2014 I LApp (1st) 121507WC Opinion filed J anuar

y 6, 2014
I N THE APPEL LATE COURT OF I L L I NOI S FIRST DI STRI CT WORKERS ' COMPENSATI ON COMMI SSI ON DIVI SI ON
THE CI TY OF CHI CAGO, ) Appea l from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County , I llinois ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Appea l No. 1-12-1507WC ) Circuit No. 11-L 5-1071 ) THE I L L I NOI S W ORKERS' COMPENSATI ON ) Honora ble COMMI SSI ON et al . (Jos eph L ocasto, ) Marg are t Bre nnan, Appellee ). ) J udg e, Presiding
. PRES I DI NG JUS TI CE HOL DRI DGE de livered the judgme nt of the cour t, with opinion. J ustices Hoff

man, Hudson, Ha

rris, and Stewa

rt conc urre d in the judgme nt and opinion.

______________________________________________________________________________ OP INION ¶ 1 The c laimant, J oseph L ocasto, filed a n application for

adjustment of claim under the Workers' Compensation Act (the A ct) (820 I L CS 305/ 1 et seq. (West 2008)) see king be nefits for injuries which he sustaine d while workingfor the e mploy er, the City of Chicag o (the City). After conductinga hea

ring , the ar

bitrator found tha

t the claimant had pr oven a w ork-r elated injury and aw arde d him 75 5/7 weeks of tempor ary total disabilit y

(TTD) benef

its plus m edica lexpenses. Howeve r, the a rbitrator de nied the cla imant's c laim for tempora ry partial disability (TPD) be nefits and/or ma intenance benef its. ¶ 2 Both pa

rties appe aled the a

rbitrator’ s decision to the I llinois Workers' Compensation Commi ssion (the Commis sion). The c laimant appea led the ar bitrator' s denial of TPD a nd/or maintenanc e bene fits. The City appea led the Commissi on' s awa rd of TTD benef

its and medical expenses, arguing that: (1) the cla imant's c laims are ba rre d by section 1(b) (1) of

the Act ( 820 I L CS 305/ 1(b)( 1) (West 2008)), which excludes " duly appointed member (s)" of the City ' s fire depar tment from the Ac t's de finition of a cove red " employ ee" for pur poses of the c laims at issue in this case; (2) the claimant' s claims are barr ed under the doctrine s of res judicata and/or collater al estoppel be cause the Retirement B oard of the Fir emen' s Annuity

and B enef

it Fund of Chicag o (the B oard) denied the c laimant' s claim for duty disability benef its arising out of the
same a ccide nt and injuries at issue in this case. T he Commissi on unanimously reje cted the City ' s arguments, modified the ar bitrator' s decision by

awa rdingTPD benef

its and reduc ing the awa

rd of medica l expenses, and af firmed a nd adopted the a

rbitrator' s decision in all other re spects. ¶ 3 The City

soug ht judicial reviewof the Commission's dec ision in t he cir cuit court of Cook County , which conf

irmed the Commission's ruling . This appea l followed. ¶ 4 FACTS ¶ 5 In May

2008, the claimant wa s employ ed by the City as a c andidate in tra ining at the Chicag o Fire and Para

medic Ac ademy

(the Ac ademy

). 1 The c laimant was tra ining to bec ome a para medic with the Chicag o fire de partment. At that time, the c laimant had bee n licensed a s a para medic by the State of I llinois for e ight year s. Prior to his employ ment with the City , the

1 The City

require s its firemen and pa rame dics to underg o the same tra ining. 2claimant wor ked as a para medic with Children' s Memorial Hospital (Children' s). B efor e he w as admitted to the Aca demy , the claimant wa s examined and dec lare d fit for duty by the City ' s phy sician and by

his own doctor, and he passed a phy sical fitness and a g ility test. ¶ 6 On May

6, 2008, the claimant r eporte d to the Aca demy for tra ining at 6:00 a.m. The claimant testified that the c andidates unde rwe nt rig orous phy sical training(includingintense, continuous phy sical exercise s) for se vera l hours in an extremely hot environment with very minimal water bre aks. He stated that the tra ining include d milit ary-style hazing w ith y elling, verba l abuse, a

nd the assig nment of additional exercise s as punishment for the e ntire g roup if a single candidate did not complete a ta sk in a timely manner . He testified that, following a 45- minute lunch brea

k at noon, the ca

ndidates we re r equire d to exercise vig orously straig ht throug h until 4:30 p.m . with only

a sing le, one- minute water brea k. The c laimant did not request spec ial permission to ge t a drink of water out of f ear of punishment for the e ntire g roup. ¶ 7 After

completinghis first day

of training , the claimant e x perie nced c ramps in his rig ht quadric eps. That e vening , he dra nk Gatora de and w ater , took Advil, and iced his leg
. ¶ 8 The following

morning , the claimant r eporte d to the Aca demy for tra ining at 7 a.m. He testified that the ca

ndidates we re r equire d to work out straig ht throug h until lunchtim e with no water brea ks. Acc ordingto the claimant, the instructor s y elled at individual ca ndidates, telling them to "quit or g o the hospital" if the y could not take it. He te stified that, followinga 45-minute lunch bre ak, the wor

kouts became more intense and lasted f or long er pe riods of time. Duringthe late af ternoon, the c laimant noticed seve re c rampingin his right leg . He testified that, by the end of the tra ining se ssion, his l egwas so sore he had dif ficulty climbing into his sport utili ty vehicle to drive home.
3¶ 9 Although the claimant took Advil later tha t evening , he continued to e x perie nce se vere
cra mping in his rig ht leg . He hydrate d and applied ic e and he at to his leg . At 5:30 a.m., the claimant noticed his urine was tea colore d and looked like blood. When he phone d his instructor to report his condition, the instructor told him to go to the e merg ency room. ¶ 10 The c laimant soug ht treatment at I llinois Masonic Hospital whe re he was diagnosed with rhabdomyoly sis, acute kidney failure , and compa

