( Chicago's Finest Workers Co. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 340, 343-45, 335 N.E.2d 434; see also A.J. Johnson Paving Co. v. Industrial Com. (1980), 82 Ill.2d 341, 350, 412 N.E.2d 477; M.W.M. Trucking Co. v. Industrial Com. (1976), 62 Ill.2d 245, 260, 342 N.E.2d 17.) The loaning employer's right to reimbursement, however, may be waived by an agreement between the respective employers. Albert Mojonnier, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1968), 41 Ill.2d 128, 133, 242 N.E.2d 184; Lachona v. Industrial Com. (1981), 87 Ill.2d 208, 213, 429 N.E.2d 858. In the contract between plaintiff and defendant here, plaintiff agreed: "To protect, save harmless and indemnify Carrier [defendant] from and against all loss, damages, costs and expenses that may be suffered or incurred by Carrier or any other person, on account of (1) Injury to or death of persons * * * caused by or resulting in any manner from any acts or omissions, negligence [ sic] or otherwise, of the Cartage Company [plaintiff], or any of the Cartage Company's agents, servants or employees, in performing or failing to perform any of the services or duties on the part of the Cartage Company to be performed as herein provided * * *."
Relying on claimant's impeachment, the differing medical testimony, and the fact that claimant had not sought work, respondent urges that the Commission findings as to causation and disability are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. It is axiomatic that questions of witness credibility and the resolution of disputed medical opinions are for the Commission as the trier of fact. ( Ragler Motor Sales v. Industrial Com. (1982), 93 Ill.2d 66, 71; Keystone Steel Wire Co. v. Industrial Com. (1978), 73 Ill.2d 290, 293; Lachona v. Industrial Com. (1981), 87 Ill.2d 208, 215; South Import Motors, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1972), 52 Ill.2d 485, 489.) While different conclusions could be drawn from the evidence, we are unable to say that those drawn by the Commission are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Appellees can show no prejudice form any alleged failure, as counsel obviously received and reviewed Qualizza's brief in light of the timely, substantive response thereto. See, e.g., Lachona v. Industrial Comm'n, 87 Ill.2d 208, 212 (1981) (A party must show prejudice to be entitled to relief for a Rule 11 violation, and there was no prejudice from appellant's failure to serve the notice of appeal where the moving party still filed a brief and argued orally). ¶ 26 The circuit court dismissed Qualizza's claims pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2020).
Fort Dearborn, 136 Ill. App. 3d at 375. The loaning employer in Fort Dearborn cited Lachona v. Industrial Comm'n, 87 Ill. 2d 208 (1981), and Albert Mojonnier, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 41 Ill. 2d 128 (1968), for the proposition that an agreement to the contrary, within the meaning of the Act, must expressly refer to the Act in order to be effective. Fort Dearborn, 136 Ill. App. 3d at 374. We rejected this argument because while the agreement that was held to be binding in Lachona did specify the Act, the supreme court does not require such specificity.
That said, the failure to serve an opposing party does not deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction, and the filing will not be stricken unless there is evidence of harm or prejudice to that party. See Lachona v. Industrial Comm'n, 87 Ill. 2d 208, 211-12 (1981) (a party is not prejudiced by the failure to serve on her a copy of the notice of appeal if the party could file appellate briefs and argue orally); In re Marriage of Collins, 154 Ill. App. 3d 655, 658 (1987). Here, petitioner has been prejudiced by respondent's failure to serve her with a copy of the reply brief, as she did not have an opportunity to review respondent's argument or contest any inaccuracies or misstatements in the reply brief.
As a final matter, we address plaintiffs' argument that Yetter should be subject to common-law tort liability in this suit because it was not liable under the Act. Plaintiffs cite Lachona v. Industrial Comm'n, 87 Ill.2d 208, 429 N.E.2d 858 (1981), and assert that the agreement whereby Genie is responsible for workers' compensation claims and agreed to hold Yetter harmless from any injury-related claims relieved Yetter from liability and, in turn, the protection of the exclusive remedy provision under the Act. 820 ILCS 305/5(a) (West 1996).
A party is not prejudiced by the failure to serve on her a copy of the notice of appeal if the party could file appellate briefs and argue orally. ( Lachona v. Industrial Comm'n (1981), 87 Ill.2d 208, 429 N.E.2d 858.) Therefore, even if plaintiff did not receive notice of defendant's appeal until December, the fact that plaintiff filed its brief and orally argued this case reveals that plaintiff suffered no prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's appeal is therefore denied.
Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to dismissal of the appeal on that basis. Lachona v. Industrial Comm'n (1981), 87 Ill.2d 208, 212. We next address whether the trial court's orders are appealable under section 10(b) of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 91 1/2, par. 810(b)).
A party is not prejudiced by the failure to serve on him a copy of the notice of appeal if the party could file appellate briefs and argue orally. Echols, 63 Ill.2d at 275; Lachona v. Industrial Comm'n (1981), 87 Ill.2d 208, 212, 429 N.E.2d 858. • 3 In the instant case, appellee Harnischfeger was not prejudiced by the failure to serve upon it a copy of the June 9 notice of appeal: it received a copy of the second notice of appeal, although it was a nullity ( First Finance Co. v. Ross (1965), 64 Ill. App.2d 474, 479, 211 N.E.2d 588); it filed a brief in this appeal; and it would have had an opportunity to orally argue its position if the case had been scheduled for oral argument.
This right to reimbursement, however, may be waived by an agreement between the employers. Lachona v. Industrial Comm'n (1981), 87 Ill.2d 208, 429 N.E.2d 858; Albert Mojonnier, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n (1968), 41 Ill.2d 128, 242 N.E.2d 184. • 3 Here, the parties orally contracted for Ready-Men to supply, and Corrugated to employ, temporary workers.