Kay v. Centegra Health Sys.

6 Citing cases

  1. Holten v. Syncreon N. Am., Inc.

    2019 Ill. App. 2d 180537 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    However, none of the cases upon which plaintiff relies involved a borrowed-employee relationship under section 1(a)(4). See Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co. , 232 Ill. 2d 196, 327 Ill.Dec. 524, 902 N.E.2d 645 (2008) (joint venturer); Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc. , 224 Ill. 2d 274, 309 Ill.Dec. 361, 864 N.E.2d 227 (2007) (parent corporation); Burge v. Exelon Generation Co. , 2015 IL App (2d) 141090, 395 Ill.Dec. 71, 37 N.E.3d 907 (sole member of employer limited liability company); Kay v. Centegra Health System , 2015 IL App (2d) 131187, 396 Ill.Dec. 499, 40 N.E.3d 152 (joint employer); Schmidt v. Milburn Brothers, Inc. , 296 Ill. App. 3d 260, 269, 230 Ill.Dec. 655, 694 N.E.2d 624 (1998) (joint employer or joint venturer). ¶ 41 The issue in Ioerger , for instance, was whether a coventurer was entitled to invoke the Act's exclusive-remedy protection.

  2. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Tech. Ins. Co.

    462 F. Supp. 3d 877 (N.D. Ill. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    That question is "one of the most vexatious in the law of compensation" given the "fact-specific nature of the inquiry." Kay v. Centegra Health Sys. , 396 Ill.Dec. 499, 40 N.E.3d 152, 155 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, because Starr asserts that Midwest and AES were both employers of the injured ironworkers, the relevant inquiry is whether they were joint employers.

  3. King v. JDM Expedite Inc.

    22-cv-6393 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2024)

    Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Tech. Ins. Co., Inc., 462 F.Supp.3d 877, 885 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citing Kay v. Centegra Health Sys., 40 N.E.3d 152, 156 (Ill.App.Ct. 2d Dist. 2015)).

  4. Conrads v. Rush-Copley Med. Ctr.

    2023 Ill. App. 2d 220455 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    ¶ 69 Another factor relevant to the determination of the status of an individual as an employee or an independent contractor is the furnishing of tools, materials, and equipment. Kay v. Centegra Health System, 2015 IL App (2d) 131187, ¶ 11. It is undisputed that Rush-Copley furnished the "space, equipment and supplies" for the radiology department, as required in the Radiology Services Agreement.

  5. Estate of Kendall v. Monsanto Co.

    2019 Ill. App. 2d 170567 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    Id. at 269. ¶ 47 More recently, in Kay v. Centegra Health System, 2015 IL App (2d) 131187, the plaintiff filed a negligence action against the health system (Centegra) that operated the medical center (NIMC) where she was employed. Centegra filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was the plaintiff's "joint employer" along with NIMC.

  6. Hiatt v. Ill. Tool Works

    2018 Ill. App. 2d 170554 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 8 times
    In Hiatt, we also pointed out that " Kay never held that immunity under the exclusive-remedy provision extends only to members of a joint venture that contribute to workers' compensation.

    Hiatt I , 2014 IL App (2d) 140178, ¶¶ 95-102, 394 Ill.Dec. 561, 36 N.E.3d 852.¶ 64 Plaintiff relies on Kay v. Centegra Health System , 2015 IL App (2d) 131187, 396 Ill.Dec. 499, 40 N.E.3d 152, in support of his argument that immunity under the Act is unavailable because ITW did not pay for workers' compensation insurance. Kay never held that immunity under the exclusive-remedy provision extends only to members of a joint venture that contribute to workers' compensation.