Court Opinion

ID: 9734946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:54:06.071309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:52.855336
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. On August 24, 1994, the Commission affirmed the original decision of the arbitrator to the effect that no employee-employer relationship existed at the time of the October 12, 1978, accident. Although the circuit court reversed and remanded and the arbitrator and Commission have issued new decisions on remand, this court first determines the propriety of the original Commission decision before proceeding to an analysis of the decision entered on remand. University of Illinois v. Industrial Comm’n, 232 Ill. App. 3d 154, 157, 596 N.E.2d 823, 826 (1992). The circuit court determined that the Commission’s August 24, 1984, decision was erroneous as a matter of law or, in the alternative, against the manifest weight of the evidence. The majority indicates agreement with the circuit court’s alternative finding, the manifest weight determination. The Commission’s first decision determined that claimant was not an employee of respondent, but was a contractual employee of the family of the patient she was attending. As the majority states, this unlicensed person performed a job for the patient at respondent’s nursing home that contained elements of both independent contractor and an employee relationship. According to the majority, factors "such as the method of pay, point to an independent contractor status.” 286 Ill. App. 3d at 555. The evidence is clear that respondent had the ultimate responsibility for the care of the elderly patient. Claimant was hired by the family to attend only this patient. She had no responsibilities with regard to respondent’s operation, and respondent rightfully restricted her movements to being with this patient. Claimant testified these restrictions were similar in the various nursing homes and hospitals in which she attended patients on a private duty basis. Marilyn Schultz, respondent’s director of nursing, testified that there were duties imposed on respondent in the care of patients by regulations of the state and city. Claimant had the right to refuse to take a position offered through the registry, she provided her own uniform, and was paid directly by the patient’s family. She in turn paid the registry (Altru) 7% of her income. Respondent had no control over her work schedule, her pay rate, or fringe benefits. If claimant needed a day off, she called the registry to arrange a replacement, then simply notified respondent that a replacement would be coming. Although the respondent could refuse to allow claimant to work on its premises, there was no evidence that the family was prevented from moving the patient and having claimant continue in attendance. Respondent did not pay claimant, withhold social security or income taxes, or provide group insurance for claimant. Instead of considering these factors as supporting the Commission decision, the majority reweighs the evidence and finds the balance of factors in favor of finding an employee relationship. Assigning weight to the evidence is the function of the Commission, not the reviewing court. Smith v. Industrial Comm’n, 98 Ill. 2d 20, 23, 455 N.E.2d 86, 88 (1983). Here, there was evidence supporting the original Commission decision, and it is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Commission decision of August 24, 1984, should have been confirmed. The majority, by judicial edict, is expanding the coverage of the Act to a new segment of the work force. If coverage is to be appropriate in this type of case, it is better to be done by legislative enactment. HOLDRIDGE, J., joins this dissent.