Reviewing the debate, we conclude that it does not support Plantation's position. The debate indicates that the practice of the employer affording the injured worker medical care shall continue unless the employee later on elects to secure his own medical care. Nothing in the debate indicates any intent to limit the employer's liability for medical care to that already provided prior to arbitration. Plantation also contends other parts of the statute, including the section on the employee's choice of medical treatment, also speak in the past tense. The consistent use of the past tense in reference to medical treatment, Plantation argues, further demonstrates the legislature's intent to limit the employer's liability for prospective medical treatment.
Plantation misinterprets the statute.
154 Ill. App. 215 Ill. App. In Zephyr, the claimant sustained a work injury which resulted in the complete loss of use of both legs. The parties agreed that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled. 215 Ill. App.