{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:3ee470c81a1824f423536e0434939c722a945bb777aff0c50d4c8d318c5af69f","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536","para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546","para_547","para_548","para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558","para_559","para_560","para_561","para_562","para_563","para_564","para_565","para_566","para_567","para_568","para_569","para_570","para_571","para_572","para_573","para_574","para_575","para_576","para_577","para_578","para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589","para_590","para_591","para_592","para_593","para_594","para_595","para_596","para_597","para_598","para_599","para_600","para_601","para_602","para_603","para_604","para_605","para_606","para_607","para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611","para_612","para_613","para_614","para_615","para_616","para_617","para_618","para_619","para_620","para_621","para_622","para_623","para_624","para_625","para_626","para_627","para_628","para_629","para_630","para_631","para_632","para_633","para_634","para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639","para_640","para_641","para_642","para_643","para_644","para_645","para_646","para_647","para_648","para_649","para_650","para_651","para_652","para_653","para_654","para_655","para_656","para_657","para_658","para_659","para_660","para_661","para_662","para_663","para_664","para_665","para_666","para_667","para_668","para_669","para_670","para_671","para_672","para_673","para_674","para_675","para_676","para_677","para_678","para_679","para_680","para_681","para_682","para_683","para_684","para_685","para_686","para_687"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"2026 IL App (4th) 250962","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"NO. 4-25-0962","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"IN THE APPELLATE COURT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"OF ILLINOIS","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"FOURTH DISTRICT","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"CORY JENKINS,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"McLAUGHLIN BODY COMPANY,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Defendant-Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":")","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Appeal from the","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Circuit Court of","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Rock Island County","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"No. 25MR31","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Honorable","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Jeffrey Scot McKinley,","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Judge Presiding.","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Justices Knecht and Grischow concurred in the judgment and opinion.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"¶ 1 Pursuant to section 19(g) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"305/19(g) (West 2024)), the circuit court of Rock Island County entered a judgment in favor of","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"plaintiff, Cory Jenkins, and against defendant, McLaughlin Body Company, in the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"$165,353.54. Additionally, the court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff $41,316.32 in attorney","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"fees and $5,651.22 in costs. Defendant appeals.","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"¶ 2 In our de novo review, we reach two conclusions. First, the circuit court’s","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"judgment impermissibly modified the decision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Commission (Commission) by requiring defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of the medical","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"bills in question rather than the amount that had been paid in satisfaction of the medical bills.","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Second, because the record lacks evidence that defendant refused to pay the amount that","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"defendant rightfully owed under the medical award of the Commission’s decision, there were no","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"FILED","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"September 2, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"Carla Bender","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"4th District Appellate","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Court, IL","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"- 2 -","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"grounds for the assessment of attorney fees and costs against defendant.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"¶ 3 Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s judgment in plaintiff’s favor and against","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"defendant in the amount of $165,353.54 and in the amounts of $41,316.32 in attorney fees and","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"$5,651.22 in costs. We remand this case with directions to enter a judgment in plaintiff’s favor","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"and against defendant in the amount of $54,546.05, without an assessment of attorney fees and","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"costs.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"¶ 5 On February 15, 2016, plaintiff, who was at that time an employee of defendant,","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"sustained an accidental injury at work. He filed a claim for benefits under the Act, and an","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"arbitrator with the Commission, Dennis O’Brien, held an evidentiary hearing on the claim.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"¶ 6 On December 2, 2024, the arbitrator issued a decision, in which he found that the","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"claim was compensable under the Act. Accordingly, he awarded workers’ compensation benefits","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"to plaintiff, including medical benefits.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"¶ 7 The medical award provided as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"“All of the bills introduced into evidence in Petitioner’s Exhibit [No.] 2","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"are related to [plaintiff’s] February 15, 2016[,] injury, are reasonable and were","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"necessitated to treat or cure [plaintiff’s] injuries suffered in this accident with the","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"exception of the chest x-ray bill of August 14, 2017, for which there is no causal","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"connection, and are to be paid pursuant to Sections 8(a) and 8.2 of the Act [(id.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"§§ 8(a), 8.2)].","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"[Defendant] is entitled to credit for those amounts it has paid to Concentra","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"[Medical Center (Concentra)] for medical treatment rendered from March 31,","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"2016[,] through April 12, 2016.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"- 3 -","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"[Defendant] is not entitled to any credit for amounts paid by [plaintiff’s]","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"subsequent employer’s group health insurance policy pursuant to Section 8(j) [id.","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"§ 8(j)], as those payments were not contributed wholly or partially by","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"[defendant].”","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"¶ 8 On the page after the medical award, the arbitration decision alerted the parties","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"that, “[u]nless a party files a Petition for Review within 30 days after receipt of this decision, and","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"perfects a review in accordance with the Act and Rules [(50 Ill. Adm. Code 9010.10 (1986))],","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"then this decision shall be entered as the decision of the Commission.” (Emphasis omitted.)","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"¶ 9 Thirty days passed, and no petition for review was filed with the Commission.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"¶ 10 On February 25, 2025, pursuant to section 19(g) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/19(g)","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"(West 2024)), plaintiff filed in the circuit court an application for entry of a judgment. He","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"attached the arbitration decision to his application as exhibit No. 1. In paragraph 5 of his","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"application, plaintiff alleged:","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"“5. Pursuant to the Arbitrator’s decision, [defendant] *** was to pay","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"[plaintiff] *** all medical bills submitted in Petitioner’s Ex. #2, but for one, (1),","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"(August 14, 2017, right shoulder x-ray amounting to $60.00). The medical bills","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"were itemized and entered in evidence by [plaintiff]. Attached hereto as Exhibit","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"#2.”","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"¶ 11 Exhibit No. 2, referenced in the final sentence of the quoted paragraph of the","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"application, is a spreadsheet titled “SUMMARY OF TREATMENT & MEDICAL BILLS.” To","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"prevent confusion, we point out that the spreadsheet is not petitioner’s exhibit No. 2, the exhibit","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"to