"[T]he assessment of a penalty under section 19(l) is mandatory '[i]f the payment is late, for whatever reason, and the employer or its carrier cannot show an adequate justification for the delay.' " Jacobo v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 2011 IL App (3d) 100807WC, ¶ 19, 959 N.E.2d 772 (quoting McMahan v. Industrial Comm'n, 183 Ill. 2d 499, 515, 702 N.E.2d 545, 552 (1998)). "The standard for determining whether an employer has good and just cause for a delay in payment is defined in terms of reasonableness.
¶ 57 "Penalties under section 19(l) are in the nature of a late fee" and are "mandatory '[i]f the payment is late, for whatever reason, and the employer or its carrier cannot show adequate justification for the delay.' " Jacobo v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 2011 Il App (3d) 100807WC, ¶ 20, 959 N.E.2d 772 (quoting McMahan v. Industrial Comm'n, 183 Ill. 2d 499, 515, 702 N.E.2d 545, 552 (1998)). "The standard for determining whether an employer has good and just cause for a delay in payment is defined in terms of reasonableness.
¶ 51 "Penalties under section 19(l) are in the nature of a late fee" and are "mandatory '[i]f the payment is late, for whatever reason, and the employer or its carrier cannot show an adequate justification for the delay.' " Jacobo v. Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 2011 IL App (3d) 100807WC, ¶ 20, 959 N.E.2d 772 (quoting McMahan v. Industrial Comm'n, 183 Ill.2d 499, 515,702 N.E.2d 545, 552 (1998)).
¶ 28 "Penalties under section 19(l) of the Act are "in the nature of a late fee." Jacobo v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 2011 Il App (3d) 100807WC, ¶ 20, 959 N.E.2d 772."[T]he assessment of a penalty under section 19(l) is mandatory '[i]f the payment is late, for whatever reason, and the employer or its carrier cannot show adequate justification for the delay.
" Id. "The standard for determining whether an employer has good and just cause for a delay in payment is defined in terms of reasonableness." Jacobo v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 2011 IL App (3d) 100807WC, ¶ 20, 959 N.E.2d 772. The employer bears the burden of justifying the delay, and its justification is sufficient only if a reasonable person in the employer's position would have believed the delay was justified. Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Industrial Comm'n, 93 Ill. 2d 1, 9-10, 442 N.E.2d 861, 865 (1982).
¶ 49 "Penalties under section 19(l) are in the nature of a late fee." Jacobo v. Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 2011 IL App (3d) 100807WC, ¶ 20, 959 N.E.2d 772. Also, they are mandatory when payment is late and the employer "cannot show an adequate justification for thedelay.
¶ 19 "Penalties under section 19(l ) are in the nature of a late fee" and are "mandatory ‘[i]f the payment is late, for whatever reason, and the employer or its carrier cannot show adequate justification for the delay.’ " Jacobo v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n , 2011 Il App (3d) 100807WC, ¶ 20, 355 Ill.Dec. 358, 959 N.E.2d 772 (quoting McMahan v. Industrial Comm'n , 183 Ill.2d 499, 515, 234 Ill.Dec. 205, 212, 702 N.E.2d 545, 552 (1998) ). "The standard for determining whether an employer has good and just cause for a delay in payment is defined in terms of reasonableness." Id . When benefits are withheld for 14 days or more, a rebuttable presumption of unreasonable delay exists.
This is why scholars and practitioners have consistently understood section 19(g) as requiring a complete and final Commission decision, from which no review proceedings are pending. See, e.g., 3 Thomas C. Angerstein, Illinois Workmen's Compensation § 2195, at 61 (rev. ed. 1952) (“It is to be particularly noted that a judgment on an award under subsection (g) may be secured only when the award has become final and when no proceedings for review are pending.”); Brad A. Elward, Procedure, Appeals, and Special Remedies, in Illinois Workers' Compensation Practice § 5.78, at 5–67 (Ill. Inst. for Cont. Legal Educ. 2015) (“Entry of judgment under § 19(g) is premature if any review proceedings are pending.”).¶ 19 Plaintiff relies on Jacobo v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 2011 IL App (3d) 100807WC, 355 Ill.Dec. 358, 959 N.E.2d 772, in support of his contention that he may enforce a portion of a workers' compensation award immediately, even where a remaining portion of the award is under review in the circuit court. However, that decision is readily distinguishable.
The Commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's finding. However, as we noted in Jacobo v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n , 2011 IL App (3d) 100807WC, ¶ 39, 355 Ill.Dec. 358, 959 N.E.2d 772, an award of attorney fees and penalties may be proper where an employer withholds payment of an undisputed portion of the Commission's award. In this case, although claimant appealed the award of medical expenses, it was only to challenge the Commission's reduction in medical expenses by $30,461.68, based on the Commission's finding that only his initial six visits to the chiropractor were reasonable and necessary.
The employer has the burden for justifying the delay. Jacobo v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n , 2011 IL App (3d) 100807WC, ¶ 19, 355 Ill.Dec. 358, 959 N.E.2d 772. "The Commission's evaluation of the reasonableness of the employer's delay is a question of fact that will not be disturbed unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence."