Claimant's presence at a flower shop she co-owned with her daughters did not constitute a "return to work" or absolve her employer of its liability to pay TTD benefits for relevant periods of time held an Illinois appellate court. Evidence that claimant, a licensed practical nurse at the time of her work-related injury, owned a 53% stake in the business, went to the flower shop several days per week, sometimes answered the phone and helped her daughters by getting flowers for them and performing babysitting services for her grandchildren did not mean her condition had necessarily stabilized. While in some sense, her activities at the flower shop could be characterized as “work,” it was not the ability to do a few chores or activities that meant she was fully capable of returning to the workplace. She testified she does not do anything more physically taxing at the flower shop than she would do at her home during this period of time. The Commission’s decision that she had not returned to work was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Sunny Hill of Will County v. Illinois Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 454 (June 26, 2014) [2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 454 (June 26, 2014)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 84.01 [84.01]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site