which the arbitrator’s medical award referred when ordering that the medical bills in","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"petitioner’s exhibit No. 2 were to be paid pursuant to section 8(a) and 8.2. Instead, in its footer,","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"- 4 -","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"the spreadsheet indicates that it is “PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT 1.” At the arbitration hearing,","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"there was petitioner’s exhibit No. 1, and there was petitioner’s exhibit No. 2. The spreadsheet","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"attached to the application as exhibit No. 2 was petitioner’s exhibit No. 1 at the arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"hearing. The arbitration decision does not appear to mention petitioner’s exhibit No. 1, even","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"though, according to a parenthetical notation by the stenographer in the transcript of the","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"arbitration hearing, petitioner’s exhibit No. 1 was “admitted into evidence.” Notwithstanding that","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"notation by the stenographer, the transcript contains a discussion between the arbitrator and the","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"defendant’s attorney in which they agreed that petitioner’s exhibit No. 1 would not be regarded","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"as evidence (because it was merely a spreadsheet prepared by plaintiff’s attorney, who was not a","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"witness). Thus, instead of referencing petitioner’s exhibit No. 1, the medical award referenced","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"petitioner’s exhibit No. 2, a stack of medical bills—which plaintiff did not attach to his","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"application for entry of a judgment. Petitioner’s exhibit No. 1 is merely a summary by plaintiff’s","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"attorney of the medical bills and their payment status.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"¶ 12 The spreadsheet has a column labeled “Provider,” in which 11 medical providers","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"are listed. To the right of the “Provider” column are seven more columns, which are labeled","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"“Date of Service,” “Amount Billed,” “Pd by WC,” “Paid by UHC,” “Write-offs WC UHC","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Untimely,” “Pd by Client,” and “Balance.” (UHC is United Healthcare, the group health insurer","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"that had a contract with plaintiff’s subsequent employer to provide coverage to its employees.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"The arbitration decision referred to United Healthcare in its paragraph denying defendant credit","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"under section 8(j) for the medical payments that United Healthcare had made, as defendant had","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"not contributed toward the United Healthcare plan.) At the bottom of the spreadsheet are totals.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"The total for the “Amount Billed” column is $167,340.54. The total “Write-offs,” however, are","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"$111,733.33. The total for the “Pd by WC” column is $1,985.27. The total for “Pd by UHC” is","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"- 5 -","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"$47,594.83. The total for “Pd by Client” is $2,983.50. The total “Balance” is $3,003.61.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"¶ 13 According to the application for entry of a judgment, what the medical award in","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"the arbitration decision required defendant to do was pay the total “Amount Billed” of","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"$167,340.54, less the $60 for the chest X-ray.","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"¶ 14 In its answer to the application, defendant disagreed with that interpretation of the","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"arbitration decision. Instead, noting that “the amount of the award for medical bills is not","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"specified in the Arbitration Decision and Order (See, Plaintiff Exh. 1),” defendant maintained","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"that “the medical award sum is contingent on medical fee schedule calculations under Section","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"8.2 of the Act, credit allotted for Defendant’s medical payments[,] and Plaintiff’s group","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"insurance rate adjustments required under Illinois law.”","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"¶ 15 The answer included affirmative defenses. In the fourth affirmative defense,","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"defendant alleged that, instead of refusing to pay the medical award, as plaintiff accused","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"defendant of doing,","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"“[a]t all times, the Defendant acted in good faith seeking to obtain the necessary","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"medical billing documentation to calculate the medical fee schedule amounts due","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"and to obtain medical payment information from Plaintiff’s subsequent","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"employer’s health insurance group to calculate the amount of the medical award","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"in compliance with the Arbitration Decision.”","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"¶ 16 On May 5, 2025, at a hearing on the application for entry of a judgment, the","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"circuit court remarked, “[I]t’s unfortunate that the Arbitrator’s decision didn’t include the final","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"amount, but it does appear pretty clear what was awarded.” Although, in its answer, defendant","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"pleaded that it “need[ed] more information,” the court did not “know what additional information","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"[defendant] need[ed] because the order says [what was] to be included and [what was] to be","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"- 6 -","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"excluded based on this document” (apparently meaning the spreadsheet). The court agreed with","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"plaintiff that, under the plain terms of the arbitration decision, defendant’s medical liability was","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"to be determined simply by adding up the face amounts of the medical bills (except the bill for","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"the chest X-ray and the bills from Concentra that defendant had already paid). In the court’s","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"view, defendant was obligated to pay plaintiff the total in the “Amount Billed” column of the","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"spreadsheet.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"¶ 17 Accordingly, on May 15, 2025, in a “JUDGMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO 820","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"ILCS 305/19(g),” the circuit court found as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"“Pursuant to the final decision [of the Commission], [defendant] was to pay ***","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"all medical bills as presented in [plaintiff’s] SUMMARY OF TREATMENT","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"AND MEDICAL BILLS with the exception of the 8/24/18 x-ray in the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"$60.00. Defendant was to receive credit for the $1,979.00 payment to Concentra.","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"All other bills were to be paid with Defendant receiving 8(a) and 8.2 credit.”","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"Thus, the court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"$165,353.54 “as payment of the medical bills.”","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"¶ 18 Also in its judgment order, the circuit court set a briefing schedule for the","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"remaining issue in the case: a request that the court assess attorney fees and costs against","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"defendant. The court scheduled a hearing on that issue for June 11, 2025.","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"¶ 19 On June 6, 2025, invoking section 2-1203 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"ILCS 5/2-1203 (West 2024)), defendant moved that the circuit court vacate or modify the","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"judgment of May 15, 2025. The grounds that defendant raised for this requested relief were","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"twofold. First, the medical bills that the arbitration decision had ordered defendant to pay—the","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"medical bills comprising petitioner’s exhibit No. 2—were not attached to plaintiff’s application","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"- 7 -","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"for entry of a judgment. Defendant argued that, because petitioner’s exhibit No. 2 was “not","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"presented to the Court,” it could not have been, as the court had put it, “pretty clear what was","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"awarded.” Second, by the terms of the arbitration decision, “[t]he medical bills were [‘]to be paid","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"pursuant to Sections 8(a) and 8.2 of the Act.[’] ” Defendant argued that “[p]ayment of the face","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"amounts of the medical bills, “ignoring the amounts of medical bill payments after adjustments,","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"write offs, etc.,” would be “a windfall to the Plaintiff” instead of payment pursuant to section","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"8(a). Defendant pointed out that, under section 8(a), as interpreted by Tower Automotive v.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 407 Ill. App. 3d 427, 436-37 (2011), and Perez v.","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2018 IL App (2d) 170086WC, ¶ 22, the amount the","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"employer could be required to reimburse the employee for medical expenses was the amount","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"actually paid to the medical service provider in satisfaction of the debts—which would not","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"necessarily have been the amount originally billed. Given the two exhibits attached to plaintiff’s","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"application (the arbitration decision and the spreadsheet), defendant maintained that, instead of","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"the amount the court had awarded, $165,353.54, the “medical bill reimbursement” that defendant","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"owed plaintiff was $53,565.07, which was the sum of three amounts: $2,986.74 in “Unpaid","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"related medical bills,” $2,983.50 in “out of pocket payments” that plaintiff had made, and","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"$47,594.83 that United Healthcare had paid “under subsequent employer coverage.” For that","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"reason, on June 4, 2025, defendant’s attorney notified plaintiff’s attorney, by e-mail, that “[m]y","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"client is *** issuing a check for the medical award and interest in the sum of $54,546.05”","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"(calculating interest at 4.34% from January 2, 2025, when the Commission’s decision became","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"final, as $980.98).","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"¶ 20 After defendant filed its motion to vacate or modify the judgment, the parties","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"agreed to an order extending the briefing schedule and rescheduling the next hearing for July 2,","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"- 8 -","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"2025.","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"¶ 21 On June 12, 2025, defendant filed an argument in opposition to the proposed","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"assessment of attorney fees and costs. In its written argument, defendant recounted that on","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"January 7, 2025, plaintiff’s attorney e-mailed defendant’s attorney, asking, “Please advise when","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"your client will be sending us the check for the amounts dictated in the decision of 12/24/24 by","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"Arbitrator O’Brien.” On January 17, 2025, plaintiff’s attorney followed up with another e-mail,","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"observing that “We still have NOT received the settlement check” and requesting, “Please","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"provide status.” Copies of those e-mails were attached to defendant’s written argument. In","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"neither e-mail, defendant noted, did plaintiff “provide any calculations regarding the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"the medical award due.”","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"¶ 22 Evidently, the parties were in agreement, however, on the amounts for temporary","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"total disability and partial permanent disability that the arbitration decision obligated defendant","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"to pay. On January 21, 2025, defendant issued plaintiff’s law firm a check in the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"$41,228.05 in payment of those benefits, and it does not appear that the check was rejected.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"¶ 23 Nevertheless, an interpretive disagreement arose over the amount of the medical","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"award. Defendant’s attorney assigned a paralegal, Timothy Swanson, to gather information that","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"defendant’s attorney believed was needed to determine the amount of defendant’s medical","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"liability pursuant to section 8(a).","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"¶ 24 Swanson averred as follows in his affidavit. On February 20, 2025, he e-mailed","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"plaintiff’s attorney “to discuss the information required to secure the awarded medical bills","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"requiring fee scheduling.” (“Fee scheduling” was an allusion to section 8(a), which dictated,","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"“The employer shall provide and pay the negotiated rate, if applicable, or the lesser of the health","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"care provider’s actual charges or according to a fee schedule ***.” 820 ILCS 305/8(a) (West","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"- 9 -","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"2024). The Commission publishes “a fee schedule to be used in setting the maximum allowable","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"payment for *** [medical] services covered under the Act.” 50 Ill. Adm. Code 9110.90(a)","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"(2012).) Also, on February 20, 2025, to further quote Swanson’s affidavit, he","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"“spoke by telephone with [plaintiff’s] attorney regarding the need for medical","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"information to fee schedule the medical bills. During the conversation,","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"[plaintiff’s] attorney demanded payment of $160,000.00 owed under the Decision","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"or she was going to file her [section] 19(g) Motion on her desk. In discussing the","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"medical bills owed, the [plaintiff’s] attorney further said no bills were","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"owed/outstanding and that the [plaintiff’s] new employer’s group health insurance","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"paid all the bills.”","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"Consequently, on February 27, 2025, Swanson e-mailed plaintiff’s attorney some “[Health","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (42 U.S.C. § 1320d (2024)]","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"Privacy Authorizations to secure medical billing records.” In a further attempt to “collect the","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"medical bills awarded under the Arbitration Decision,” Swanson “prepared subpoenas to the","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"medical providers listed in Petitioner’s Exhibit [No.] 2.”","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"¶ 25 On June 9, 2025 (defendant further recounted in its written argument to the circuit","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"court), defendant’s attorney sent plaintiff’s attorney a check in the amount of $54,546.05 as full","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"payment of the medical award. Plaintiff’s attorney acknowledged receipt of that check but","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"rejected it, stating, “ ‘I am not accepting it as payment of the medical award because I do not","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"agree with your interpretation.’ ” Instead, plaintiff’s attorney now demanded $215,214.72 to","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"satisfy the medical award.","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"¶ 26 In his written argument to the circuit court in support of assessing attorney fees","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"and costs against defendant, plaintiff complained that, in calculating the medical award as being","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"- 10 -","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"only $54,546.05, “Defendant used, in part, the $47,594.83 paid by Plaintiff’s subsequent","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"employer’s health insurance despite Arbitrator O’Brien[’s] finding” that defendant was not","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"entitled to credit for amounts paid by United Healthcare. By plaintiff’s interpretation, the","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"arbitration decision clearly required defendant to pay the amount of the medical bills in","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"petitioner’s exhibit No. 2. Exhibit No. 2 of the application, plaintiff explained, was merely a","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"convenient condensation of the “28 pages certified medical billing statements” (emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"omitted) that made up petitioner’s exhibit No. 2—billing statements that plaintiff now attached to","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"his argument in support of an assessment of attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff contended that, if","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"defendant thought the arbitrator had erred