Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Tower Automotive v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided January 31, 2011No. 1-09-3161 WCPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Stewart

I concur in all aspects of the majority decision except the determination that the collateral source rule does not apply to claims under the Workers’ Compensation Act. From that portion of the majority decision, I respectfully dissent.

Although the majority treats this as a matter of first impression, it is my belief that our supreme court has addressed this issue. In Hill Freight Lines, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 36 Ill. 2d 419, 223 N.E.2d 140 (1967), the claimant’s medical bills had been paid through the Union Health and Welfare Fund, which operated a medical and hospital benefit plan for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. City of East Peoria v. Group Five Development Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Hubble v. Bi-State Development AgencyIllinois Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Nabisco Brands, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionAppellate Court of Illinois · 1994
  4. Hoeffken Bro's v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Hill Freight Lines, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1967

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API