March 2026; Happy St. Patrick's Day to All; Some IL WC Claims Are Now Being Treated as Common Law or even Criminal Law Claims; Tim O'Gorman on a Interesting Fall-Down Claim and more

Synopsis: Shocking IL WC Claims Where Our IL Courts Don’t Treat Them as WC Claims!!

Editor’s Comment: As we reported last October 2025, in Rivas V. Benny’s Prime Chophouse LLC, Claimant was at work, ate food from his employer and sadly passed away at work. Turns out he was very allergic to sea food. You may note his widow probably didn’t get a dime in IL WC death benefits because to accept such benefits would change the course of the litigation that almost certainly was driven by the widow’s counsel into the common law courts.

Please also note Decedent passed in 2010. While the widow may now get some recovery, assuming she is still alive and with us, it is hard for me to imagine she was better served to go into the snail-like common law courts.

I cautioned we have to remember this claim may be appealed to and accepted for appeal by the IL Supreme Court. Their ruling may again greatly change this outcome. But for now, it is an Appellate ruling of note.

Please note if they had proceeded to seek WC death benefits, the IL WC death claim would have been paying her regular WC checks for the last fifteen+ years plus additional increases from the IL WC Rate Adjustment Fund.

In 2012 the widow Rivas filed a common law negligence lawsuit, alleging the restaurant was “aware” of her husband’s shellfish allergy—whatever that might mean. I find it impossible to believe restaurant management was aware of the acute and deadly nature of the seafood allergy and encouraged Claimant to play “Russian Roulette” with its free grub. The widow also claimed the employer somehow “failed” to inform Decedent the meal contained shellfish.

The point I am trying to make for my readers is simple—if it was competently presented at a WC hearing, there is no way in my mind, none, that our liberal IL WC Commission could not have found this claim and her recovery to be from the workers’ comp system.

If, instead of suffering a fatal exposure, Decedent had broken a leg or popped a disc in his spine, in my view, he would have a 99% chance of IL WC recovery. He was at work. He was probably wearing clothes and equipment from his work. He was given food from his employer’s oven. He was eating in the company of co-workers only. Who in their right mind would think the event was non-work-related in this liberal State?

In short, I believe this was a WC claim that was turned into a common law claim to seek millions of dollars. After more than a decade and a half of litigating, you tell me, is the widow better or worse?

Shocking Second Death Claim – Are Incompetent Village Workers Going to Face Criminal Charges?? If Not, Why Not?

An Illinois appellate court revived a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the estate of a municipal water worker who drowned after being sent alone into an underground vault, ruling the claims are not barred by workers compensation exclusivity.

In Heiden v. Village of Westmont, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District reversed a lower court’s dismissal of the case and remanded it for further proceedings.

The case stems from the February 2023 death of Matthew Heiden, a 20-year-old employee of the Village of Westmont’s water department. According to the complaint, the village sent Mr. Heiden alone into a permit-required confined space to repair a leaking valve without required safety precautions or protective equipment. While Mr. Heiden was in the underground vault, a valve dislodged, trapping his arm as the vault filled with water. Emergency responders eventually freed him, but he was pronounced dead at a hospital.

From those facts, there is no question this is an IL WC Death claim. The maximum IL WC Death benefit would pay the widow around $100k per year with annual increases from the IL WC Rate Adjustment Fund. She would get over $2.5M.

An investigation by the Illinois Department of Labor identified multiple safety failures, including the absence of a confined-space entry permit, lack of training and personal protective equipment, failure to de-energize the water main and the absence of a retrieval system such as a harness and line. The worker’s estate sued the village and others, alleging the municipality intentionally violated safety rules and knowingly sent the worker into a dangerous confined space.

A Du Page County circuit court dismissed the claims against the village, ruling they were barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.

The IL Appellate Court disagreed, finding the estate plausibly alleged intentional conduct sufficient to invoke an exception to workers compensation exclusivity, which generally bars civil suits against employers for workplace injuries.

Please note the logical conclusion of what the IL Appellate Court ruled is the presence of intentional conduct leading to the passing of this unfortunate soul. When the Courts find intentional conduct led to the death of someone, that means someone should be on the hook for murder, right?

In summary, it is difficult to watch from the sidelines and try to figure out where our Illinois courts and the forces of ITLA will go.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

Synopsis: KCB&A Gets A Great New LegalScore Performance Rating from Gallagher Bassett.

Editor’s comment: We salute the Gallagher Bassett Organization and look forward to bringing great service and advice to them and all our amazing defense clients.

If you are seeking great defense counsel, email jcampbell@keefe-law.com or sbiery@keefe-law.com.

Synopsis: So, is Everything that Happens at Work a Compensable Claim in Illinois Now?... NOT AT ALL!! Research and drafting by Timothy O’Gorman, J.D.

Editor’s comment: While the trend for expanding compensability in Illinois WC is troubling, there are still viable defenses to some incidents and injuries at the workplace.

In Juarez v. IWCC, a Petitioner who suffered an unexplained syncopal (or fainting) episode due to diabetes was denied benefits for injuries caused by a fall.

Petitioner was a machine operator who fell while working and suffered injuries to her head and ribs. Petitioner testified she suffered from diabetes and took medications to control her condition. Petitioner testified on the date of accident, she was working on a platform and was required to move from one side of the platform to the other repeatedly.

Petitioner asserted on the day of the accident, she slipped and fell on the platform. She did not ascribe a cause to the slip/fall.

Paramedics were called and believed Petitioner was suffering from diabetic symptoms and administered blood sugar controlling medications. Petitioner was taken to the emergency room where she explained she had not taken her medication that day, had not eaten breakfast and instead drank a sugary drink.  

Petitioner’s primary care physician testified that in the days preceding the accident, Petitioner’s metabolic testing demonstrated uncontrolled blood sugar levels and that subsequent to the accident, Petitioner told her PCP she lost consciousness after hitting her head.

Petitioner also treated with three different orthopedic physicians whom she told she slipped and fell at work. Petitioner also testified during trial she slipped and fell while working. She never outlined any “cause” of the slip/fall.

We have to consider--Is an idiopathic fall subject to McCallister analysis which requires some aspect of employment to have contributed to the alleged injury? The IL WC Appellate Court affirmed denial and specifically stated that when the cause of a fall (or any injury) is due solely to a cause related to Petitioner’s actions, behaviors or other health issues and there is no factor of their employment that caused their injury, the McCallister standard is not met and therefore, not compensable.

Establishing the idiopathic nature of a fall is difficult and is often a question of fact for the IL Commission. Defining the injury in this case as “idiopathic” is misleading. More accurately stated, Respondents in such cases have the burden to identify a cause of an injury separate from and unrelated to employment tasks being performed at the time of injury. In this case, Petitioner’s diabetic condition caused her injury and Respondent was able to point to that specific condition as the cause of her injury.

Additionally, there may be exceptions to this rule in “traveling employee” cases or cases where a claimant’s underlying health condition may have been made worse by employment conditions. Understanding the full context of not only a Petitioner’s pre-existing health conditions but also how they may have been affected by working conditions can help prepare defenses and predict outcomes.

As I indicate above, this article was researched and drafted by Timothy O’Gorman, J.D. You can relay questions, concerns and Green Beer to Tim at togorman@keefe-law.com--kidding about the Green Beer reference!!!