Helping Hands Ctr. v. The Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n

1

2024 IL App (1st) 240057WC-U

HELPING HANDS CENTER, Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Elizabeth Lamas, Appellee.

No. 1-24-0057WC

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Workers' Compensation Commission Division

September 27, 2024

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 23-L-50077 Honorable Patrick T. Stanton, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE MULLEN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justices Hoffman, Cavanagh, and Barberis concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

MULLEN, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: (1) Section 11 of the Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/11 (West 2016)) does not bar recovery for claimant's injury; (2) the Commission's finding that claimant's injury arose out of her employment with respondent was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (3) the Commission's finding that claimant's current condition of ill-being is causally related to her work accident was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 I. INTRODUCTION

¶ 3 Claimant, Elizabeth Lamas, worked as a medical assistant for respondent, Helping Hands Center. On June 19, 2017 claimant was decorating the office for her supervisor's birthday when she lost her balance, fell from a desk, and injured her right foot and the right side of her body. Claimant sought benefits for her injury pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2016)). Following a hearing, the arbitrator determined that claimant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment and that claimant's current condition of ill-being was causally related to her work accident. Reasoning that claimant was not engaged in a "party" or "recreational program" at the time of her injury, the arbitrator additionally determined that compensation was not barred by section 11 of the Act (820 ILCS 305/11 (West 2016)), which precludes an employee from recovering for accidental injuries incurred while participating in "voluntary recreational programs" unless the employee was ordered or assigned by the employer to so participate. The arbitrator awarded claimant medical expenses, temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, and permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. A majority of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) affirmed and adopted the decision of the arbitrator. On judicial review, the circuit court of Cook County confirmed. In this appeal, respondent argues that claimant was not entitled to benefits because section 11 of the Act bars recovery for her injury. Alternatively respondent posits that the Commission erred in finding that claimant's injury arose out of her employment and that claimant's current condition of ill-being is causally related to her work accident. We affirm.

¶ 4 II. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Respondent operates an agency for adults and children with developmental disabilities, providing day services, housing and schooling. Prior to the events at issue, claimant had been an employee of respondent for 17 years. Since 2010, claimant worked for respondent as a medical assistant in the nurse's office. Claimant testified that in this capacity, her duties included answering telephones, scheduling appointments, taking vitals, filing, faxing, and assisting the doctor.

¶ 6 On June 19, 2017, claimant was decorating the office for the birthday of her immediate supervisor, Kathlyn Thompson. Claimant was on top of a desk putting up streamers when she lost her balance and fell on her right side. Claimant recalled that, prior to June 19, 2017, she had decorated the office for some of her coworkers' birthdays and other celebrations, although she did not remember the number of times she had done so. According to claimant, it was "quite the norm at our job that we would celebrate each other's birthdays or if somebody was leaving for another job." Claimant noted that just a week before the accident, Thompson instructed her to decorate the office for Olga, a nurse who was leaving respondent's employ. Thompson called claimant on the morning of Olga's last day of work and instructed claimant to purchase streamers, balloons, and other decorations. Thompson reimbursed claimant for the cost of the items.

¶ 7 Claimant testified that on June 19, 2017, the day of the injury, she used the decorations that were left over from Olga's celebration to decorate the office for Thompson's birthday. Claimant used a stool to step onto a desk to reach the ceiling. Claimant lost her balance and fell on her right side, hitting her right hip first and then her whole body. She was not able to get up. One of her coworkers walked in and found her on the floor. The coworker helped her up from the floor and called claimant's supervisor. At that time, claimant was in severe pain and could not put any weight on her right foot. Thompson instructed the coworker to take claimant to the emergency room. Medical personnel diagnosed a foot fracture and instructed claimant to follow up with an orthopedist.

¶ 8 Claimant admitted that no one ordered or assigned her to put up decorations for Thompson's birthday on June 19, 2017. Claimant acknowledged that her actions were entirely voluntary, something she decided to do. Claimant agreed that she was not required to decorate for the event on June 19, 2017, but asserted that it was normal to decorate for special occasions like birthdays. She also agreed that no one ordered or instructed her to stand on the desk to hang streamers around Thompson's workstation. Claimant testified that she had never been disciplined for not decorating for a coworker's party or celebratory event.

¶ 9 Thompson testified that on June 19, 2017, she was employed by respondent as the associate director of nursing. Thompson was responsible for the overall health and safety of the clients who lived in respondent's housing units. Claimant reported directly to Thompson. Claimant's duties included ordering medication, running the clinic with the doctor, scheduling lab draws for patients, occasionally going to patient's houses to check on their medications, and ensuring that patients scheduled appointments.

¶ 10 Thompson testified she did not direct claimant to decorate the office for a party or celebratory event on June 19, 2017. Moreover, Thompson did not direct anyone in the days leading up to June 19, 2017, that he or she should decorate for a party on that date. Thompson testified that in her entire employment with respondent, she never directed, ordered, or assigned anyone to decorate the office for a party or a celebratory event. Thompson testified that she had voluntarily decorated in the past for holidays, birthdays, and babies. Nobody was required, ordered, or assigned to participate in those celebrations. Thompson agreed that decorating for the events was entirely voluntary. Nobody was disciplined, reprimanded, or fired for not decorating for or participating in a party or celebratory event.

¶ 11 Thompson further testified that she never ordered or assigned anyone to get up on a desk to hang decorations. Thompson did not tell claimant in the days leading up to June 19, 2017, that it was okay for her to climb on top of a desk to hang decorations for a party or celebratory event. If someone wanted to hang something high on the wall or on the ceiling, a ladder was stored on the premises, and the individual would have to get a key from the maintenance staff to access the storage area. On cross-examination, Thompson acknowledged that, although it was not a policy, it was a "fact" that the office was frequently decorated for birthdays and other events.

¶ 12 Following her injury on June 19, 2017, claimant was taken off work and was eventually treated by Dr. Robert Miklos. Dr. Miklos's diagnosis was twofold: (1) a Lisfranc fracture of the first/second metatarsal base of the right foot and (2) a fracture of the fourth metatarsal base of the right foot. Dr. Miklos recommended an open reduction internal fixation of the Lisfranc fracture with screw placement into the second metatarsal base. Dr. Miklos performed surgery on claimant's right foot on July 7, 2017. During the procedure, a screw was placed through the fracture site. The postoperative diagnosis was "Lisfranc's midfoot fracture dislocation, right foot." After a period of recovery and some physical therapy, claimant was released to return to work by Dr. Miklos. On September 19, 2017, claimant returned to work. Upon claimant's return, her coworkers decorated the office with balloons, streamers, and flowers to welcome her back.

¶ 13 Claimant followed up with Dr. Miklos and was released from his care on December 5, 2017. Claimant left her position with respondent in January 2018. In August 2018, claimant presented to her primary-care physician with complaints of right foot pain. Claimant testified that she did not sustain another injury to her foot. She explained that "it seemed like the screw was coming out [of her foot]. It was like a big bump *** [,] like the bone was sticking out. It looked kind of deformed." Thereafter, claimant continued to have pain complaints, and she sought treatment with several other physicians. Claimant did not return to Dr. Miklos because he no longer accepted her insurance.

¶ 14 The records from the European Foot & Ankle Clinic indicate that claimant presented to Dr. Tomasz Szmyd for treatment on August 25, 2018. Claimant elected conservative treatment and she was instructed to follow up in four to six weeks. Claimant did not see Dr. Szmyd again until February 1 2020, approximately 18 months after her initial visit. ...