Live Chat
Call Now: (312) 600-0000
Get a FREE Case Review
Leading Lawyers logo
Super Lawyers logo
American Association for Justice
WILG logo
Illinois Trial Lawyers Association logo
Avvo Rating logo
Workers' Compensation Lawyers Association logo

Injured Back and Permanent Partial Disability

July 24, 2016

A grocery store warehouse worker testified he worked for the employer as an “order selector” in the warehouse, a position that required him to lift 1,800 to 2,300 boxes per day, each ranging from 5 to 100 pounds. On his second day back to work after being off for more than one year due to a carpal tunnel injury, he was working in the meat department. According to the man, as he lifted a box weighing between 90 and 95 pounds, he felt a sharp pain in his low back. He “stopped for a minute or two” and then finished his shift. He filed an application for adjustment of claim pursuant to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 to 30 (West 2006)), seeking benefits from the employer, Central Grocers.

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2016 IL App (3d) 150557WC-U

FILED: JULY 5, 2016

NO. 3-15-0557WC

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

THRID DISTRICT

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION

CENTRAL GROCERS

Appeal from
Circuit Court of
Will County
Nos. 14MR1392
14MR1413
Appellant,

v.

THE ILLINOIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

COMMISSION et al. (Marque Smart, Appellees).

Honorable
Roger Rickmon Judge Presiding

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgement of the court.
Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justices Hutchinson and Steward concurred in judgement.
Justice Hoffman specially concurred.

ORDER

The Commission’s calculation of claimant’s of claimant’s average weekly wage was supported by the evidence.
The Commission’s reliance on its calculation of claimant’s average weekly wage to determine TTD benefits was supported by the record.
The Commission’s award of PPD benefits was appropriate, despite the absence of a PPD impairment report.
Claimant’s contention regarding fees and penal tiled presented no controversy and was moot.

View Favorable Decision