ior reports on Plaintiff's condition and prognosis. Furthermore, Plaintiff specifically pleads in his
Complaint (and thereby admits) that Dr. Skaletsky, “‘at the request of Liberty Mutual,” conveyed the
last report to Liberty.

Pursuant to the WCA, Liberty had a right to Plaintiff's medical records and the report that
he was able to return to work. See Mileris, 103 Ill. App. 3d at 592 (“section 8 of the Workers’
Compensation Act guarantees that none of the [medical records} could remain confidential”).
Furthermore, the undisputed facts show that Liberty requested such documentation from Dr.
Skaletsky. Accordingly, Liberty’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Il is granted.

For the reasons stated above, Liberty’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count II is

granted.

Dated: ey 2004 Whee

ada W. DARRAH
United States District Judge



fod

.

~~ Section 8(a) of the WCA provides, in part:

Every hospital, physician ... rendering treatment or services in

accordance with the provisions of this Section shall upon written

request furnish and complete reports thereof to, and permit their

records to be copied by, the employer, the employee or his

independents, as the case may be, or any other party to any

proceeding for compensation before the Commission, or their

attorneys.
820 ILCS 305/8(a). Accordingly, employers and workers’ compensation insurers have aright to the
medical records of an individual seeking a claim under the WCA. See Mercer v. Carle Foundation
Hosp., 261 lil. App. 3d 245, 246 (1994); People v. Mileris, 103 Ill. App. 3d 589, 592 (1981)
(Mileris).

Here, Liberty was the worker’s compensation carrier for Plaintiff's employer and funded all
of Plaintiff's medical treatment. Liberty initiated Plaintiff's contact with Dr. Skaletsky, arranging
for an independent medical examination. At that time, Liberty requested Dr. Skaletsky to provide
information on several specific areas surrounding Plaintiff's medical condition, including a
prognosis, conclusions regarding the need for further treatment and/or work restrictions, and whether
maximum medical improvement had been achieved.

Dr. Skaletsky examined Plaintiff on two occasions and forwarded a report of his findings to
Liberty after each of the examinations. In his last report, Dr. Skaletsky indicated that Plaintiff was
released to return to work without restrictions. This report addressed specific questions that Liberty
propounded to Dr. Skaletsky in its initial correspondence to Dr. Skaletsky in which it sought
information about further treatment of Plaintiff, work restrictions, and if and when Plaintiff reached

maximum medical improvement. The Liberty employee involved in Plaintiff's workers’

compensation claim avers that the initial correspondence to Dr. Skaletsky was a continuing request


MinuimDeder Form (Oda)
i

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

"Nena gts date John W. Darrah “tha Ae Suge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 3333 DATE 1/21/2004

CASE Lakin vs. Skateltsky

TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the natu
MOTION: of the motion being presented]
DOCKET ENTRY:
q) QO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oa Brief in support of motion due ___.
(3) Qa Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4) im} Ruling/Hearingon___ssetfor___—_at.
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—sset for____—_att
(6) a Pretrial conference(held/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon___——ssetfor_ sat.
(7) Oo » Trial[set for/re-set for]on___at
(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) C) Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO) FRCP41(a)(2).

do) = [Other docket entry] For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion and order.

12(b)(6) MOTION by defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to dismiss Count I of plaintiff:
complaint at law is granted [26-1]. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Parties are to exchange Rule

(1)

26(a)(1) disclosures by 2/20/04, Status hearing set for 3/18/04 at 9:00 a.m.

a (For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form, 48ND LIIN1SIO's'n
asia ha

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

eet
courtroom “
MF deputy's proto

initials —
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office



wl * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION DOCKETED

DAVID LAKIN, ) JAN 2 2 2004
)
Plaintiff, )
)

v. ) No. 03 C 3333

)

GARY SKALETSKY, M.D.; LIBERTY MUTUAL __) Judge John W. Darrah
INSURANCE COMPANY; and )
GLOBEGROUND NORTH AMERICA, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, David Lakin (“Lakin”), filed a multi-count Complaint against the Defendants.
Count I alleges failure to maintain medical confidentiality against Dr. Gary Skaletsky (“Dr.
Skaletsky”). Count II alleges failure to maintain medical confidentiality against Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company (“Liberty”). Count I alleges wrongful discharge against Globeground North
America (““Globeground”). Count IV alleges a civil conspiracy between Dr. Skaletsky, Liberty, and
Globeground. Count V alleges a breach of bailment against Globeground. Count VI alleges a
violation of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1161,
et seg. against Globeground. Count VII alleges a claim for accrued vacation pay against
Globeground. On September 4, 2003, Count I was dismissed with prejudice, and Count VI was
dismissed without prejudice.

Subsequently, Liberty filed a Motion to Dismiss Count II. After the Motion to Dismiss was

fully briefed, the Court informed the parties that the Motion to Dismiss would be treated as a Motion

Ae


—_

- for Summary Judgment. The Court allowed the parties additional time to file additional responses,

_o4
7
and said responses were filed.'

Summary judgment is proper if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
All the evidence and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence are viewed in
the light most favorable to the nonmovant, Miller v. American Family Mut. Ins, Co., 203 F.3d 997,
1003 (7th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment may be granted when no “reasonable jury could retumn a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson y. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Liberty violated Plaintiff's right to medical
confidentiality by receiving and transmitting a report from Dr. Skaletsky. Liberty seeks summary
judgment as to Count I, contending that Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for violation of
medical confidentiality because the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”) expressly
provides employers and insurers to obtain medical records. Plaintiff contends that summaty
judgment must be denied because Liberty did not request Dr. Skaletsky’s last report as required by

the WCA,

‘A summary of all the operative facts are fully set forth in the Court’s previous
Memorandum Opinion and Order and need not be repeated. A brief summary of the pertinent
facts is provided herein for purposes of resolving the instant issues.

2