found that Decedent Cronk’s death was not related to his employment. The Arbitrator also found that the son was not entitled to survivor benefits, even if Cronk’s death was work-related, since the son was not enrolled full time in school and over the age of 18 when Decedent Cronk passed. The Appellate Court ruling indicates the son enrolled in school, although not until after turning 18.
The Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed the denial.
The Slowest Claimant Attorney in IL WC History?
I struggled to make sense of this claim and denial of death benefits to the son of Decedent Cronk. Then I looked it up and learned who Claimant’s counsel is. I assure my readers, in my opinion, this attorney is possibly the slowest Claimant attorney of all time—many of his claims are not resolved because he is rarely prepared and never seems to want to proceed in a timely fashion, regardless of prodding by the Arbitrators and Commissioners before whom he appears.
It is comical to see a claim as simple and as forthright as this go on more than 18 years. Our IWCC and courts are still litigating this simple claim. I want to assure you, if you look at the IL WC Commission’s call sheets, this attorney has lots and lots of claims go on for decades.
It Remains Challenging to Understand Denial by the IWCC
The Appellate Court ruling is simple and clear in providing the son limited death benefits, that he may now receive decades after filing!!!!???
The Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division said an injury occurs “in the course” of employment when it happens during employment, at a place where the employee may reasonably perform employment duties and while a worker fulfills those duties or engages in some incidental employment duties. The court noted Decedent Cronk’s condition set in as he was shoveling show leading to the entrance of a home built by the employer in anticipation of the arrival of prospective buyers. The court said the son did not need not prove some particular amount or weight of snow to show that Cronk was engaged in employment duties.
“In our opinion, it is a reasonably expected duty of decedent, as construction manager, to clear snow from the driveway and sidewalk of a newly built house in anticipation of prospective buyers,” the court said. “Therefore, the manifest weight of the evidence demonstrates that decedent’s cardiac arrest while shoveling snow at one of employer’s newly built homes occurred in the course of his employment.”
The court also said the manifest weight of the evidence shows that Cronk’s employment-related activity was a causative factor in his cardiac arrest, citing Tamlyn’s report and Carroll’s initial report.
“Here, we cannot agree with the commission’s reliance on Dr. Carroll’s testimony, where the manifest weight of the evidence, as acknowledged in the testimonies of both medical experts, demonstrates that shoveling the snow was a contributing factor in decedent’s resulting condition of ill-being,” the court said. “This reveals a causal relationship even if such physical activity is not the sole or primary causative factor.”
The court said the IL WC Commission further erred in finding the son was not eligible for benefits.
The Workers’ Compensation Act provides that a child qualifies for benefits if “he or she is (1) under the age of 18; (2) under the age of 25 and a full-time student; or (3) physically or mentally handicapped,” the court said.
The evidence was that the son was 18 and a recent high school graduate when Cronk died, the court said. The son took a year off before enrolling in college after Cronk’s death.
The court said the brief interruption in the son’s education while under the age of 25 did not preclude him from benefits.
To read the court’s decision send a reply.
We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.
Synopsis: Another Anti-Lawyer Ruling from our Appellate Court, WC Division.
Editor’s comment: I have told my readers before and I will keep telling you, appellate rulings like this completely strip away any defense to “accident” and are certain to end litigation of IL WC accident disputes. In short, all workers can’t be “travelers” with global and irrefutable WC coverage for anything that happens to them.
The Illinois Appellate Court, WC Division ruled a municipal worker was a “traveling employee” and entitled to benefits for his injuries from falling down stairs as he was leaving his office. Please note the actions that led to Claimant magically obtaining “traveling employee” status was the simple and ordinary act of traversing a staircase.
Please note the words “traveling employee” do not appear in the IL WC Act or Rules—a “traveling employee” is whatever you want it to be. The problem with the entire debate about “traveling employee” is once you decide a worker is a “traveler,” anything that happens to him or her is related to work and is an “accident.” We can then have IL workers fill out forms and get benefits like group health because the main accident defense is stripped away.
In traditional workers’ comp law and practice, a “traveling employee” is someone sent on a trip to a far-off place—somewhere where there are unusual or unexpected dangers that might cause injury.
If you make an inspector walking on stairs a “traveler,” I ask the rhetorical question, aren’t all workers “travelers?” Don’t we all walk across rooms and stairs and ramps and ladders?? What would it take NOT to be a “traveler?”
It is my seasoned legal view, if you can’t reasonably fight or dispute WC accidents, you don’t need lawyers on either side, nor do we need hearing officers.
Claimant Iniquez worked for the Town of Cicero as a blight inspector. According to Iniquez, he normally began his workday at Cicero’s Town Hall. He would enter the building using a key card, then use the south stairwell to ascend to the second floor to his office. Iniquez would retrieve his work phone and download his assignments for the day from Cicero’s computer. To leave town hall, he would use the south stairwell, go to his town-provided vehicle and then drive around identifying blighted properties.
During his workday, Iniquez would be required to return to the Town Hall to receive further work assignments, and he would go up and down the south stairwell three or four times per day. I don’t consider this a dangerous or unusual job.
On July 2, 2018, Claimant Iniquez slipped and fell while descending the stairwell, suffering multiple injuries. There is no indication in the record of any problem with the stairs and we can therefore assume they were clean, free of debris, well-lit and were in reasonably good state of repair.
Claimant Iniquez filed a workers’ compensation claim. An IL WC Arbitrator denied the claim, finding Iniquez failed to meet his burden of proving that he sustained an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment. The Arbitrator specifically found that, at the time of his fall, Iniquez was not a traveling employee, and although Iniquez’s injuries were incurred in the course of his employment, they did not arise out of his employment. In my view, that is an accurate statement of Illinois workers comp law, particularly as there were no construction/maintenance issues with the staircase.
The Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, finding that Iniquez was somehow a “traveling employee” and that he did not lose that status merely because his accident occurred on stairs in Cicero’s facility. A circuit court judge affirmed the Commission’s decision.
The Illinois Appellate Court explained that a traveling employee is required to leave his employer’s premises to do his job. I would reply to this assertion to point out, the “employer’s premises” were the City of Cicero and Claimant didn’t leave Cicero!! Claimant had to be strongly familiar with the City in which he worked—there is no reason, none, to provide WC benefits if Claimant fell down a normal and ordinary set of stairs due to whatever he did to cause himself injuries.
“The uncontradicted evidence in the record established that travel away from Cicero’s Town Hall was an essential element of the claimant’s duties as a blight inspector,” the court said. The court also noted that Iniquez “was injured when he fell down stairs after he arrived at work, had retrieved his assignments from Cicero’s computer and was on his way to his Cicero-provided vehicle.” Based on this record, the court said, the IL WC Commission "correctly determined that the claimant was a traveling employee.”
An injury to a “traveling worker” arises out of his employment if he was injured while engaging in conduct that was reasonable and foreseeable by his employer, the court added. The court said it had no basis to disturb the Commission’s conclusion that Iniquez’s conduct on his way to his assigned vehicle to perform his inspections was reasonable, foreseeable and incidental to his job.
I again assert the vast majority of U.S. workers in all fields of endeavor are “traveling employees” by this Court’s challenging analysis. As I indicate above, I can’t think of a job that wouldn’t make most workers into whatever this Court’s version of a “traveling employee” might be.
We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.