rtment sy ndrome. Rhabdomyoly sis is a condition of the kidney s that occur s when muscle tissue r apidly brea ks down (due to ove rexertion and dehydration, cr

ush injury or tox ins) and re lease s the protein myog lobin into t he bloodstream, causingthe kidney s to lose function. Compartment sy ndrome is a c ondition caused by the compre ssion of nerve s, blood vessels and muscle inside a closed spac e within the body . The compre ssion can lea d to tissue death due to lac k of oxy g enation as the blood vessels are compre ssed by

the ra ised pressur e within the compar tment. This can ca

use subseque nt loss of function, includingpara ly sis. Amputation of the aff ecte d are a mig ht be re quired in some ca ses. ¶ 11 The medic al re cords of the emer g ency

room ref lect that orthope dic surg eons we re consulted re g ardingthe swellingof the c laimant' s leg s. Dr. David Hoffman, a n orthopedic surg eon, diagnosed compa rtment sy ndrome a nd perf ormed immediate sur g ery . The c laimant underw ent a f

asciotomy

wher ein his rig ht legwas c ut open and lef t open for se vera l weeks to relieve the pre ssure a

nd swellingin the legand to allow the muscle s to ex pand. He rema ined in the intensive ca

re unit for approximately

15 day s. The cla imant require d over 100 staple s to close the f

asciotomy . Moreove r, the c laimant was plac ed on dialy sis due to his rhabdomy oly sis from dehydration. He was discha rg ed fr om the hospital on J une 13, 2008, and he continued to underg o dialy sis for seve ral months there afte r.
4¶ 12 Followinghis discharg e fr om the hospital, the claimant saw D r. Steven F ox , his primary

car e phy sician, Dr. E duardo Cre mer, a nephrolog ist, and Dr. Hof fman. All three doctors opined that the claimant' s conditions of ill-being w ere causa lly related to the intense wor kouts and subsequent dehydration he suf fer ed at the A cade my . The c laimant also saw phy sicians at the Chicag o fire de partment. The City ' s phy sicians continued the c laimant off wor k throug h at least Fe bruar y 25, 2009. ¶ 13 On Aug

ust 26, 2008, Dr. Hoff

man opined that the c laimant' s compartment sy ndrome had re solved and he rele ased the claimant to re turn to work fr om an orthopedic point of view. Howeve r, Dr. H offman a dvised that claimant c ontinue to follow up with his nephrolog ist. ¶ 14 After

examining the cla imant and eva luating the condition of his kidney s, Dr. Creme r rele ased the claimant to re turn to work at a regular job on September 17, 2008, provided that he stay ed we ll hy drate d and did not overe x ert himself. On N ovember 11, 2008, Dr. Cre mer re lease d the claimant to re turn to "r egular a ctivities." How ever , duringhis Dece mber 3, 2009, e vidence deposition, Dr. Cremer

testified that the cla imant should "absolutely not" r eturn to the stre nuous and intense r igor s of the Ac ademy training . Dr. Cre mer opined that the claimant' s kidney s will
never be norma l. He stated that the claimant should avoid nonsteroida l anti-inflammatory medications, antibiotics, and any thing that c auses e x treme e x haustion or seve re muscle sorene ss. He noted that the claimant re quires annua l metabolic testing . Howeve r, Dr. Cre mer acknow ledg ed that cla imant could possibly run a ma rathon if he used extreme ca ution, conditioned prope rly , and hydrate d appropr iately
. ¶ 15 The c laimant continued to follow up with Chicag o fire de partment phy sicians. The claimant testified that one of the City ' s nurses told him that he neede d a wr itten relea se fr om his
5doctor to allow him to enter the next Academy class in Novembe r 2008. Ac cording ly , the claimant re turned to Dr. F ox and aske d him for a wor k rele ase. O n November

5, 2008, Dr. F ox wrote a note statingthat the claimant wa s in ex cellent he alth and that he ha d been c lear ed for "unr estricted phy sical ac tivity ." O ne we ek later , the claimant met with Commander E denburgh, a doctor who he ads the Chicag o fire de partment' s medical division, and g ave him Dr . Fox's note. Although Commande r Edenbur g h rea d the note, he told the c laimant that it was his opinion that the claimant wa s not ready to return to the Ac ademy
. ¶ 16 Followingthis meeting, the claimant continued to f ollow up with Dr. Fox and the Chicag o fire de partment' s doctors. The r ecor ds of the Chicag o fire de partment' s medical division ref lect that, on De cembe r 9, 2008, the c laimant was noted to have an e levated " Ca+ leve l" a nd was instructe d to see both his rena l and orthopedic phy sicians. On January 20, 2009, it was noted that claimant wa s complainingof continued r ight leg cra mping. He was instructe d to follow up with his treatingorthopedic sur g eon and unde rg o repe at lab wor k. On Fe bruar

y 25, 2009 (the last re corde d visit contained in the rec ord), the c laimant continued to complain of le g
cra mping. Ac cordingto the claimant, the City asked him to underg o a func tional capa city examination (FCE) but re fused to pay for the te st after

the claimant' s insurance denied c overa g e. The City ' s doctors neve r re lease d the claimant to re turn to the Aca demy
. ¶ 17 In his report dated Fe bruar y 9, 2009, Dr. F ox opined that: (1) it is highly likely that the claimant has some pe rmane nt kidney damag e; (2) the claimant will be for ever prone to re curr ent bouts of acute rena l failure; a nd (3) the c laimant has bee n irreve rsibly compromised by