by ordering defendant to pay the medical bills in","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"petitioner’s exhibit No. 2, defendant should have filed with the Commission a request for review","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"instead of unreasonably disputing, months later, what the medical award plainly said: that","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"defendant was to pay the face amounts of those medical bills. Rather than file a request for","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"review in the “proper forum,” defendant “offer[ed] a ‘settlement’ amount” that was, according to","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"plaintiff, “in direct conflict with the Arbitrator’s decision”—and then defendant “suggest[ed]”","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"(unconvincingly, in plaintiff’s view) that “this payment [was] a ‘good faith’ attempt to resolve","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"the issue.”","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"¶ 27 On July 2, 2025, the circuit court held a hearing on defendant’s section 2-1203","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"motion and plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs. Defendant’s attorney first made an","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"argument in support of his section 2-1203 motion. He argued that, by the terms of the medical","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"award, defendant was to pay the medical bills “ [‘]pursuant to Section[ ] 8(a)[’] ” and that under","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"section 8(a) the amount to be paid was “the negotiated rate,” regardless of who had negotiated","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"the rate (the employer, the insurer of a subsequent employer, or anyone else). Defendant’s","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"attorney rejected plaintiff’s assertion that, in contravention of the arbitration decision, defendant","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"- 11 -","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"was trying to obtain a credit for what United Healthcare had paid. Defendant’s attorney","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"contended that the rate that United Healthcare had negotiated with the medical providers—the","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"amount that United Healthcare had paid them in settlement of the medical debts—was, under","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"section 8(a), the measure of defendant’s medical liability, not a credit against defendant’s","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"medical liability. Defendant maintained that “to allow them just to *** get the full amount of ***","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"the medical bills as opposed to the payments that the actual bills paid, that’s a windfall” and a","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"windfall would be contrary to, rather than pursuant to, section 8(a). Defendant’s attorney","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"acknowledged that “[a]bsolutely [defendant is] obligated to reimburse [plaintiff] for” the","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"payments made by United Healthcare. By defendant’s calculation, though, “based upon Exhibit","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"Number 2” of the application for entry of a judgment, i.e., plaintiff’s own spreadsheet, the","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"reimbursement should be “$53,000 and some change.”","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"¶ 28 Plaintiff’s attorney responded that this offer of reimbursement was not in good","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"faith, stating:","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"“I’ve got a dollar amount that they used my summary for, and they specifically","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"used the number that Arbitrator O’Brien said they weren’t entitled to.","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"I didn’t get [a section] 8(a) or 8(j) calculation. I got nothing except, [‘]Oh,","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"we’ll pay you what his subsequent employer’s insurance company paid.[’] That’s","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"not what the arbitrator said. The arbitrator specifically said you don’t get credit","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"for that under [section] 8(j).”","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"An alternative measure of payment, the fee schedule, was inapplicable, plaintiff’s attorney","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"argued, because","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"“the providers in this case have already been paid. There’s no one to pay except","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"for a couple of bills that—and yeah, they get the fee schedule for whatever bills","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"- 12 -","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"are unpaid; but we’re talking about paid medical bills.","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"So *** now the question becomes, what do they owe? Well, they’re ***","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"arguing that they’re entitled to the credits given by the group—for the group","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"health payments made by a subsequent employer.”","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"¶ 29 The circuit court asked plaintiff’s attorney what the arbitrator meant, then, when","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"he wrote that all the medical bills in petitioner’s exhibit No. 2 were “ [‘]to be paid pursuant to","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"Sections 8(a) and 8.2.[’] ” “What is the point of saying [those] last few words?” the court asked.","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"Plaintiff’s attorney answered:","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"“Well, because it’s boilerplate. In every workers’ comp decision, they say","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"you pay the medical pursuant to [section] 8(a) and [section] 8.2 because *** that’s","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"a framework *** for paying medical bills. But *** where the bills are already","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"paid, *** then the issue becomes whether they get [a section] 8(j) credit. ***","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"[T]he only credit allowable for medical is [section] 8(j), *** where the","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"employer’s sponsored plan pays the medical.”","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"It was not defendant’s sponsored health plan that had paid the medical bills, plaintiff’s attorney","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"observed, but, rather, it was a subsequent employer’s sponsored health plan that had paid them.","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"Therefore, in the view of plaintiff’s attorney, defendant had no reasonable grounds for claiming a","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"credit for what United Healthcare had paid. Under section 8(j), plaintiff’s attorney argued, the","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"rate negotiated by the subsequent employer (or the subsequent employer’s insurance carrier,","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"United Healthcare) had “nothing to do with [defendant].”","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"¶ 30 The circuit court essentially agreed with plaintiff’s argument that, by equating its","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"own obligation with the amount that United Healthcare had paid, defendant was trying to obtain","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"a credit clearly denied by the arbitration decision. The court told defendant’s attorney:","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"- 13 -","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"“So I know your argument *** is that you are not seeking the credit; but of course","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"you are, because if you’re relying on [‘]all *** our responsibility is only to pay","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"that 47 back as a form of reimbursement,[’] how is that not a credit?","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"*** [W]hether you call it reimbursement or credit, at the end of the day,","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"it’s the same thing. So that clearly is not what the arbitrator intended.”","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"The court decided, therefore, that “the original judgment stands.” In other words, the court","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"denied the section 2-1203 motion.","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"¶ 31 Then the circuit court added:","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"“I mean, I was convinced last time by the information that [plaintiff’s","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"attorney] provided to the Court that she had exerted considerable time in trying to","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"come to a resolution with, as I mentioned before, little or no response. And so","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"even the payment that was made, as she said, has been very long [in] coming.”","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"Consequently, not only did the court deny defendant’s motion to vacate or modify the judgment,","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"but the court granted plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs. The court awarded plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"attorney fees in the amount of 20% of the entire award, based upon the 20% contingency fee","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"agreement that plaintiff had with his attorney, and the court