ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
NOTICE OF ARBITRATOR DECISION
MILLER, I(E’i
Employee/Petitioner
Case# ‘1’”2 ‘I; IT –
QQK GQII”‘T¥ “‘7 01 PECQPOS
Employer/Respondent
On 8/30/2012, an arbitration decision on this case was filed with the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission in Chicago, a copy of which is enclosed.
If the Commission reviews this award, interest of 0.14% shall accrue from the date listed above to the day before the date of payment; however, if an employee’s appeal results in either no change or a decrease in this award, interest shall not accrue.
A copy of this decision is mailed to the following parties:
‘007 2, JIG’t I I 0 ‘?’ QSE’£ 5 ! JeOJ idA 2 ICODGLFJ• ret 60 GMI4DAOEOtsil!’! 1Dt6J @II 118:’:88, II 69656 QltOi
Ot!Bit 666141 I SIAILSAI 1611421 3 Of I IW tli s iili81 1:’: 8 l!l ‘ ‘Gi?ii A’S’ I Iii I 3 ° I sy GSD’Tsn on, sgg <tiiifj? 88, :t csc
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COOK
ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
ARBITRATION DECISION
IH’Jlo II IetiLL Case #ll’N@ 369…,.
Employee/Petitioner
v.
cqgy QQ1 r ITY ”liifAJs Rl!i@ijJti’ii
Employer/Respondent
An Application for Adjustment of Claim was filed in this matter, and a Notice of Hearing was mailed to each party. The matter was heard by the Honorable Rolsctt z;; llltams, arbitrator of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, in the city of Chicago, on July 27, 2012. After reviewing all of the evidence presented, the arbitrator hereby makes findings on the disputed issues, and attaches those findings to this document.
ISSUES:
- 0 Was the respondent operating under and subject to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation or Occupational Diseases Act?
- D Was there an employee-employer relationship?
- Did an accident occur that arose out of and in the course of the petitioner’s employment by the respondent? D
- What was the date of the accident?
- D Was timely notice of the accident given to the respondent?
- Is the petitioner’s present condition of ill-being causally related to the injury?
- D What were the petitioner’s earnings?
- D What was the petitioner’s age at the time of the accident?
- D What was the petitioner’s marital status at the time of the accident?
- IZJ Were the medical services that were provided to petitioner reasonable and necessary?
- IZJ What temporary benefits are due: DTPD DMaintenance DTID? IZJ
- What is the nature and extent of injury?
- 0 Should penalties or fees be imposed upon the respondent?
- 0 Is the respondent due any credit?
- 0 Prospective medical care?
FINDINGS
- On August 29, 2011, the respondent was operating under and subject to the provisions of the Act.
- On this date, an employee-employer relationship existed between the petitioner and respondent.
- Timely notice of this accident was given to the respondent.
- In the year preceding the injury, the petitioner earned $41,129.92; the average weekly wage was $790.96.
- At the time of injury, the petitioner was 41 years of age, single with no children under 18.
- The parties agreed that the respondent paid $1,404.00 in medical expenses and shall pay the medical providers directly for all responsible bills.
ORDER:
The respondent shall pay the petitioner temporary total disability benefits of $527.31/week for 10-3/7 weeks, from August 30 through September 7, 2011, and from September 20 through November 22, 2011, which is the period of temporary total disability for which compensation is payable.
The respondent shall pay the petitioner the sum of $474.58/week for a further period of 5 weeks, as provided in Section 8(d)2 of the Act, because the injuries sustained caused the permanent partial disability to petitioner to the extent of 1% loss of use of the man as a whole.
The respondent shall pay the petitioner compensation that has accrued from August 29, 2011, through July 27, 2012, and shall pay the remainder of the award, if any, m weekly payments.
The medical care rendered the petitioner was reasonable and necessary. The respondent shall pay the medical bills in accordance with the Act and the medical fee schedule directly to the medical providers. The respondent shall be given credit for any amount it paid toward the medical bills, including any amount paid within the provisions of Section 8(j) of the Act, and any adjustments, and shall hold the petitioner harmless for all the medical bills paid by its group health insurance carrier.
RULES REGARDING APPEALS Unless a party files a Petition for Review within 30 days after receipt of this decision, and perfects a review in accordance with the Act and Rules, then this decision shall be entered as the decision of the Commission.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST RATE If the Commission reviews this award, interest at the rate set forth on the Notice of Decision of Arbitrator shall accrue from the date listed below to the day before the date of payment; however, if an employee’s appeal results in either no change or a decrease in this award, interest shall not accrue.
Robert ilhams L-
Date AUG 30 2012
FINDINGS OF FACTS:
The petitioner, a 41-year-old cashier, fell on August 29, 2011, when he attempted to sit down on a four-wheel stool. He received immediate care at Uii Hospital for back pain. X-rays revealed mild degenerative lumbar spondylosis. He followed up on September ih and reported doing better. His straight leg raise test was unremarkable. On September 20th, the petitioner reported a return of his back pain and was started on physical therapy. On November 22nd, the petitioner reported the resolution of his back pain and was discharged and released to return to work.
FINDING REGARDING WHETHER THE PETITIONER’S ACCIDENT AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE RESPONDENT:
Based upon the testimony and the evidence submitted, the petitioner proved that he sustained an accident on August 29, 2011, arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent. The petitioner was performing his work duties when a wheeled stool rolled away from him resulting in his fall after he had placed his foot on the stool’s foot rail to lift himself up and sit down.
FINDING REGARDING WHETHER THE MEDICAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO PETITIONER ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY:
The medical care rendered the petitioner was reasonable and necessary.
FINDING REGARDING WHETHER THE PETITIONER’S PRESENT CONDITION OF ILL-BEING IS CAUSALLY RELATED TO THE INJURY:
Based upon the testimony and the evidence submitted, the petitioner proved that his current condition of ill-being with his low back is causally related to the work injury. - .
FINDING REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION DUE FOR TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY:
The petitioner was off and unable to work from August 30 through September 7, 2011. The petitioner was taken off of work on September 20 through November 22, 2011. The respondent shall pay the petitioner temporary total disability benefits of $527.31/week for 10-3/7 weeks, from August 30 through September 7, 2011, and from September 20 through November 22, 2011, as provided in Section 8(b) of the Act, because the injuries sustained caused the disabling condition of the petitioner.
FINDING REGARDING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURY:
The respondent shall pay the petitioner the sum of $474.58/week for a further period of 5 weeks, as provided in Section 8(d)2 of the Act, because the injuries sustained caused the permanent partial disability to petitioner to the extent of 1% loss of use of the man as a whole.
