Court Opinion

ID: 9860069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:09:07.361266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:38.689188
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LUND, specially concurring: While concurring with the majority as to results and reasoning, I would hold that William Osborne, the injured employee, could not intervene after the two-year limitation period expired. This position is based on the theory that section 5(b) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, par 138.5(b)) provides the employer with a right to protect his interest, being unable to do so by lien, and is not a means of giving the employee an additional limitation period. I believe any other position opens the door under section 2 — 408 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 — 408) for an employee to seek intervention any time before trial. The right given the employer is for the employer’s protection, and unless there is intervention by the employee, within the limitation period, the employer should be able to litigate without necessary concern for the employee’s interests. A late intervention, as in the present case, could well cause expensive and burdensome delays.