Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

40 Citing cases

  1. Labor Network v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2019 IL App (1st) 181775 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    There is support in the record for the Commission's finding that the work-related accidental injuries aggravated or accelerated the claimant's preexisting conditions. ¶ 46 B. Reasonable and Necessary Medical Care ¶ 47 Under section 8(a) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/8(a) (West 2012)), a claimant is entitled to recover reasonable medical expenses, the incurrence of which are causally related to an accident arising out of and in the scope of her employment and which are necessary to diagnose, or cure the effects of the claimant's injury. Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Com'n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 463, 470 (2011) (citing University of Illinois v. Industrial Comm'n, 232 Ill. App. 3d 154, 164 (1992)). Whether a medical expense is either reasonable or necessary is a question of fact to be resolved by the Commission, and its determination will not be overturned on review unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

  2. Gerresheimer Glass, Inc. v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2016 Ill. App. 143280 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    Section 8(a) of the Act sets forth the so-called "two-physician rule." Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 463, 468 (2011). Under section 8(a) of the Act, an employer's liability to pay for medical services is limited to (1) first aid and emergency treatment plus (2) two additional doctors chosen by the employee and (3) any additional providers and services recommended by the two physicians selected by the employee.

  3. Stidwell v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    NO. 1-12-0408WC (Ill. App. Ct. Jan. 22, 2013)

    She contends the Commission erred in only awarding 8-3/7 weeks' benefits from June 21 to August 18, 2005, and argues it should have awarded 105-4/7 weeks' TTD benefits from September 30, 2004, to October 9, 2006. Claimant asserts she was incapable of working during that time frame. ¶ 25 Under the Act, "[a]n employee is temporarily totally disabled from the time that an injury incapacitates her from work until such time as she is as far recovered or restored as the permanent character of her injury will permit." Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 463, 471, 949 N.E.2d 1158, 1166 (2011). An injured employee's eligibility for TTD benefits ends once his physical condition stabilizes or he reaches MMI. Absolute Cleaning, 409 Ill. App. 3d at 471, 949 N.E.2d at 1166.

  4. Employco U.S. v. The Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2023 Ill. App. 220906 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    ¶ 17 Section 8(a) of the Act sets forth the "two-physician rule." Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Illinois Worker's Compensation Comm'n, 409 Ill.App.3d 463, 468 (2011).

  5. Kelly v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2017 Ill. App. 2d 170115 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    Section 8(a) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/8(a) (West 2008)) sets forth the so-called "two-physician rule." Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 463, 468 (2011). Pursuant to that provision, an employer's liability to pay for medical services is limited to (1) first aid and emergency treatment plus (2) two additional doctors chosen by the employee and (3) any additional providers and services recommended by the two physicians selected by the employee.

  6. Ecolab, Inc. v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2017 Ill. App. 153648 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    The determination as to whether a claimant obtained medical treatment as the result of a valid referral is a question of fact for the Commission which will not be overturned unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Absolute Cleaning/SBMVL v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 463, 468 (2011). Thus, we must first determine whether the Commission abused its discretion in admitting the claimant's testimony regarding what Dr. Malek told her with reference to treating with Dr. Rinella. If we find that the Commission erred in admitting that testimony as proof of a valid referral, we must then determine whether the Commission's finding that the claimant established a valid referral to Dr. Rinella was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

  7. Montgomery v. The Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2022 Ill. App. 3d 210604 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    ¶ 34 "Whether a medical expense is either reasonable or necessary is a question of fact to be resolved by the Commission ***." Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 409 Ill.App.3d 463, 470 (2011). It was the Commission's function in this case to determine which, if any, of the future medical treatments and pharmaceuticals recommended in the life care plan were necessary and reasonable.

  8. Sealants v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2019 IL App (3d) 190110 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    This issue raises a question of fact, subject to review using the manifest-weight standard, meaning we will reverse only if an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 463, 468-469 (2011). Claimant counters that his visit to Babino was for emergency medical treatment, which provides an exception to the two-doctor rule.

  9. Triplett v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2019 IL App (1st) 190647 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    ¶ 36 The claimant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the elements of his claim, including "some causal relation between the employment and the injury." Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 129 Ill. 2d 52, 63 (1989); see also Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 463, 469 (2011) ("A prerequisite to the right to recover benefits under the Act is some causal relationship between the claimant's employment and the injury suffered."). Whether a causal connection exists between an industrial accident and the claimant's subsequent condition of ill-being is a question of fact which will only be reversed if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

  10. Hooten v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2019 Ill. App. 5th 180528 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    There must be some causal relation between the employment and an employee's injury to justify benefits under the Act. Absolute Cleaning/SVMBL v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 409 Ill. App. 3d 463, 469 (2011). Whether a causal relationship exists between a claimant's employment and his condition of ill-being is a question of fact to be resolved by the Commission, and its resolution of the issue will not be disturbed on review unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.