the eve nts
occur ringdue to the Ac ademy

training . Dr. F ox stated that the c laimant should not subject himself to the same rig ors that he wa s put through at the Aca demy . On J uly 23, 2009, Dr. F ox
6wrote a

letter c larify

ing his Nove mber 5, 2008, phy sical ac tivity rele ase. I

n the letter, D r. F ox stressed that, a lthough his Nove mber 5, 2008, re lease had allowe d for unr estricted phy sical activity , "a

t no time did [ he] intend for this to mean that [the claimant] could or should return to the Fir e Ac ademy ." T he doctor noted that the cla imant was " well awa re of the har m cause d by the undue se verity

of [the Acade my ' s] t raining ," a nd that "[h]e knew my

[November 5, 2008] note clea red him to seek othe r employ ment and to eng ag e in phy sical ac tivity on his own in a way that did not subject him to t he extremes of e x erc ise, as expected at the Aca demy ." T he doctor a lso prescr ibed additional phy sical thera py for the c laimant' s ong oing c omplaints of rig ht thigh pa in and cr amping
. ¶ 18 On May

7, 2009, Dr. I saac Marc os, an occ upational hea lth phy sician with the Chicag o fire de partment, issued a

letter in which he opined that the cla imant had completely rec overe d and had be en re turned to full duty without restrictions by

Drs. F ox , Cremer , and Hof fman. He further opined that the cla imant was cur rently in stable condition and he note d that the claimant
rema ined off duty

and had e x hausted a ll his i njury and sick lea

ve. ¶ 19 On Aug

ust 17, 2009, the claimant wa s examined by Dr. Kathleen Weber , the City ' s independe nt medical examiner (I ME). Dr. Webe r is an internist who spec ializes in sports medicine. Dr . Weber opined that the claimant' s acute compar tment sy ndrome, e x erc ise-induce d rhabdomyoly sis, and subsequent ac ute re nal fa ilure we re c ausally related to his May

2008 trainingat the Ac ademy . She also opined that cla imant had no re sidual rig ht legdisability as a result of his compar

tment sy ndrome other

than some muscle tig htness which she thought would be re lieved with a short two to thre e we ek cour se of phy sical thera py and home streng thening /stretchingexercises. Dr . Weber c oncluded that, f ollowing this treatment, the
7claimant would be at max imum medical improvement (MMI ). The doc tor opined that the

claimant could r eturn to work f or the Chicag o fire de partment, a nd she assumed that he would return to the A cade my . Howeve r, she a cknowledg ed that the c laimant is now at a hig her r isk for rhabdomyoly sis and noted that, if the c laimant returne d to the same rig orous trainingconditions at the Ac ademy , he would have to be in g reat condition and would need to be monitored throug hout the training
. ¶ 20 On Dec ember

8, 2009, the claimant wa s examined by Dr. Sheldon Hirsc h, a nephr ologist who serve d as the City ' s second I ME. Dr. Hirsc h opined that the cla imant seemed to have no residual de ficits and had be en cle are d to perfor m any work fr om a re nal viewpoint. Howe ver, D r. Hirsch noted that:

"g iven the injury

that the claimant suff

ere d, Iadvised him ag ainst any form of pa

rticularly strenuous exercise , which conc eivably could lead to a

rec urre nt injury . Presumably this would preclude him from returningto the fire department, a ssuming that strenuous trainingsessions would be nec essar y ." Moreove r, Dr. H irsch noted that he would defe r to an internist or ne urolog ist reg arding whether there was " any

linge ringinjury

or re strictions derived f

rom his muscle injury ." D r. Hirsc h noted that the claimant wa s not to return to work that include d extensive ex erc ise. ¶ 21 Although the City paid the cla imant salary

continuation from May

8, 2008, throug h May 8, 2009, it did not pay

him TTD benef

its. The City

did not allow the claimant to re turn to the Aca demy and did not offe r him any alterna tive employ

ment.

8¶ 22 In October , 2009, afte r he w as terminate d by the City , the claimant sought employ ment with his previous employ er ( Children' s) as a n emer g ency

room para

medic. Howe ver, the re w ere no such positions available. B eg inning on Oc tober 6, 2009, the c laimant obtained par t-time employ ment with Chil dren' s workingon an " I V Acc ess Tea m." The claimant and his tea m start I Vs for patients throughout the hospital whe n the nurses a re una ble to do so. The cla imant testified that he wor

ks two 12-hour shifts per

wee k and ea

rns a ne t weekly

salary of $900 to $1,000 per w eek. H e eve ntually obtained g roup insuranc e cove rag e ag ain throug h Children' s and subsequently

resumed his tre atment with Dr. F ox . ¶ 23 The c laimant testified that, at the time of the arbitration hearing , he continued to have
cra mping a nd pain in his right legwhich is incre ased by prolong ed sitting. He stated that he ha d g ained a pproxi mately

20 pounds since his ac cident due to his re duced a ctivity level. Pursuant to his phy sicians' instructions (and due to his fe ar of re- injury), he no long er pla y s sports or exercises vig orously
. ¶ 24 Relying on the claimant' s testimony and the testimony

of Drs. Cre mer, Hof

fman, F ox , Hirsch, a nd Weber, the a

rbitrator f ound that the claimant sustained a n acc ident arisingout of and in the course of his employ ment on May