also awarded plaintiff the purported","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"costs of the arbitration. “So $41,316.32, as well as the cost of the arbitration proceeding,","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"$5,651.22. And then that would be the full amount awarded,” the court ruled. The court","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"requested that plaintiff’s attorney draft an order accordingly.","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"¶ 32 On August 13, 2025, the circuit court signed and filed the final judgment order,","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"which denied the section 2-1203 motion and reaffirmed the judgment in the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"$165,353.54. Also, “[d]ue to the failure of Defendant to pay the settlement as ordered,” the court","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"assessed the following penalties against defendant pursuant to section 19(g): “Attorney fees in","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"- 14 -","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"the arbitration proceedings of $41,316.32” and “Costs of $5,651.22 from the arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"proceedings.”","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"¶ 33 On September 10, 2025, defendant filed its notice of appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"¶ 34 II. ANALYSIS","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"¶ 35 A. Allowable Statutory Interpretation in a Proceeding Pursuant to Section 19(g)","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"¶ 36 If an employer fails or refuses to pay a final award by the Commission, section","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"19(g) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/19(g) (West 2024)) provides a means of reducing the award to","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"an enforceable judgment (the Commission’s award is not itself a judgment). Aurora East School","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"District v. Dover, 363 Ill. App. 3d 1048, 1054 (2006). All the circuit court may do in a section","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"19(g) proceeding is “determin[e] *** whether the section’s requirements have been met” and","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"enter a judgment accordingly. Id. at 1055. “The statute provides in absolute terms that, upon","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"presentation of a certified copy of an award or decision to the circuit court, ‘the court shall render","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"a judgment in accordance therewith.’ ” Ahlers v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 73 Ill. 2d 259, 268 (1978)","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"(quoting Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 48, § 138.19(g)). The court may not scrutinize the legality of the","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"Commission’s decision or “construe the statute.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"¶ 37 But what if construal of the Commission’s decision for the purpose of reducing it","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"to a judgment requires construal of the Act, as when the Commission’s decision expressly","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"provides (like the medical award in this case) that an obligation is to be paid “pursuant to” a","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"specified section of the Act, which is to say, in conformity with that section? See","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1011 (11th ed. 2020) (defining “pursuant to” as “in","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"carrying out: in conformity with: ACCORDING TO”); Burns v. Industrial Comm’n, 95 Ill. 2d","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"272, 277 (1983) (remarking that, in the section 19(g) proceeding, “it was necessary for the circuit","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"court to interpret the award in order to render a judgment” and that “since there was obviously an","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"- 15 -","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"irreconcilable inconsistency within the decision, it was only logical for the court to try to","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"determine what the arbitrator had actually awarded”).","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"¶ 38 A similar question was raised in Morse v. Casey’s General Store, 2021 IL App","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"(5th) 200157-U. In that case, the employer entered into a workers’ compensation settlement in","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"which the employer promised “ ‘to pay the previously incurred reasonable, necessary, and","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"causally related medical expenses pursuant to the Medical Fee Schedule as set forth in the Act.’ ”","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"Id. ¶ 10. The Commission approved the settlement agreement, making it an award by the","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"Commission (id. ¶ 32), and because neither party filed a petition for review with the Commission","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"(id. ¶ 10), the award became “conclusive” (820 ILCS 305/19(b) (West 2018)). Six months after","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"the Commission’s approval of the settlement agreement, the claimant filed an application under","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"section 19(g) in the circuit court. Morse, 2021 IL App (5th) 200157-U, ¶ 11. In her application,","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"she alleged that, although the settlement agreement approved by the Commission required the","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"employer to “ ‘pay all medical bills according to the provisions of the Fee Schedule contained in","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"Section 8.2 of [the Act],’ ” the employer had failed to pay a medical bill in the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"$5,206.72 for implants. Id. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found that the employer","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"had violated the settlement agreement by failing to pay the bill. See id. ¶ 28. The court ordered","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"the employer to pay the bill (id.) and assessed attorney fees and costs against the employer (id.","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"¶ 29).","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"¶ 39 On appeal, the employer in Morse argued that the circuit court had exceeded its","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"authority under section 19(g) because, to determine the amount the employer owed under the","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"settlement agreement, the court had to “construe the Act.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"¶ 36. “While the settlement agreement did not provide a specific dollar amount of medical","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"expenses, the agreement specified *** that the amount should be calculated as provided in","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"- 16 -","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"section 8(a) and the fee schedule set forth in section 8.2 of the Act.” Id. Thus, “enter[ing] a","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"judgment in accordance” with the settlement agreement (820 ILCS 305/19(g) (West 2018))","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"required interpreting and applying sections 8(a) and 8.2—for the settlement agreement, which","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"had become the Commission’s decision, directed the reader to apply those sections of the Act.","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"But the supreme court had cautioned in Ahlers “[t]he court may not *** construe the statute","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"[citations].” Ahlers, 73 Ill. 2d at 268. The appellate court concluded, in so many words, that this","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"prohibition in Ahlers was inapplicable if the Commission’s decision directed the employer to","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"comply with a specific provision of the Act, for then, to perform its duty under section 19(g), the","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"circuit court would have no choice but to construe and apply the statutory provision the","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"Commission referenced in its decision. Morse, 2021 IL App (5th) 200157-U, ¶ 36. If the","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"Commission’s decision directs a reader to apply a section of the Act by acting pursuant to that","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"section, the compliant reader has no alternative but to interpret and apply that section. “Under","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"these circumstances,” the appellate court held, “the court did not exceed the scope of its limited","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"jurisdiction by looking to the Act for guidance in calculating the amount owed under the","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"settlement agreement.