Articles

Partner and founder Michael Inman, of the Chicago firm Inman & Fitzgibbons, Ltd., has been representing respondents in Illinois workers' compensation claims since 1979. He is well known in the workers' compensation legal community.

Below is an article entitled: Supreme Court Trauma. We hope you will find it helpful. If you would like to discuss a case, please contact our office.

---

Posted 10/24/2006

Supreme Court “Hands” Victory Back to Repetitive Trauma Claimant

In our March 2006 Newsletter, we reported an Appellate Court case which confirmed the Commission's denial of benefits in a repetitive trauma carpal tunnel claim on the basis that the petitioner failed to bring her claim within three years of the manifestation date. In Durand v. RLI, the claimant reported to her supervisor in September or October 1997 that her hands were bothering her and that she felt it was from her work duties. The petitioner continued working until she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in 2000, and filed her Application for Adjustment of Claim in January 2001. The Commission found that this was more than three years beyond the manifestation date in September or October 1997 and denied the claim.

Although reviewing the matter on a manifest weight standard, the Supreme Court nonetheless determined that the manifestation date did not occur until 2000, when the petitioner was diagnosed with the injury. The Court upheld the Peoria County Belwood standard that an injury manifests itself when the fact of the injury and its relationship to the employment becomes apparent to a reasonable person, but said essentially that Durand's continued employment beyond 1997 with no medical treatment and only a suspicion that her condition was work related was not enough to establish a manifestation date in 1997. Fortunately, the Court “clarified” that medical certification is not required, but the practical effect of this decision seems to dictate otherwise. In pertinent part, the Court held as follows:

“ . . .the date on which the employee notices a repetitive-trauma injury is not necessarily the manifestation date. Instead, the date on which the employee became unable to work, due to physical collapse or medical treatment, helps determine the manifestation date. . . . A formal diagnosis, of course, is not required. The manifestation date is not the date on which the injury and its causal link to work became plainly apparent to a reasonable physician, but the date on which it became plainly apparent to a reasonable employee.

“ . . .because repetitive-trauma injuries are progressive, the employee's medical treatment, as well as the severity of the injury and particularly how it affects the employee's performance, are relevant in determining objectively when a reasonable person would have plainly recognized the injury and its relation to work. . . . We decline to penalize an employee who diligently worked through progressive pain until it affected her ability to work and required medical treatment.”

In a spirited dissent by Justices Garman and Karmeier, the Justices point out that the Court substituted its judgment for that of the Commission's in this matter, and further confused the manifestation date definition that had been fairly clearly laid out and followed by the courts since Peoria County Belwood. Justice Garman commended the claimant for continuing to work while experiencing her symptoms, but added: “Claimant's persistence, however, should not excuse her from her obligation to file a timely application for benefits. I fear the majority has allowed this equitable consideration to become the driving force behind its decision to reverse the judgment of the Commission, and that it has done so at the expense of obscuring the heretofore straightforward analysis used in reviewing the Commission's determination of a manifestation date.”

The case was recently decided and is not an official case to be cited just yet. The employer's attorney has indicated he might file a motion to reconsider. We will advise further with any new developments in this unfortunate turn in the caselaw of repetitive trauma claims.

More Articles: Anatomy of a Compensation Claim Representing a Respondent [10/24/2006] Supreme Court “Hands” Victory Back to Repetitive Trauma Claimant [04/07/2006] New Case on Mental Stress Favorable to Employers

For more information, please contact: Michael Inman Inman & Fitzgibbons, Ltd. 33 North Dearborn Street Suite 1825 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 422-0550