Zitzka v. the Industrial Commission

9 Citing cases

  1. Jacobo v. Illinois Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2011 Ill. App. 3d 100807 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 46 times
    In Jacobo, the claimant filed a workers' compensation claim against her employer for injuries arising out of a forklift accident.

    The employer and the circuit court are incorrect. ¶ 36 In Zitzka v. Industrial Comm'n, 328 Ill. App. 3d 844, 767 N.E.2d 405 (2002), an arbitrator awarded the claimant TTD benefits, permanent partial disability benefits (PPD), and medical expenses as a result of a work-related accident. The employer appealed the arbitrator's decision, and in its petition for review, it listed TTD benefits, medical expenses, causal connection, and the nature and extent of the injury as issues on appeal.

  2. Jacobo v. Illinois Workers' Compensation

    355 Ill. Dec. 358 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 15 times

    The employer and the circuit court are incorrect. ¶ 36 In Zitzka v. Industrial Comm'n, 328 Ill.App.3d 844, 262 Ill.Dec. 945, 767 N.E.2d 405 (2002), an arbitrator awarded the claimant TTD benefits, permanent partial disability benefits (PPD), and medical expenses as a result of a work-related accident. The employer appealed the arbitrator's decision, and in its petition for review, it listed TTD benefits, medical expenses, causal connection, and the nature and extent of the injury as issues on appeal.

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

    2025 Ill. App. 3d 240361 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025)

    No PTD benefits were due and owing prior to the hearing, so the failure to pay PTD benefits prior to the hearing cannot support an award of penalties. Zitzka v. Industrial Comm's, 328 Ill.App.3d 844, 852 (2002) ("[p]enalties and attorney fee awards should be calculated on the amount of the award that has accrued at the time of the penalty hearing. Amounts that have not yet accrued should not be included in the calculation.")

  4. Spencer v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

    2024 Ill. App. 2d 230576 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    ¶ 53 Section 19(k) penalties and section 16 attorney fees address situations where there is not only delay, but the delay is deliberate or the result of bad faith or improper purpose. Zitzka v. Industrial Comm'n, 328 Ill.App.3d 844, 849 (2002). A review of the Commission's decision to deny penalties and attorney fees pursuant to sections 19(k) and 16 of the Act involves a two-step analysis.

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

    2013 Ill. App. 120717 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    The employer bears the burden of establishing that it had a reasonable belief that the delay in payment was justified. Global Products, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 414; Zitzka v. Industrial Comm'n, 328 Ill. App. 3d 844, 848, 767 N.E.2d 405 (2002). ¶ 55 Section 19(k) provides that penalties may be imposed where there has been any unreasonable or vexatious delay of payment or intentional underpayment of compensation, or where the party who is liable to pay the compensation has instituted or pursued proceedings that do not present a real controversy, but are merely frivolous or intended to delay.

  6. Armour Swift-Eckrich v. Industrial Comm'n

    355 Ill. App. 3d 708 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 4 times

    The delay in this case was 78 days after the award became final. The briefs refer to Roodhouse Envelope, 276 Ill. App. 3d at 580, 658 N.E.2d at 840 (payment was made 87 days "after [employer] received notification of the award"), Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Industrial Comm'n, 351 Ill. 128, 131, 184 N.E. 202, 203 (1932) (payment was 90 days late), Zitzka v. Industrial Comm'n, 328 Ill. App. 3d 844, 848, 767 N.E.2d 405, 408 (2002) (delay of one year unreasonably based on erroneous interpretation of the law), and Sanchez v. Industrial Comm'n, 53 Ill. 2d 514, 518, 292 N.E.2d 724, 726 (1973), where the Commission declined to issue a penalty though payment was not made until 52 days after the award became final, and the appellate court affirmed the denial on the basis that payment was delayed because there were negotiations to arrive at a lump-sum settlement. Sections 19(k) and 16 do not mandate that penalties be imposed after a certain period of delay.

  7. Anders v. Industrial Comm'n

    773 N.E.2d 746 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 8 times

    The Commission may not impose penalties and attorney fees on any portion of an award that has not yet accrued. Zitzka v. Industrial Comm'n, 328 Ill. App. 3d 844, 852, 767 N.E.2d 405, 411 (2002). Respondent does not dispute that section 19(k) additional compensation and section 16 attorney fees can be imposed on the unreasonable and vexatious delay in paying claimant's medical bills incurred as a result of the accidental injury. See McMahan v. Industrial Comm'n, 183 Ill. 2d at 512, 702 N.E.2d at 551.

  8. National Mfg. v. Industrial Comm'n

    331 Ill. App. 3d 1045 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    Here, since the employer was found to have unreasonably withheld payment of the entire TTD benefits, the penalty should have been 50% of the entire TTD, but should not have included PPD benefits, none of which had accrued at the time of the penalty hearing, in the calculation. See also, Zitzka v. Industrial Comm'n, 328 Ill.App.3d 844, 852, 262 Ill.Dec. 945, 767 N.E.2d 405 (2002) ("penalties and attorney fee awards should be calculated on the amount of the award that has accrued at the time of the penalty hearing."). We therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Whiteside County and reinstate the decision of the Commission dated June 8, 1999.

  9. Navistar Int'l Transp. v. Indus. Comm'n

    331 Ill. App. 3d 405 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 22 times

    The Commission cannot impose penalties and fees on that portion of an award that has not accrued, however. See Zitzka v. Industrial Comm'n, 328 Ill. App. 3d 844 (2002). In the present case, the Commission, in its discretion, chose to award penalties and fees based on that portion of the PTD award which accrued from March 24, 1995, through May 15, 1998.