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"¶ 40 B. Our Standards of Review","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"¶ 41 Essentially, this appeal raises three questions. First, what was the amount of the","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"medical award? Second (and the answer to this second question will depend largely on the","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"answer to the first), should attorney fees and costs have been assessed against defendant? Third,","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"if the answer to the second question is yes, were the amounts of the attorney fees and costs","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"excessive? At the outset, we should be clear what our standard of review is as to each of those","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"questions. (Incidentally, it might be helpful to explain why we, instead of the Workers’","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"Compensation Commission Division (Division), are hearing this appeal. Under Illinois Supreme","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"- 17 -","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"Court Rule 22(i) (eff. Aug. 2, 2023), the Division is to “hear and decide all appeals involving","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"proceedings to review orders of the *** Commission.” Because an appeal from a judgment in a","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"section 19(g) proceeding seeks review of the circuit court’s judgment rather than the","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"Commission’s decision, the appeal is before us instead of the Division. See Aurora East, 363 Ill.","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"App. 3d at 1055 n.4.)","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"¶ 42 1. Independent Standard of Review When Interpreting the Medical Award","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"¶ 43 The arbitration decision is a written document, and “[g]enerally speaking, the","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"construction of a written document presents a legal question” (Hernandez v. Schittek, 305 Ill.","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"App. 3d 925, 933 (1999)), which we decide de novo (see Beelman Trucking v. Illinois Workers’","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"Compensation Comm’n, 233 Ill. 2d 364, 370 (2009)).","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"¶ 44 To the extent that interpretation of the arbitration decision requires interpretation","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"of the Act, our interpretation of the Act is likewise de novo. See Hamilton v. Industrial Comm’n,","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"203 Ill. 2d 250, 254-55 (2003).","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"¶ 45 2. Independent Standard of Review on Whether Defendant Refused to Pay","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"¶ 46 Section 19(g) provides:","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"“In a case where the employer refuses to pay compensation according to such","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"final award or such final decision upon which such judgment is entered the court","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"shall in entering judgment thereon, tax as costs against him the reasonable costs","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"and attorney fees in the arbitration proceedings and in the court entering the","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"judgment for the person in whose favor the judgment is entered ***.” 820 ILCS","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"305/19(g) (West 2024).","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"Thus, a refusal to pay compensation in accordance with the Commission’s decision is what","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"triggers liability for reasonable attorney fees and costs.","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"- 18 -","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"¶ 47 In Radosevich v. Industrial Comm’n, 367 Ill. App. 3d 769, 774 (2006), the","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"appellate court held, “Whether an employer has refused to pay an arbitration award is a question","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"of fact. Factual determinations made by the circuit court will not be overturned unless against the","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"manifest weight of the evidence.” So, Radosevich applied a deferential standard of review to the","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"factual issue of whether the employer had refused to pay the arbitration award. See Mahan v.","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"Marion Police Pension Board, 2023 IL App (5th) 210426, ¶ 29 (Manifest weight of the evidence","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"“is a considerably deferential standard.”).","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"¶ 48 Whenever a deferential standard of review is applied to the circuit court’s factual","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"findings, there are two reasons for doing so:","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"“(1) having heard and observed the live witnesses’ testimony, the circuit court is","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"in a superior position to resolve alleged inconsistencies and conflicts in the","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"witnesses’ testimony, as well as to weigh the testimony and determine the","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"credibility of the witnesses, and (2) the reviewing court never has the full benefit","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"of hearing and observing the live witnesses’ testimony.” People v. Morgan, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"IL 130626, ¶ 21.","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"¶ 49 That twofold rationale is inapplicable if the circuit court heard no live witness","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"testimony. Therefore, the supreme court has held that if “the parties presented only documentary","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"evidence on [a factual] issue”—if “the evidence before a trial court consists of depositions,","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"transcripts, or evidence otherwise documentary in nature”—the standard of review is not","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"deferential but de novo. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Muhammad, 2025 IL","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"130470, ¶ 50. If the circuit court heard no live witness testimony, “the reviewing court stands in","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"the same position as the circuit court and may, therefore, review the record de novo.” Morgan,","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"2025 IL 130626, ¶ 21.","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"- 19 -","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"¶ 50 In determining, in the present case, whether defendant had refused to pay the","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"medical award, the circuit court heard no live witness testimony and, thus, had no opportunity to","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"weigh the credibility of witnesses by observing their demeanors. See Wade v. Stewart Title","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"Guaranty Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 161765, ¶ 59 (“The manifest weight of the evidence standard","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"affords great deference to the trial court because the trial court is in a superior position to","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"determine and weigh the credibility of the witnesses, observe witnesses’ demeanor, and resolve","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"conflicts in their testimony.”). “[W]here, as here, the circuit court’s decision is based on","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"documentary evidence and not live testimony, a de novo review is appropriate.” Defante v. Big","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"Tuna’s Inc., 2026 IL App (1st) 250421-U, ¶ 40.","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"¶ 51 3. Deferential Standard of Review on the Amount of Attorney Fees and Costs","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"¶ 52 Under section 19(g), attorney fees and costs must be “reasonable.” 820 ILCS","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"305/19(g) (West 2024). Although we decide de novo whether defendant refused to pay the","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"arbitration award and thereby became liable, under section 19(g), for attorney fees and costs, we","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"would review the amount of attorney fees and costs for an abuse of discretion. See Salier v.","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"Delta Real Estate Investments, LLC, 2023 IL App (1st) 181512-U, ¶ 47.","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"¶ 53 For reasons we will soon explain, however, we have arrived at the conclusion,","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"de novo, that defendant did not refuse to pay the medical award. With the statutory prerequisite","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"for attorney fees and costs unfulfilled, an assessment of attorney fees and costs against defendant","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"in any amount would be an abuse of discretion. There should have been no assessment of","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"attorney fees and costs against defendant.","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"¶ 54 C. The Amount of Defendant’s Medical Liability Under the Arbitration Decision","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"¶ 55 Defendant points out that, in “enter[ing] a judgment in accordance” with the","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"Commission’s decision (820 ILCS 305/19(g) (West 2024)), the circuit court lacks authority to","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"- 20 -","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"modify (or otherwise review) the Commission’s decision (see Ahlers, 73 Ill. 2d at 268). And yet,","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"defendant argues, the circuit court modified the medical award by entering a judgment against","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"defendant in “the total bill amounts for the medical services,” $165,353.24, thereby effectively","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"deleting