Court Opinion

ID: 9732584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:26:57.607234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:01.248382
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KASSERMAN, dissenting: I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the majority that the claimant is entitled to interest under section 2 — 1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 2 — 1303); therefore, I respectfully dissent. Counsel for claimant was before this court on September 25, 1984, requesting interest under section 19(n) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 138.19(n)). This court declined to award interest for the reason stated in the opinion of the majority. Subsequent to those proceedings, the same counsel appeared before the circuit court in the case at bar seeking interest under section 2— 1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Obviously, the effect of awarding interest in the instant proceeding is to permit the employee to circumvent not only the provisions of section 19(n) of the Act but also the prior decision of this court. Therefore, when the decision of the majority is published, one can anticipate all claims for interest being made under the Code of Civil Procedure rather than the Workers’ Compensation Act in instances where the award of the arbitrator is reduced on review because interest is not recoverable under the Workers’ Compensation Act in situations where the award of the arbitrator is neither confirmed nor increased by the Industrial Commission. Such a result would render the provisions of section 19(n) of the Act totally meaningless. In this regard, I would note that it has long been recognized that the Workers’ Compensation Act provides an exclusive remedy for the recovery of damages due to injuries sustained by an employee during the course of his employment (section 5(a) and section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 48, pars. 138.5(a), 138.11; Sharp v. Gallagher (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 322, 326-27, 447 N.E.2d 786, 787-88; McCormick v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 352, 356, 423 N.E.2d 876, 879). Section 11 of the Act provides in pertinent part: “The compensation herein provided, together with the provisions of this Act, shall be the measure of the responsibility of any employer [covered by the Act] ***.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 48, par. 138.11.) The current proceedings instituted by the employee, seeking interest under the Code of Civil Procedure, is an attempt to totally circumvent these provisions. The majority relies on the decision in Proctor Community Hospital v. Industrial Com. (1971), 50 Ill. 2d 7, 276 N.E.2d 342, for the proposition that interest on awards of the Industrial Commission may be ordered under the provisions of section 2 — 1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is my conclusion that the enactment of section 19(n) of the Workers’ Compensation Act subsequent to the decision in Proctor did, in fact, overrule the decision in Proctor. Furthermore, it would be most incongruous to permit the employee in the case at bar to circumvent our prior decision by affirming the award of interest under the general interest statute found in section 2 — 1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 2 — 1303). It may be anticipated that in the future, claimants most certainly will seek interest under section 2 — 1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and not under section 19(n) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, in all situations in which the award of the arbitrator is neither confirmed nor increased on review. It is my opinion that section 19(n) of the Workers’ Compensation Act is the sole basis for the award of interest to a claimant under the Act. For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the decision of the circuit court.