Summary
Workers' compensation settlement proceeds remain exempt from claims of medical-care providers under section 21 of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, even after the 2005 amendments to sections 8 and 8.2. The Illinois Supreme Court held that section 8.2(e-20) permits providers to seek payment from the employee but does not allow them to reach the settlement proceeds themselves, as section 21's unambiguous exemption still applies. The court emphasized that the legislature did not create an express exception for medical providers and that implied repeal or amendment of section 21 is disfavored.
Holdings
- Section 21 of the Workers' Compensation Act unequivocally exempts the proceeds of a workers' compensation settlement from the claims of medical-care providers who treated the illness or injury associated with that settlement. The 2005 amendments to sections 8 and 8.2 did not alter this exemption.
Questions Presented
- After the 2005 amendments to section 8 of the Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/8) and the enactment of section 8.2 (820 ILCS 305/8.2), does section 21 of the Act (820 ILCS 305/21) exempt the proceeds of a workers' compensation settlement from the claims of medical-care providers who treated the illness or injury associated with that settlement?
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (21)
- In re McClure, 175 B.R. 21 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1994)(cited)
- In re Hernandez, 17 CV 3230 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2018)(cited)
- In re Hernandez, 918 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2019)(cited)
- Weber v. Ridgway, 212 Ill. App. 159 (1918)(cited)
- Lasley v. Tazewell Coal Co., 223 Ill. App. 462 (1921)(cited)
- In re Marriage of Logston, 103 Ill. 2d 266 (1984)(cited)
- In re Clark v. Chicago Municipal Employees Credit Union, 119 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 1997)(cited)
- In re Thum, 329 B.R. 848 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2005)(cited)
- In re Allard, 196 B.R. 402 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996)(cited)
- Hampton v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, 2016 IL 119861(cited)
Showing top 10 of 21.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.