the qualification in the medical award that the medical bills were “to be paid pursuant to","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"Section[ ] 8(a)” and bestowing a “windfall” on plaintiff that the Commission never intended.","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"Defendant criticizes the court for “ignor[ing] the provisions and parameters of Section 8(a),","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"which limit an employer’s liability [to] the actual payments made in satisfaction of the medical","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"bills” after write-offs. Defendant maintains that, “pursuant to Section[ ] 8(a),” as the medical","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"award puts it, the judgment should have been $53,565.07. (Emphasis added.) (Although there are","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"unpaid medical bills and, under section 8(a), strictly speaking, those bills should be paid in","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"accordance with the Commission’s fee schedule, defendant agrees, for the sake of simplifying","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"matters, to pay the face amount of those bills, without “fee scheduling” them. As for the paid","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"medical bills, though, defendant maintains that the amount it owes plaintiff as reimbursement","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"under section 8(a) is the amount that was paid to the medical providers in satisfaction of those","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"bills.)","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"¶ 56 Plaintiff counters that, contrary to defendant’s assertion, “the judgment amount is","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"specifically based on the language of the medical award.” The arbitration decision plainly","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"ordered defendant to pay the medical bills in petitioner’s exhibit No. 2, plaintiff reasons, and","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"those bills indisputably added up to $165,353.54. Plaintiff argues that, “[i]f Arbitrator O’Brien","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"had intended to award only the amounts that the subsequent group health insurer had paid,","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"surely[ ] he would have said as much.”","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"¶ 57 But the arbitrator did say as much by stating that the medical bills in petitioner’s","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"exhibit No. 2 were “to be paid pursuant to Section[ ] 8(a).” If the arbitrator had intended that","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"- 21 -","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"defendant pay plaintiff $165,353.54, “surely[ ] he would have said as much,” to borrow","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"plaintiff’s words. But, instead, the arbitrator wrote that “[a]ll of the bills introduced into evidence","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"in Petitioner’s exhibit [No.] 2 ***[,] with the exception of the chest x-ray bill ***, are to be paid","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"pursuant to Sections 8(a) and 8.2 of the Act.”","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"¶ 58 Section 8(a) of the Act provides as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"“(a) The employer shall provide and pay the negotiated rate, if applicable,","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"or the lesser of the health care provider’s actual charges or according to a fee","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"schedule, subject to Section 8.2, in effect at the time the service was rendered for","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"all the necessary first aid, medical and surgical services, and all necessary","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"medical, surgical and hospital services thereafter incurred, limited, however, to","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"that which is reasonably required to cure or relieve from the effects of the","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"accidental injury ***.” 820 ILCS 305/8(a) (West 2024).","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"¶ 59 Pursuant to section 8(a), then, the employer must pay either (1) the rate negotiated","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"with the medical provider or (2) the lesser of (a) the medical provider’s actual charges or (b) the","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"amount in the Commission’s fee schedule. Id. “Only where medical bills have not yet been paid","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"by the third-party insurer is it necessary to analyze the actual charges against the fee schedule.”","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"(Emphasis in original.) Aim National Lease v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2026 IL","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"App (1st) 250494WC-U, ¶ 85. According to representations that plaintiff made to the arbitrator","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"and the circuit court in petitioner’s exhibit No. 1 (exhibit No. 2 of the application), the","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"third-party insurer, United Healthcare, had already paid all the medical bills in petitioner’s","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"exhibit No. 2, except for $2,983.50 that plaintiff paid out of pocket. Thus, pursuant to section","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"8(a), the only relevant measure of defendant’s medical liability is “the negotiated rate” (820","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"ILCS 305/8(a) (West 2024)). See Aim National, 2026 IL App (1st) 250494WC-U, ¶ 85. The","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"- 22 -","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"court’s judgment of $165,353.54 in plaintiff’s favor and against defendant is not the rate that","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"United Healthcare negotiated with the medical providers and, therefore, is not payment of the","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"medical bills “pursuant to Section[ ] 8(a),” as the language of the medical award requires.","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"¶ 60 According to plaintiff, though, the phrase “pursuant to Sections 8(a) and 8.2” was","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"“ ‘boilerplate’ ” and applied only to the unpaid medical bills. On the contrary, under the language","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"of the medical award, this qualifying phrase applied to all the medical bills: “All of the bills","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"introduced into evidence in Petitioner’s exhibit [No.] 2 *** are to be paid pursuant to Sections","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"8(a) and 8.2.” (Emphasis added.)","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"¶ 61 Because section 8.2 (820 ILCS 305/8.2 (West 2024)) pertains to fee scheduling,","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"the facts of this case afford no occasion for applying section 8.2. Therefore, apart from the","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"unpaid medical bills, which defendant has agreed to pay in their face amount, the only remaining","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"measure of defendant’s medical liability, given the qualifying phrase that the medical award","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"used—“pursuant to Section[ ] 8(a)”—is the negotiated rate that United Healthcare paid. See Aim","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"National, 2026 IL App (1st) 250494WC-U, ¶ 85. “By paying, or reimbursing an injured","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"employee, for the amount actually paid to the medical service providers, the plain language of","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"the statute is satisfied.” Tower Automotive, 407 Ill. App. 3d at 437.","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"¶ 62 So we agree with defendant that by entering a judgment in the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"$165,353.54, which was the total amount originally billed instead of the amount that United","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"Healthcare paid in satisfaction of the medical bills, the circuit court effectively deleted the phrase","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"“pursuant to Section[ ] 8(a)” from the medical award and thereby modified the medical award,","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"bestowing a windfall upon plaintiff that was inconsistent with the text of the medical award.","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"¶ 63 To be sure, the arbitration decision directed that the medical bills in petitioner’s","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"exhibit No. 2 were “to be paid,” and according to petitioner’s exhibit No. 1, they totaled","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"- 23 -","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"$165,353.54. What plaintiff appears to overlook, however, is that the employer’s reimbursement","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"of an injured employee for the amount actually paid in satisfaction of the medical bills, after","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"write-offs, counts as paying the medical bills—regardless of the higher originally billed amounts.","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"See id. (“By paying, or reimbursing an injured employee, for the amount actually paid to the","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"medical service providers, the plain language of [section 8(a)] is satisfied.”). Once the third-party","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"insurer (to whom the employer did not contribute) pays the injured employee’s medical