May 23, 2012

Fired Employees Entitled to Receive Continuing Workers' Compensation Benefits

Much Shelist

Clarifying a common question for Illinois employers, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in January 2010 that an employer must continue to pay workers' compensation benefits, even after the employer fires an injured employee for reasons unrelated to the injury.

Noting that it had never directly addressed the issue before, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously held that an employer's obligation to pay temporary total disability (TTD) workers' comp benefits to an injured employee does not end simply because the employee was fired with or without cause. The court explained that when an employer terminates an injured employee, the central issue in deciding entitlement to TTD benefits focuses on whether the employee's injury has stabilized. If the fired employee can show that he or she continues to be temporarily totally disabled as a result of a work-related injury, then the employee remains entitled to TTD benefits, the court explained.

Anatomy of the Case

The case in question, Interstate Scaffolding Inc. v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, involved a union carpenter who suffered a work-related injury to his head, neck and back in 2003. The employee returned to work shortly after his injury, but continued to suffer from headaches, pain and numbness. The employee, who was periodically restricted from working or assigned to light duty, received TTD benefits when he could not work and a "maintenance benefit" when working light duty.

Two years after the employee suffered his work-related injury, the employer fired the carpenter for writing graffiti on its property and stopped paying all TTD benefits. Initially, an Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission arbitrator found that the employee was not entitled to continuing TTD benefits after his termination. Ultimately, the case reached the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled that the employee was, in fact, entitled to continuing TTD benefits because the underlying purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act is to provide financial protection to injured workers. Just because the employer fired the employee for reasons unrelated to the workers' comp injury didn't mean the employee no longer needed this financial protection, the court ruled.

Employer Lessons

This decision makes it clear that an employer must pay TDD benefits to an employee who is fired for reasons unrelated to a workers' comp injury. The employer in Interstate Scaffolding terminated the employee for reasons completely unrelated to the injury, and therefore did not risk a retaliatory discharge claim. Illinois employers should remember, however, that firing an employee for reasons that are related to a workers' comp claim constitutes retaliatory discharge and remains illegal.

Firing employees, whether or not they have filed a workers' comp claim, can be a minefield for employers. Therefore, it pays to consult a labor and employment attorney for help in identifying where the mines are, and how to avoid them. If you have questions about TTD benefits or other issues related to retaliatory discharge, contact your attorney.

© 2012 Much Shelist, P.C.

About the Author

Principal

Robert K. Neiman is a highly experienced litigator who focuses his practice on health care regulatory counseling and litigation, employment-related counseling and litigation, and commercial litigation, including insurance coverage matters and other business disputes. Bob's clients include long-term care facilities, assisted-living facilities, supportive-living facilities, home health care agencies, ambulatory surgical centers and sleep centers, as well as individual physicians and physician groups. He counsels...

(312) 521-2646

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.