6, 2008, and May

7, 2008, and that the c laimant' s prese nt condition of ill-being is c ausally related to those work a ccide nts. The ar bitrator found that the claimant wa s elig ible for be nefits under the Act be cause he wa s not a not a " duly appointed member " of

the Chicag o fire de partment at the time of his work ac cidents. In support of that conc lusion, the arbitrator c ited Dodaro v. Illinois W orkers' Compensation Comm'n , 403 I ll. App. 3d 538 (2010), in which we held that a Chica g o police re cruit in trainingwas not a " duly appointed member " of

the Chicag o police depa

rtment bec ause a

rec ruit does not have f

ull police

9power s until he or she complete s trainingat the police a cade my and is sworn in as a

police office r. The a

rbitrator " applie[d] the same log ic" to the claimant, who wa s a par amedic candidate. ¶ 25 The a

rbitrator f ound that the claimant ha d incurre d $152,788.84 in rea sonable a nd related medica l expenses for tre atment provided to him to cure or re lieve his condition. The arbitrator order ed the City to pay these e x penses pur suant to the fee schedule . Moreove r, the arbitrator conc luded that the cla imant was entitled to TTD a nd/or maintenanc e bene fits from May 8, 2008 throug h October

5, 2009 (the da

y befor e the c laimant beg an par t-time employ

ment as an I V technic ian with Children' s). ¶ 26 Howeve r, the a

rbitrator f ound that the claimant did not prove that he wa s entitled to
rec eive TPD or ma intenance benef its after his re turn to work on Oc tober 6, 2009, a nd denied the claimant' s claim for suc h benef its. I n support of this decision, the ar bitrator noted that: (1) althoug h sever al phy sicians re stricted the c laimant from re turningto the vigor ous strenuous activity of Ac ademy

training , no phy sician re stricted him from re turningto work as a para medic; (2) no phy sician re stricted the c laimant to part-time wor k; (3) the c laimant did not testify to a job
sear ch other

than attemptingto return to his old position at C hildren' s and his new position at Children' s as an I

V technic ian; (4) a

full-time, 40-hour wor

k wee k at the cla imant's c urre nt hourly salary approximates his salary

as a pa rame dic ca

ndidate with the City
. ¶ 27 Both pa

rties appe aled the a

rbitrator’ s decision to the Commiss ion. The cla imant appea led the ar

bitrator' s denial of TPD a nd/or maintenanc e bene fits. The employer a ppeale d the Commi ssion's a

war d of TTD be nefits and medic al expenses, ar guing that the claimant' s claims
are barr ed by

section 1(b) (1) of

the Act ( 820 I L CS 305/ 1(b)( 1) (West 2008)), which excludes

10"duly

appointed member (s)" of the e mploy er' s fire department fr om the Act' s definition of a
cover ed " employ ee" for pur poses of the c laims at issue in this case; (2) the claimant' s claims are barr ed under

the doctrine s of res judicata and/or c ollatera l estoppel bec ause the Boa rd denie d the claimant' s claim for duty

disability benef its arising out of the same a ccide nt and injuries at issue in this case. ¶ 28 The Commission m odified the a rbitrator' s decision by

awa rdingTPD benef

its. The Commi ssion found that the claimant wa s entitled to TPD benefits at a r ate of $251.40 for the period fr om October

6, 2009, throug h May

5, 2010. The Commission concluded that the arbitrator had " err ed in ca lculating[t he] [ c]laimant's c urre nt wag es base d on a 40 hour a wee k schedule beca

use [the] [c] laimant is curre ntly employ ed as a

part time employ ee f

or Children' s *** and not full time." Mor eover , althoug h the Commiss ion acknowle dg ed that no doctor has restric ted the cla imant from par t time employ

ment, it noted that "it is also true that [the City ] ref used to permit [the] [c] laimant to return." The Commission also observed that the City require d the claimant to under g o a F CE but denied cove rag e for the FCE. F urther, a lthough the Commi ssion acknowledg ed the limited nature of the c laimant' s job searc h, the Commiss ion "[found] it si g nificant that [the City ] failed to offer any vocational a ssistance a fter r efusingto let [t he] [ c]laimant return to the *** Ac ademy ." T he Commissi on also found that the City failed to comply with section 7110.70 of the I llinois Administrative Code (50 I ll. Adm. Code 7110.10 (2006)) which re quired the City to perfor m a vocational assessment eve n though the claimant did not reque st vocational assistance
. ¶ 29 The Commission rejected the City ' s arguments. Specifica lly , the Commiss ion concluded that the claimant wa s not a " duly appointed member " of

the Chicag o fire de partment a nd, thus, is

11not prec luded from be nefits under section (1) (b)( 1) of the A ct. The Commission held that this issue was c ontrolled by

our dec ision in Dodaro , 403 I ll. App. 3d 538. ¶ 30 Fur

ther, the Commission rejecte d the City ' s arg ument that the B oard' s denial of the claimant' s application for duty disability benef it's ba rs the cla imant's c laims before the Commi ssion under principles of res judicata and/or c ollatera l estoppel. In so holding, the Commi ssion reasone d:

"T he issues pre sented be fore the Commiss ion here are not the same issues that we re pr esente d befor e the *** B oard. The issue befor e the *** [B]oard wa s whether [t he] [ c]laimant was entitled to rec eive duty

disability benef its. The *** [Board] found that he was not disabled a

nd there fore not entitled to benefits from the Fire men' s Annuity

and B enef

it Fund of Chicag o beca

use he w as capa ble of re turningto work. The issues be fore the Commiss ion
are jurisdiction, accide nt, causa l connec tion, medical expenses, temporar y disability benef its, temporary

partial disability

benef its, and pena lties and attorney s' fee s. The *** [B]oard made no deter minations that are r eleva

nt to the issues on review he re. The Commi ssion concludes that [the] [ c]laimant's c laim is not barred by collater al estoppel or res judicata ." ¶ 31 The Commission further modified the a rbitrator' s decision by

reduc ing the awa

rd of medical e x penses, a

nd aff irmed and a dopted the ar

bitrator' s decision in all other re spects.

