Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center v. Industrial Commission

4 Citing cases

  1. Kaufmann v. Jersey Community Hospital

    396 Ill. App. 3d 729 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Just as the nurse is more likely to be assaulted, so is the naked patient undergoing unnecessary medical procedures. See Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center v. Industrial Comm'n, 258 Ill. App. 3d 768, 773, 630 N.E.2d 1175, 1179 (1994) (physical and psychological injuries a white-uniformed hospital dietary supervisor suffered when multiply, brutally raped in the staff area of a hospital by two intruders were found to arise out of her employment because there was evidence that her attackers mistook her for a nurse and psychiatric testimony nurses are more likely to be sexually assaulted than women in general because nurses are seen as strongly maternal and often disturbed men have Oedipal issues). Similarly, to recover under the Workers' Compensation Act ( 820 ILCS 305/1 through 30 (West 2006)), a claimant must show that his injury arises out of his employment, which means that it "had its origin in some risk connected with, or incidental to, the employment so as to create a causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury."

  2. Institute of Tech. Research v. Industrial Comm

    314 Ill. App. 3d 149 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 78 times
    Noting that the street-risk doctrine has been extended to cover inside structures if it is a place where the source of the risk could be expected to exist (citing C.A. Dunham Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 16 Ill.2d 102, 156 N.E.2d 560 (1959) (business traveler's death in an explosion and crash of a commercial plane))

    ral public, not to a locality, neighborhood, or area. See Brady, 143 Ill.2d 542; Caterpillar Tractor Co., 129 Ill.2d at 58-59; Campbell "66" Express, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 83 Ill.2d 353, 355-57 (1980); Eisenberg v. Industrial Comm'n, 65 Ill.2d 232, 234 (1976); American Freight Forwarding Corp. v. Industrial Common, 31 Ill.2d 293, 295 (1964); Scott v. Industrial Comm'n, 374 Ill. 225, 230 (1940); Springfield School District No. 186 v. Industrial Comm'n, 293 Ill. App.3d 226, 229 (1997); Fligelman v. City of Chicago, 275 Ill. App.3d 1089, 1092, 1094 (1995); Metropolitan Water Reclamation District v. Industrial Comm'n, 272 Ill. App.3d 732, 736 (1995); Pryor v. Industrial Comm'n, 266 Ill. App.3d 497, 499 (1994); Kemp v. Industrial Comm'n, 264 Ill. App.3d 1108, 1109, 1111 (1994); Cassens Transport Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 262 Ill. App.3d 324, 331 (1994); Heath v. Industrial Comm'n, 256 Ill. App.3d 1008, 1013, 1015 (1993); Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n, 253 Ill. App.3d 900, 902-03 (1993); Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center v. Industrial Comm'n, 258 Ill. App.3d 768, 772(1994); Komatsu Dresser Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 235 Ill. App.3d 779, 787-88 (1992); Best Foods v. Industrial Comm'n, 231 Ill. App.3d 1066, 1069 (1992); County of Cook v. Industrial Comm'n, 165 Ill. App.3d 1005, 1009-10 (1988); Holthaus v. Industrial Comm'n, 127 Ill. App.3d 732, 736-37 (1984). See also C.A. Dunham Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 16 Ill.2d 102, 104-05 (1959) ("[w]hile it was originally stated that [the] risk [of injury] must be peculiar to the work, and not connected with the neighborhood, the concept was expanded so that even if the general public is also exposed to the risk, if the employee, by reason of his employment, is exposed to such risk to a greater degree, the accident is said to arise out of his employment").

  3. Finnerty v. Personnel Bd. of the City of Chicago

    303 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 24 times
    In Finnerty v. Personnel Board of the City of Chicago, 303 Ill. App. 3d 1 (1999), this court discussed the role of the Commission with respect to the review of the city personnel board's decision to discharge the plaintiff-employee for violating the city's personnel rules.

    Several issues are raised on appeal. The first of these is plaintiff's contention that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide this case because, at the time of the hearing, plaintiff had a workers' compensation claim pending before the Industrial Commission. In support of his contention that the Board was not the proper forum for deciding his case, plaintiff cites Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center v. Industrial Comm'n, 258 Ill. App.3d 768, 630 N.E.2d 1175 (1994), for the proposition that it is the role of the Industrial Commission to decide the question of whether an injury arose out of the employment. We agree with plaintiff and it is precisely for that reason that the Board was the proper forum to determine the issue in this case.

  4. Casualty Insurance Co. v. Kendall Enterprises

    295 Ill. App. 3d 582 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 5 times
    In Kendall, an arbitrator from the IWCC issued a decision in favor of the employee after ruling that, because the insurance provider did not properly cancel its workers' compensation policy, it remained liable for benefits to the employee.

    In effect, plaintiff is actually contesting the administrative findings of fact regarding this issue, which were properly determined by the Commission. See Textile Maintenance v. Industrial Comm'n, 263 Ill.App.3d 866, 870, 201 Ill.Dec. 316, 636 N.E.2d 748 (1994); see also Parro v. Industrial Comm'n, 167 Ill.2d 385, 396, 212 Ill.Dec. 537, 657 N.E.2d 882 (1995) (Commission's role is to judge credibility, weigh evidence, draw appropriate inferences and accept one party's evidence); Gano Electric Contracting v. Industrial Comm'n,Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center v. Industrial Comm'n, 260 Ill.App.3d 92, 95, 197 Ill.Dec. 502, 631 N.E.2d 724 (1994) (on review, all findings of Commission including whether a notice was timely will not be disturbed unless against the manifest weight of the evidence); 258 Ill.App.3d 768, 772, 774, 197 Ill.Dec. 51, 630 N.E.2d 1175 (1994) (Commission's findings of fact given great deference).         This case is procedurally distinct from Skilling, where the Commission had not made factual findings regarding the issue and, unlike plaintiff in our case, the insurance company contested the authority or jurisdiction of the Commission to hear the case.