Court Opinion

ID: 9717217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:00:17.347706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:52.041934
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KASSERMAN, dissenting in part and concurring in part: I am unable to agree with the decision of the majority that the Industrial Commission erred in refusing to assess penalties under either section 19(k) or 19(l) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, pars. 138.19(k), 138.19(l)). Therefore, I concur in the opinion of the majority in the case at bar with the exception that I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion assessing statutory penalties. Hoffman failed to pay temporary total disability benefits for a period from May 4, 1981, to September 1981. The majority concludes that Hoffman’s termination of benefits for this period was “objectively reasonable” based on its receipt of claimant’s release for work on May 4, 1981, but concludes, however, that Hoffman acted- unreasonably in failing to pay temporary total disability benefits for such period following the arbitrator’s award of such benefits. In this regard, where there is a delay in paying compensation, it is the employer’s burden to show that it had a reasonable belief that its delay in payment was justified. (Continental Distributing Co. v. Industrial Com. (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 407, 414, 456 N.E.2d 847, 850.) However, whether an employer has acted reasonably in refusing to pay benefits is to be decided on a case-by-case basis; and whether the employer’s conduct justifies the imposition of penalties is to be considered in terms of reasonableness and is a factual question to be determined by the Industrial Commission, whose decision will not be disturbed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. McKay Plating Co. v. Industrial Com. (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 198, 437 N.E.2d 617. In the case at bar, the Industrial Commission was faced with evidence that claimant was released for light duty work on May 4, 1981. The majority recognizes that the termination of benefits by Hoffman upon receipt of such notice was “objectively reasonable”; however, it reverses the refusal of the Industrial Commission to assess penalties against Hoffman for failure to pay benefits covering such period after the award of the arbitrator was announced. The decision of the Industrial Commission is entitled to deference unless manifestly erroneous. It is my conclusion that no such error exists in the case at bar. For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the decision of the Industrial Commission refusing to assess penalties. I concur in the decision of the majority in all other respects. Presiding Justice Webber joins in this dissent and partial concurrence.