12¶ 32 The City soug ht judicial reviewof the Commission's dec ision in t he cir cuit court of Cook County , which conf

irmed the Commission's ruling . This appea l followed. ¶ 33 ANALYSI S ¶ 34 1. Section 1(b)( 1) of the A ct ¶ 35 The City

argues that the c laimant' s claim is barre d by section 1(b) (1) of

the Act ( 820 I L CS 305/ 1(b)( 1) (West 2008)). At the time of the cla imant's Ma y 2008 work injury , that section provided that " [a] duly

appointed member

of a f ire de partment in any

city , the population of which excee ds 200,000 acc ordingto the last fede ral or State c ensus, 2 is an employ ee unde r this Act only with respec t to claims broug ht under pa ragraph ( c) of

Section 8." 820 I L CS 305/ 1(b)( 1) (West 2008). The c laimant' s claims wer e not brought pursuant to section 8(c ) of the A ct. The City arg ues that the c laimant was a "duly appointed member " of

the Chicag o fire de partment a t the time of his May

2008 work injury

and, ther efor e, his claims ar e bar red unde r sec tion 1(b)(1). The Commission rejected this ar gument. We interpret the me aningof the statutory exclusion i n section 1(b) (1) de novo
. Dodaro , 403 I ll. App. 3d at 544-45. Howe ver, be cause the Commi ssion's de termination that the cla imant was not a " duly appointed member " of

the Chicag o fire de partment c oncer

ns the leg al ef

fec t of a g iven set of f

acts, we revie w that dec ision for clea r
err or. Id. We will reverse the Commiss ion's de cision "only when ther e is evidenc e supporting
reve rsal and [we] are left with the def inite and firm convic tion that a mistake has bee n made." Id. at 544.

2 Effe ctive August 8, 2011, the leg islature ame nded the statute by substitut ing the term "500,000" for " 200,000." T his amendment is immaterial. The pa rties do not dispute that the City of Chicag o has more tha

n 500,000 residents. 13¶ 36 Duringthe ar bitration hear ing, e ach pa rty prese nted evidenc e re g ardingthe claimant' s employ ment status at the time he wa s injured. At that time, the claimant wa s a ca ndidate fire para medic in trainingat the Ac ademy . The c laimant testified that, as a candidate, he wa s not a sworn off icer of the fir e depa

rtment, he wa s not give n a badg e or ide ntification identifying him as a Chicag o fire pa

rame dic, 3 and he r ece ived a lowe r salar y than a swor

n para medic. Ac cording

to the claimant, c andidates a re not a ble to rende r medica l assistance to c itiz ens on beha lf of the City . Candidates eng ag e in phy sical training and take classes in a

classroom e nvironment, but they do not work as a ctual par amedics. The claimant testified that c andidates a re not c onsidered para medics until they

g raduate from the A cade my and ar e sworn in at Navy Pier. ¶ 37 Kenne th Kaczmarz, the executive dire ctor of the Fire men' s Annuity and B enef

it Fund of Chicag o, testified on beha lf of the City . Kac zmarz t estified that, ac cordingto the fire depar tment's r ecor ds, the claimant wa s hired as a "f ireman/pa rame dic" beg inning Ma

y 1, 2008. Kac zmarz st ated that, onc e an e mploy ee is put on the Chicag o fire department' s pay roll and beg ins his duti es, he is a " full and contributingmember[] of the pension fund," even if he is a candidate in trainingat the time. Kac zmarz considered the c laimant an " active f ireman" under section 6-109 of

the Pension Code (40 I L CS 5/ 6-109 (West 2008)) who was e ntitled to apply for and re ceive disability

benef its under the Code. The City also prese nted var ious fire de partment personne l rec ords sig ned by the claimant shortly

befor e he be g an his employ ment which identify him as a " para

medic" workingfor the f

ire de partment. The City argues that these doc uments, toge ther with Ka czmarz's testimony , establish that the claimant wa s a " duly appointed member "

3 The c laimant stated that his uniform consisted of ba sic blue pants and a blue shirt without a Chicag o fire de partment e mblem. 14of the Chicag o fire de partment at the time of his May 2008 work injury

and, ther efor e, his claims
are barr ed under

section 1(b) (1) of

the Act. ¶ 38 We disag ree . We addre ssed a similar issue in Dodaro . In that case , the City argued that a Chicag o police re cruit who wa s injured duringa tra ining e x erc ise was a "duly appointed member" of the Chicag o police depa rtment, and ther efor e not elig ible for be nefits under section 1(b)( 1) of the A ct. Construing that section of the Ac t de novo , we inter prete d the word "me mber" to mean " a per son who has bee n admitted [usually formally] t o the re sponsibili ties and privileg es of some a ssociation or joint enterpr ise." Dodaro , 403 I ll. App. 3d at 546. Thus, we found that " the leg islature intended the statutory exclusion t o apply

to individuals who have bee n formally admitted to the responsibilities and privileg es of the Chica g o police depa rtment." Id. The c laimant testified that police r ecr uits were instruc ted that they wer e not police of

fice rs and had no author ity

to act as police office rs. Id. at 540. They wer e not issued badg es or a ny identification issued by

the Chicag o police depa

rtment and they

wer e not authorized to make
arr ests. Id. Recruits, unlike ac tual office rs, wer e not " sworn in." Id. We held that the evidenc e showed that the c laimant did not have full police pow ers a nd had not bee n "f

ormally admitted to the re sponsibili ties and privileg es" of the Chicag o police depa rtment at the time of he r injury
. Id. at 546. Acc ording ly , we he ld that the Commi ssion's rulingthat police re cruits wer e not " duly appointed member s" of

the police de partment for purposes of se ction 1(b)( 1) wa s not clear ly
err oneous. Id. We rea ched this holdingeven though "[t]here wa s evidenc e that re cruits wer e treated like sworn police office rs with respe ct to their elig ibilit y for be nefits under

the Police Pension Fund." Id.

