Avon Products, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 15 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 52904,52904 |
| Citation | 82 Ill.2d 297,412 N.E.2d 468,45 Ill.Dec. 117 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 45 Ill.Dec. 117 AVON PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Laura Larsen, Appellant). |
Lewis P. Gaines and Victor F. Ciardelli, Chicago, for appellants.
Terrance J. Van Driska and Mark A. Potter, Chicago, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case in which claimant, Laura Larsen, an employee of respondent, Avon Products, Inc., was found by an arbitrator for the Industrial Commission to have suffered a work-related injury to her left wrist. She was awarded compensation of $479.61 for 43/7 weeks of temporary total incapacity and $108 per week for 19 weeks for the loss of 10% of the use of her left hand, the total award amounting to $2,531.61. She petitioned for review by the Commission, which heard additional evidence and affirmed the compensation awards, adding thereto $545 in chiropractor fees as additional medical expenses. The Commission also found that respondent had, "without just and good cause," failed, neglected and refused payment of weekly compensation and awarded claimant penalties under section 19(l ) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.19(l )) in the maximum amount of $2,500. It also found that "there has been an unreasonable and vexatious delay by the Respondent herein in the payment of compensation for the period of temporary total incapacity for work" and that, as a result, claimant was entitled to an additional 50% of the amount of temporary total compensation as provided in section 19(k)(Ill.Rev.Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.19(k)). Finally, the Commission assessed against respondent the attorney fees payable by claimant in the amount of $643.88, pursuant to section 16 of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.16), which authorizes such action where unreasonable or vexatious delay, intentional underpayment or the presentation of frivolous defenses has occurred. Thus, penalties aggregating $3,383.68 were imposed for what the Commission found was an unjustified delay in making the $479.61 in temporary total compensation payments. Interest on the arbitrator's award was also ordered paid by respondent. Respondent sought certiorari from the Cook county circuit court, which confirmed the compensation, medical-expenses, attorney-fees and interest awards but reversed the penalties assessed under sections 19(k) and 19(l ). The court found that "the awarding of any penalties in this case was not warranted and not supported by the record." Claimant appealed to this court (73 Ill.2d R. 302(a)). While both parties agree that the circuit court should be reversed, claimant seeks reinstatement of the Commission's award of compensation and penalties while respondent urges that the Commission's award should be reversed in toto or that, at most, the arbitrator's award should be reinstated.
It is apparent from the record before us that the award of compensation cannot be said to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. It suffices on this issue to say that while claimant's testimony contained some inconsistencies, and the medical and chiropractic opinions were not harmonious, it is axiomatic that resolution of conflicting medical opinions and issues of fact are for the Industrial Commission, whose findings will not be judicially disturbed unless against the manifest weight of the evidence. Eagle Sheet Metal Co. v. Industrial Com. (1980), 81 Ill.2d 31, 36, 39 Ill.Dec. 783, 405 N.E.2d 762, Inland Steel Coal Co. v. Industrial Com. (1980), 81 Ill.2d 61, 65, 39 Ill.Dec. 802, 405 N.E.2d 781.
The nub of this case is whether the penalties assessed by the Commission may stand. The relevant provisions of our Workmen's Compensation Act, pursuant to which the penalties were imposed, are:
" Ill.Rev.Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.16.
In case where there has been any unreasonable or vexatious delay of payment or intentional underpayment of compensation, or proceedings have been instituted or carried on by the one liable to pay the compensation, which do not present a real controversy, but are merely frivolous or for delay, then the Commission may award compensation additional to that otherwise payable under this Act equal to 50% of the amount payable at the time of such award. Failure to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, paragraph (b) of this Act shall be considered unreasonable delay. " Ill.Rev.Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.19(k).
In case the employer or his insurance carrier shall without good and just cause fail, neglect, refuse or unreasonably delay the payment of weekly compensation benefits due to an injured employee during the period of temporary total disability the arbitrator or the Commission shall allow to the employee additional compensation in the sum of $10 per day for each day that a weekly compensation payment has been so withheld or refused, provided that such additional compensation shall not exceed the sum of $2,500. A delay in payment of 14 days or more shall create a rebuttable presumption of unreasonable delay. " Ill.Rev.Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.19(l ).
Although the statutory language is not uniform, it is apparent that its intent is to implement the Act's purpose to expedite the compensation of industrially injured workers and penalize an employer who unreasonably, or in bad faith, delays or withholds compensation due an employee. Similar provisions exist in other jurisdictions. (See 3 A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation sec. 83.40 (1980).) Penalties for delayed payment are not intended to inhibit contests of liability or appeals by employers who honestly believe an employee not entitled to compensation; they are intended to promote the prompt payment of compensation where due and to deter those occasional employers or insurance carriers who might withhold payment from other than legitimate motives.
The prevailing rule is stated in 3 A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation sec. 83.40, at 15-632 (1980):
"(G)enerally a failure to pay because of a good faith belief that no payment is due will not warrant a penalty."
When the employer acts in reliance upon responsible medical opinion or when there are conflicting medical opinions, penalties are not ordinarily imposed. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Centeno v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n
...employers who unreasonably, or in bad faith, delay or withhold compensation due an employee. Avon Products, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n , 82 Ill. 2d 297, 301, 45 Ill.Dec. 117, 412 N.E.2d 468 (1980). Awards under section 16 and 19(k) are proper only if the employer's delay in making payment is......
-
Pisano v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n
...employers who unreasonably, or in bad faith, delay or withhold compensation due an employee. Avon Products, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n , 82 Ill. 2d 297, 301, 45 Ill.Dec. 117, 412 N.E.2d 468 (1980). Awards under section 16 and 19(k) are proper only if the employer's delay in making payment is......
-
Rambert v. Industrial Com'n
...Co. v. Industrial Com. (1983), 98 Ill.2d 407, 414, 75 Ill.Dec. 26, 456 N.E.2d 847, quoting Avon Products, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1980), 82 Ill.2d 297, 301, 45 Ill.Dec. 117, 412 N.E.2d 468.) When there is a delay in the payment of compensation, the employer has the burden to demonstrate th......
-
R.D. Masonry, Inc. v. Indus. Com'n
...of liability on review where reasonable grounds exist to challenge that liability (Avon Products, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 82 Ill.2d 297, 304, 45 Ill.Dec. 117, 412 N.E.2d 468 (1980)). This is because many claims and awards can be challenged in the legitimate hope that the reviewing tribun......