Injured Worker Awarded Both Wage Loss Benefits and Permanent Total Disability Benefits

Attorney Blog

A beer truck delivery driver injured his low back on July 15, 1999 while moving cases of beer with a hand truck.  He had surgery a few months later.  Unfortunately, because of the severity of his injury, he could not return to his beer truck driver delivery job.  His doctor had placed him on permanent restrictions.  However, his employer did find him a job in its warehouse.  The warehouse job paid much less.  As his employer is required to do under Illinois law, it began paying wage differential benefits to compensate him for his permanent loss of income.

Unfortunately for this worker, he suffered a new injury on October 23, 2002.  This time, he injured his neck while working in the warehouse.  His doctor performed surgery a few months later.  Following this surgery, his doctor placed him on even greater permanent restrictions.  His employer could not accommodate these restrictions.  The injured worker searched for a new job within these restrictions but could not find one.  He took both of his cases to hearing.  He argued that he was entitled to both the wage differential from his first injury and permanent total disability from his second injury.

The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission agreed that the injured worker was permanently disabled as a result of the second injury.  However, the Workers’ Compensation Commission said that his right to wage loss benefits ended when he was unable to work following his second injury.  The Circuit Court agreed.

The Illinois Appellate Court agreed with the injured worker and reversed the decision of the Circuit Court and the Workers’ Compensation Commission!  The Appellate Court stated that the injured worker is entitled to both benefits — at the same time.  The Appellate Court said that since the injured worker suffered two separate accidents, he is entitled to full compensation for both.  His decreased earning capacity following the first injury did not end with his second, more severe injury.  The first injury had resulted in permanent economic loss — one that prevented him from earning wages as a beer truck delivery driver.  The second injury did not change the economic loss that the first injury had caused.

The Appellate Court said that Petitioner is not getting a double recovery.  He suffered two distinct injuries with two distinct economic losses.  He is entitled to recovery for both losses.

If you have questions about filing a workers’ compensation claim, an experienced workers’ compensation attorney can assist you. Contact Woodruff Johnson & Evans Law Offices to discuss your case.

Categories:

Got a Settlement Quicker Than I Expected and Better Than I Expected!

My second time with Leandro A. at Woodruff Johnson and Evans. Another great job. Didn’t have to talk with work comp at all this time since I told work comp I don’t trust them after the first occurrence with them. Got a settlement quicker than I expected and better than I expected. Thanks to Leandro […]

Brian M.

Attorney Dexter Evans: Professional, Responsive and Took Care of Business. Highly Recommended. You Will Not Be Disappointed!

Dexter Evans handled my case for a motor vehicle incident. I would like to inform you that he was very professional, responsive, and took care of business. Whenever I had a question they were very quick to respond and handled everything for me. If it wasn’t Dexter then Nicole was right there. I highly recommend […]

Otis S

Go to the Doctor. Do the Tests. Get the Diagnostics. Hire Leandro Alhambra!

Leandro Alhambra took on my workman’s comp case and did a great job getting a good return back. I had him take on the case late (2 years after the incident) and he still was able to provide a good amount of compensation. Advice to anyone reading: go to the doctor, do the tests and […]

Nelson V

Leandro A. Alhambra Fights to Get Every Dollar for his Clients

I used Leandro A. Alhambra for my workmans comp. case. I see in him that he fights to get every dollar for his clients to be satisfied of the outcome.

Daniel H

Their Office Represented Me Very Well

I felt that their office represented me very well with a very difficult people to deal with. The process took a long time but at the end they were able to close the deal. I want to thank you for the support and ability to answer any and all questions I had during this process. […]

DJ

Attorney Leandro “Lee” Alhambra has given me and my family a peace of mind that I am much grateful for.

My experience with Woodruff Johnson & Evans has been a blessing. My attorney Lee has been such a professional but also a friend that has walked me through many of the things that I had no knowledge of or what I should do next. He has given me and my family a peace of mind […]

Michael K.

I just wanted to let you and your office know how pleased I was with your handling of my case!

Dear Russell, I just wanted to let you and your office know how pleased I was with your handling of my case. The promptness in which you handled this matter and the professionalism you showed while doing so was greatly appreciated. Should there arise another time in which I need assistance or should an acquaintance […]

M. Wright

Attorney Dexter Evans Was Always Available to Answer Any Concerns I Had.

D.J. was always available to answer any concerns I had. The entire case was handled professionally. I am completely satisfied with entire staff at Woodruff Johnson & Evans that I encountered.

John N.

Attorney Jay Johnson went above and beyond!

Attorney Jay Johnson went above and beyond. He made everything so easy and was always available for any questions I needed to ask. I highly recommend Woodruff Johnson & Evans!

Chad M.

Attorney Russell Haugen was awesome!

Attorney Russell Haugen was awesome at handling my case and very communicative on a lot of information I needed help with as well. He also took out the time to make sure I was handled with great provision! Thanks

Jashaunti P.
View All Testimonials

Get Your Free Consultation

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.