15¶ 39 The same rea soning a pplies here . As Dodaro makes c lear , the dispositive question is whether the claimant ha d been " formally admitted to the responsibilities and privileg es" of the Chicag o fire de partment at the time of his injury
. Id. at 546. As noted, at the time he was injured, the c laimant was a candidate fire para

medic in trainingat the Ac ademy , not a sworn member of

the fire depar

tment. He did not work a s a par amedic, w as not g iven a ba dg e or identification identifying him as a Chicag o fire pa

rame dic, and wa s not authorized to render medical a ssistance to citizens on behalf of the City . L ike the cla imant in Dodaro , he did not have the full power s and privileg es of the job f or which he was tra ining. Thus, the Commission's rulingthat the claimant wa s not a " duly appointed member " of

the Chicag o fire de partment wa s not clear ly

err oneous. ¶ 40 The City

argues that the c laimant was a "duly appointed member " of

the fire depar

tment at the time of his injury

beca use: (1) he was a

n "a ctive fire man" under se ction 6-109 of the Pension Code (40 I L CS 5/ 6-109 (West 2008)) a nd was ther efor e entitled to apply for a nd rec eive disability benef its under the Code; and ( 2) fire depar tment personnel r ecor ds signe d by the claimant identify

him as a " para

medic." We rejec ted the same ty pes of a rguments in Dodaro
. There , the City

prese nted witnesses (inc luding the e x ecutive dir ector of the Police Pension Fund) who testified that police r ecr uits inj ured dur ing tr ainingwer e elig ible to rec eive duty disability benef its under the Pension Code. Dodaro , 403 I ll. App. 3d at 541-42. More over, the City prese nted documents that the c laimant signe d duringher tra ining at the police ac ademy which ref err ed to her

as a " member" of the police depar tment. Id. at 547. Howe ver, " [l ]ooki ngbeyond the label plac ed on re cruits in [t hose] documents" ( and beyond the claimant' s employ ment

16classification under the Pension Code), we focuse d instead on the fa ct that the cla imant lacked

the full power s and privileg es of a Chicag o police off

icer
. ¶ 41 We employ

the same a

naly sis here. The fac t that the claimant wa s considere d an " active firema n" unde r the Pension Code for purposes of duty

disability benef its does not establish that he is a " duly

appointed member " of

the fire depar

tment under sec tion 1(b)(1) of the Act. As w e made c lear

in Dodaro , the claimant' s status under sec tion 1(b)(1) de pends upon the powe rs and privileg es he e njoy ed at the time of his injury , not upon his eligibility for be nefits under

the Pension Code or any

labels used in per sonnel documents. ¶ 42 2. Res Judic ata and Collatera l Estoppel ¶ 43 The City

argues that the B oard' s denial of c laimant' s claim for duty disability benef its under the Pension Code bars the c laimant' s worker s' compensa tion claims under princ iples of res judicata and/or c ollatera l estoppel. We beg in our ana ly sis of this is sue by providinga brie f fac tual background of the pr ocee dings be fore the B oard. O n April 9, 2009, the cla imant filed an application for

duty -re lated disability

benef its with the B oard pur suant to section 6-151 of the I llinois Pension Code (40 I L CS 5/ 6-151 (West 2008)). A fter c onductinga hea ring , duringwhich the claimant testified a

nd prese nted testimony

from some of his tre atingdoctors, the B oard issued a letter on August 3, 2009, denying the claimant' s application. ¶ 44 The B oard' s written dec ision contained seve ral e x press finding s of fa ct, includingthat: (1) pr ior to May

8, 2008, the claimant wa s an " active f ireman" as that term is def ined under section 6-109 of

the Pension Code (40 I L CS 5/ 6-109 (West 2008)); (2) on May 8, 2008, the claimant wa s eng ag ed in trainingactivities at the F ire Ac ademy when he experience d pain in his leg s and dar

k colore d urine; (3) the claimant wa s subsequently diag nosed with " acute

17rhahdmyelesis [ sic ]" and with compa rtment sy ndrome of the rig ht lower e x tremity ; (4) the claimant re ceive d medical tre atment and phy sical thera py to treat his kidney

condition "until his conditions subsided"; (5) on May 7, 2009, a phy sician with the Chicag o fire de partment found the claimant to be in stable condition; (6) the cla imant was examined by the phy sician consultant to the Boa

rd, Dr. G eorg e S. Motto, who found the claimant to be in " g ood phy sical condition" ; and (7) "[the cla imant's] treating ne phrolog ist, S udesh K. Vohr a, M.D. a nd the *** B oard' s phy sician-c onsultant, Georg e S. Motto, M.D., have conc luded that the [claimant] is able to perf orm his duties in the Chicag o Fire Depa rtment and that his kidney condition has stabiliz ed." ¶ 45 Ba sed on these f indings, the B oard c oncluded that the c laimant "ha s made a full
rec overy from the c onditions t hat he e x perie nced while in trainingwith the Chicag o Fire Depa rtment," he " is not curre ntly experiencingany

phy sical condition that would preve nt him from per forminghis parame dic duties with the Chicag o Fire Depa rtment," and the c laimant "ha s not produce d sufficie nt evidence to meet his burden of provingthat he is entitled to rec eive a Duty Disability

