Court Opinion

ID: 9533681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:33:53.685733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:07.347137
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully disagree that the court erred in denying section 19(k) penalties and section 16 attorney fees. Here the arbitrator awarded attorney fees and section 19(k) penalties. Section 19(k) of the Act states that only "the Commission may award compensation additional to that otherwise payable” under the Act. 820 ILCS 305/19(k) (West 1992). The arbitrator has no authority to award section 19(k) penalties. In contrast to section 19(k) of the Act, which restricts the imposition of penalties to the Commission, section 19(1) of the Act states the "arbitrator or the Commission” shall allow additional compensation. (Emphasis added.) 820 ILCS 305/19(1) (West 1992). With respect to penalties, section 19(1) of the Act provides for penalties with respect to payments "during the period of [TTD].” 820 ILCS 305/19(1) (West 1992). Section 19(k) of the Act allows "the Commission” to award additional compensation "equal to 50% of the amount payable at the time of such award.” (Emphasis added.) 820 ILCS 305/19(k) (West 1992). The Commission stated in its decision some six contentions of the respondent as to penalties. The Commission stated "the facts of this case do not support section 19(k) penalties or section 16 attorney fees. The parties agreed at oral argument that the arbitrator’s award was paid shortly after its entry. Reviewing courts should be wary of interfering with Commission decisions. In Board of Education, the Commission, not the arbitrator, awarded section 19(k) penalties and section 16 attorney fees. The supreme court stated, "We believe it wholly consistent with Brinkmann, as that case was applied in McKay [Plating Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 91 Ill. 2d 198, 437 N.E.2d 617 (1982)], to view the arbitrator’s award entered on May 22, 1978, and the employer’s failure to comply with it as justification for the penalties imposed under section 19(k), as well as the award of attorney fees under section 16.” Board of Education, 93 Ill. 2d at 13, 442 N.E.2d at 867. In McKay, the Commission awarded sections 19(1) and (k) penalties and section 16 attorney fees. The McKay court said, "Brinkmann requires only that there be an award, not that it be in the amount which the Commission ultimately finds to be due. *** *** Whether the employer’s conduct justifies the imposition of penalties is to be considered in terms of reasonableness and is a factual question for the Commission. Its decision is not to be disturbed unless against the manifest weight of the evidence.” McKay, 91 Ill. 2d at 209, 437 N.E.2d at 622-23. In summary, there is no legal basis for the court to adopt an arbitrator’s award of sections 19(k) and 16 penalties. The arbitrator has no authority to award these penalties. As stated herein, section 19(k) of the Act states "the Commission may award” (820 ILCS 305/19(k) (West 1992)) and section 19(1) of the Act states "the arbitrator or the Commission shall allow” (820 ILCS 305/19(1) (West 1992)). Because the Commission determines section 19(k) penalties and section 16 attorney fees, it is necessary to address section 19(e) of the Act, which provides that "after December 18, 1989, no additional evidence shall be introduced by the parties before the Commission on review of the decision of the Arbitrator.” (Emphasis added.) 820 ILCS 305/19(e) (West 1992). That section 19(e) prohibition does not apply in requests for penalties. The restriction against additional evidence is with respect to "review of the decision of the Arbitrator.” (Emphasis added.) 820 ILCS 305/19(e) (West 1992). As the arbitrator cannot award section 19(k) penalties, the prohibition against additional evidence is not applicable. The prayer for penalties under section 19(k) of the Act is not a "decision of the Arbitrator.” 820 ILCS 305/19(e) (West 1992).