Be nefit pursua

nt to 40 I L CS 5/ 6-151 of the I llinois Pension Code." ¶ 46 The c laimant filed a c omplaint for administrative re view of the Boa rd' s decision in the circ uit court of Cook County , arguing that the Boa rd' s decision containe d fac tual err ors, was ag ainst the manifest we ight of the evidenc e, and w as contra ry to law. The c ircuit court a ffirme d the B oard' s decision. 4 ¶ 47 In the ca se at ba

r, the City argues that the B oard' s denial of the c laimant' s claim for duty disability bars his worke rs' compensation claims under the doc trine of res judicata and/or

4 Appar ently , the claimant c hose not to appea l the circ uit court' s decision. 18collater al estoppel. We hold that res judicata does not apply here . Howeve r, we hold that some (but not all) of the c laimant' s claims are barr ed under principles of c ollatera l estoppel. ¶ 48 Under

the doctrine of res judicata , "a final judg ment rende red by a cour t of compete nt jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the par ties and their pr ivies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute ba r to a subseque nt action involving the sa me claim, dema

nd, or
cause of ac tion." J &R Carrozza Plumbing Co. v. Industrial Comm'n , 307 I ll. App. 3d 220, 223 (1999). Administrative a g ency decisions have res judicata eff ect whe n the ag ency' s deter mination is m ade in pr ocee dings which ar e adjudicatory , judicial, or quasi-judicia l in nature. McCulla v. Industrial Comm'n , 232 I ll. App. 3d 517, 520 (1992). To e stablish res judicata , a party must show: (1) that the forme r adjudication resulted in a fina l judgment on the me rits; (2) that the forme r and c urre nt adjudications wer e betwe en the same par ties; (3) that the for

mer adjudication involved the same ca use of a ction and same subject matter of the later case ; and (4) that a cour

t or administrative ag ency of compe tent jurisdiction render ed the f irst judgment. Hannigan v. Hoffmeister , 240 I ll. App. 3d 1065, 1075-76 (1992). ¶ 49 Severa l of these e lements ca nnot be satisfied in this case . First, the litigation before the Boa rd involved diffe rent pa

rties than the c ase be fore the Commiss ion. The def endant in the claimant' s action for

duty disability benef its was the B oard, while the def endant in the instant
case is the City . The B oard a nd the City

are separ ate e ntities. S ee, e.g. , Hannigan , 240 I ll. App. 3d at 1076 (c oncludingthat two State ag encie s were not identical par ties for res judicata purposes); Rhoads v. Board of Trustees of the City of Cal umet City Policeme n's Pension Fund , 293 I ll. App. 3d 1070, 1075 (1997) (holdingthat the City of Calumet City

and the Calumet City Police Pension Boar d wer e diffe rent pa rties, pre cludingthe application of collatera l estoppel).

19¶ 50 Moreove r, the c laimant' s claim for duty disability benef its does not involve the "same
cause of ac tion and same subjec t matter" as his claims for w orker s' compensation benefits. The latter c laims were broug ht under a differ ent statute (the A ct, as opposed to the Pension Code) , and they seek be nefits that ar e not ava ilable under the Pension Code, such as TTD benef its and medical e x penses. See Hannigan , 240 I ll. App. 3d at 1076 (holdingthat claim under the Pension Code was not same cause of ac tion as prior cla im bought under the Act, pr ecludingthe application of res judicata ). 5 ¶ 51 Howeve r, some, but not all, of the c laimant' s claims befor e the Commission are bar red by principles of c ollatera l estoppel. " Collateral estoppe l prohibits the relitigation of an issue essential to and a ctually

decide d in an ea

rlier pr ocee ding by

the same pa

rties or their pr ivies." McCulla , 232 I ll. App. 3d at 520. Administrative ag ency decisions made in a djudicatory , judicial, or quasi-judicia l proce eding s may have c ollatera l estoppel eff ect. Id. Collateral estoppel may

be asse rted whe n: (1) the issue de cided in the pr ior adjudica tion is i dentical to the issue in the curr ent ac tion; (2) the issue was " nece ssarily deter mined" in the pr ior adjudication;

5 Acc ording ly , while the B oard ha d jurisdiction to decide the c laimant' s claims for duty disability benef its, itwould not be a tribuna l of compete nt jurisdiction to decide his claims for wor kers' compensation benefits. The a war d of worke rs' compensation benefits is controlled by the Act, a

nd the Commiss ion has exclusive orig inal jurisdiction to decide cla ims for such benef its. S ee 820 I L CS 305/ 18 (West 2008) (providingthat "[a]ll questions arising under th[ e] Act, if not settled by

ag ree ment of the pa

rties intere sted there in, shall, ex cept a s otherwise provided, be deter

mined by the Commiss ion") ; see a lso Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co. , 151 I ll. 2d 142, 157-58 (1992) ; Nestle USA, Inc . v. Dunlap , 365 I ll. App. 3d 727, 732 (2006). 20(3) the pa

rty ag ainst whom estoppel is asserte d was a party or in privity

with a par

ty in the prior action; (4) the party

had a f ull and fair oppor

tunity to contest the issue in the prior a djudication; and (5) the prior a djudication must have re sulted in a final judg ment on the merits. Mabie v

. Village of Schaumburg , 364 I ll. App. 3d 756, 758 (2006); McCulla , 232 I ll. App. 3d at 520. ¶ 52 The City

argues that the B oard' s denial of duty disability benef its precludes a ll of the claimant' s worker s' compensation claims. I n support of this argument, the B oard r elies on ca ses which hold that the standa rd for deter mining whe ther a

firema n' s injury was incur

red in the line of duty under the Pension Code is equivalent to the standar d for de terminingwhether an
acc idental injury

arose out of and in the c ourse of his employ

ment under the Act. See, e.g. , McCulla , 232 I ll. App. 3d at 521; Mabie , 364 I ll. App. 3d at 800; O'Cal laghan v. Retireme nt Board of Firemen's Annuity &Bene fit Fund , 302 I ll. App. 3d at 579, 583 (1999); W ilfert v. Retireme nt Board of Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago , 263 I ll. App. 3d 539, 544 (1994). Apply

ing this principle, w e have held that a de termination by the B oard that a fire man' s injury was not incurr ed in the line of duty collater ally

estops that firema

n from re litigatingthe issue of ca

usation befor e the Commission. McCulla , 232 I ll. App. 3d at 521-22. 6 Howeve r, these c ases a

re ina pposite. Here , the B oard did not find that the injuries the c laimant suffe red duringhis training in Ma

y 2008 wer e not incurr ed in the line of duty . (In fac t, to the ext ent the

6 Mabiestands for the c onverse proposition. I n Mabie , our appe llate cour t held that the Commi ssion's de cision that a fire man' s injury arose out of and in the c ourse of his employ

ment barr ed the Villag e of Scha umburgfrom re litigatingthe issue of c ausation in a subseque nt proce edingunder the Public Employ ee D isability Act by arguing that the claimant' s injury did not
occur in the line of duty
. 21Boa

rd addr essed c ausation at a ll, it i mplicitly found that the c laimant' s injuries were cause d by his training.) The B oard me rely held that, howeve r the c laimant' s injuries were cause d, they wer e resolved by

August 3, 2009 (the date of the B oard' s decision) a

nd that the claimant wa s fully
rec overe d and able to perfor m his duti es as a

para medic with the City

at that time. Acc ording ly , the B oard' s decision is fully consistent with the Commi ssion's a war d of TTD be nefits and medical e x penses pr ior to August 3, 2009. The City ' s argument that the B oard' s decision collater ally

estops all

of the c laimant' s worker s' compensation claims cannot succ eed. ¶ 53 Howeve r, the B oard' s decision does c ollatera lly estop the cla imant from re litigatingthe issues of whethe r he w as disabled a fter A ugust 3, 2009, and whethe r his work-r elated injurie s rende red him unable to wor k as a pa rame dic af

ter that date. As noted, the B oard de cided that he was fully rec overe d and fully

able to per form his job as a pa rame dic by

that date. In order

to
awa rd TTD a nd TPD benef

its after that date, the Commission would have to rea ch a c ontrary conclusion. See, e.g. , Mec hanical Dev ices v . Industrial Comm' n , 344 I ll. App. 3d 752, 759 (2003); (" To establish entitlement to TTD bene fits, a claimant must demonstrate not only that he or she did not work, but a lso that the claimant wa s unable to work." ); 820 I L CS 305/ 8(a) (West 2008) (pr oviding that a

n employ ee is e ntitled to TP D bene fits only when he is " working light dut y on a par t-time basis or full-time basis and e arns less than he or she would be ear ning if employ ed in the full capa city

of the job or jobs" ) (e mphasis added) . All of the re quirements for collater al estoppel ar e met as to a s to any claim for T TD or TPD be nefits af ter August 3, 2009. W e there fore reve rse the Commission's aw ard of such bene fits. 7 Howeve r, we emphasize that,

7 The c laimant argues that there wer e " proce dural irr egularities" in the Boa rd proc eeding s and that the B oard' s decision was ba sed on blatantly incorre ct fa ctual finding s. By raisingthese 22althoug h TTD and T PD benef its after August 3, 2009, are ba rre d by collater al estoppel, a ll benef its awarde d for a

ny time periods bef

ore that date ar e not bar

red. ¶ 54 Be cause the Commiss ion's a war d of TPD bene fits commence d on October 6, 2009, it is barr ed by collater al estoppel. Ac cording ly , we do not nee d to addre ss the City ' s alternative argument that the Commiss ion's a war d of TPD bene fits was ag ainst the manifest we ight of the evidenc e. ¶ 55 CONCLUSI ON ¶ 56 For

the fore g oing r easons, we reve rse the judg ment of the c ircuit court of Cook County

to the extent that it confirmed the Commissi on' s awa rd of TPD a

nd TTD bene fits for any

time period afte r August 3, 2009. W e af firm the cir cuit court of Cook County ' s judgme nt in all other respe cts,

issues, the claimant a

ppear s to sugg est that he did not have a " full and fa ir" opportunity to liti g ate his claims before the B oard. H oweve r, the B oard c onducted a hearing dur ing which the cla imant had the oppor

tunity to testify and to pre sent evidenc e, includingmedical witness testimony
. Moreove r, the c ircuit court a ffirme d the B oard' s decision, and the c laimant appar ently chose not to appea l that decision. Thus, we a re not in a position to pass on any alleg ed er

rors or " proce dural irregularities" in the Boa

rd' s decision, and we cannot de ny the pre clusive ef

fec t of the B oard' s judgme nt. See McCulla , 232 I ll. App. 3d at 521 (re jectingclaimant' s argument that board' s decision should not collatera lly estop his worker s' compensation claim beca use the boa

rd misunderstood his claims and the applica ble law, a nd stating tha

t "wha tever the pension boar d' s understandingof the c laimant' s claim and a ny err ors of laware not before this court" a nd that "[t]he claimant did not appeal the boa rd' s determination" ).

23including its conf irmation of the Commissi on' s awa rd of TTD benef

its for time periods prior to August 3, 2009. ¶ 57 Affir

med in part a

nd reve rsed in par

t; cause r emande d.

24