bills, the","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"bills cease to exist, and then the only way the employer can “pay” them, so to speak, is to","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"reimburse the employee—and reimbursing the employee means paying the employee what he or","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"she (through the third-party insurer) actually paid. This is the only reasonable interpretation of","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"the medical award.","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"¶ 64 D. The Red Herring of Section 8(j) Credit","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"¶ 65 Plaintiff acknowledges having received a check in the amount of $54,546.05 from","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"defendant as intended payment of the medical award. Plaintiff complains that, in calculating the","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"amount of this check (which plaintiff rejected), defendant","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"“used, in part, the $47,594.82[ ] paid by Plaintiff’s subsequent employer’s health","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"insurance despite Arbitrator O’Brien finding: ‘The Respondent (now","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"Defendant)[ ] is not entitled to any credits for amounts paid by Petitioner’s","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"subsequent employer’s group health insurance policy pursuant to Section 8(j), as","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"those payments were not contributed wholly or partially by Respondent.’ ”","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"¶ 66 Plaintiff does not seem to understand what a credit is. A “credit” is “an","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"accounting entry” representing “[a] deduction from an amount due.” Black’s Law Dictionary","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"(12th ed. 2024). Section 8(j) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/8(j) (West 2024)) provides for a credit","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"toward an employer’s obligations under the Act if the injured employee received benefits under","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"- 24 -","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"any group plan covering nonoccupational disabilities to which the employer contributed. Thus, if","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"the employer’s obligations under the Act were, say, $100,000 and the employee received","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"$30,000 in benefits under a group plan to which the employer had contributed, the employer","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"would be entitled to a credit in the amount of $30,000, reducing the employer’s obligations under","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"the Act to $70,000. In the present case, defendant does not claim a credit for United Healthcare’s","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"payment of $47,594.82. Defendant does not claim that United Healthcare’s payment of","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"$47,594.82 in satisfaction of the medical bills entitles defendant to a deduction of $47,594.82","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"from the amount that defendant otherwise would owe. Rather, defendant claims that, “pursuant","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"to Section[ ] 8(a),” as the medical award phrases it, United Healthcare’s payment of $47,594.82","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"is the measure of what defendant owes plaintiff for medical treatment.","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"¶ 67 It is true that United Healthcare’s negotiation of the medical bills from","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"$165,353.54 down to $47,594.82 was beneficial to defendant, considering that defendant was","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"obligated to pay plaintiff whatever United Healthcare had paid. That fact, however, does not","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"make the $47,594.82 a credit, properly speaking, or a deduction from what defendant owes.","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"Rather, what defendant owes in the first place is what United Healthcare paid. In other words,","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"what United Healthcare paid is not a subtraction from defendant’s debt column; it is the debt","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"column. Indisputably, an obligation of $47,594.82 is better for defendant than an obligation of","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"$165,353.54. Even so, although every credit is financially beneficial to the person receiving it,","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"not everything financially beneficial that happens to a person is a credit.","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"¶ 68 E. Reasonableness and Necessity","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"¶ 69 Plaintiff argues:","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"“Arbitrator O’Brien could have referred to the amount of the collateral source","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"payments as the amount owed but didn’t. He could have found the amount of the","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"- 25 -","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"collateral source payments to be the ‘reasonable and necessary amount[’] of","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"medical to treat [plaintiff’s] work injuries, but he didn’t. Instead, he found that","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"‘All of the bills introduced into evidence in Petitioner’s Exhibit [No.] 2 are","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"related to Petitioner’s February 15, 2016 injury, are reasonable and were","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"necessitated to treat or cure [plaintiff’s] injuries suffered in this accident.’ ”","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"(Emphasis in original.)","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"¶ 70 This argumentative strategy could be turned against plaintiff. To borrow","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"phraseology from plaintiff, the arbitrator “could have” simply ordered defendant to pay plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"$165,353.54, but the arbitrator “didn’t” do so. For that matter—what is even more problematic","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"for plaintiff’s literalistic approach—the arbitrator did not specifically order defendant to pay","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"plaintiff anything. Instead, the arbitrator ordered that the medical bills in petitioner’s exhibit No.","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"2 were “to be paid pursuant to Sections 8(a) and 8.2,” even though plaintiff had represented to","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"the arbitrator and defendant, in petitioner’s exhibit No. 1, that those medical bills had mostly","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"been paid.","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"¶ 71 So, plaintiff needs to explain how defendant is supposed to pay medical bills that","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"already have been paid and that consequently no longer exist. Take, for example, one of the","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"medical bills in petitioner’s exhibit No. 2, a bill from NuVasive Clinical Services (NuVasive) for","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"$4,230. Literally, paying that bill would mean sending NuVasive a check in the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"$4,230. Paying plaintiff would not pay NuVasive’s bill, for plaintiff is not NuVasive.","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"Presumably, though, if defendant sent NuVasive a check, NuVasive would send the check back,","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"stating something to the effect of, “Our records show that plaintiff’s account balance is zero.” It","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"is impossible to pay a bill that is already paid, for the payment eliminated the bill. Therefore,","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"plaintiff must resort to implication, it would seem—the same way that defendant resorts to","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"- 26 -","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"implication. Plaintiff would have to read into the medical award a right of reimbursement:","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"through his third-party insurer, plaintiff discharged defendant’s obligation of paying the medical","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"bills, and, therefore, defendant should pay him back. But paying plaintiff back would mean","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"paying plaintiff what he paid, “reliev[ing] [him] of the costs and burdens of such care” (Tower,","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"407 Ill. App. 3d at 438), not bestowing upon him a windfall. Plaintiff finds in the medical award","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"an implied right to be paid back—and justifiably so. But then plaintiff cannot reasonably turn","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"around and criticize defendant for finding an implied limitation of that right to the amount","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"plaintiff actually paid, especially considering the arbitrator’s use of the qualifying phrase","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"“pursuant to Section[ ] 8(a).”","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"¶ 72 Granted, the arbitration decision could be read as finding that the medical bills in","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"petitioner’s exhibit No. 2 were reasonable and necessary in their amounts. This is how plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"reads it. We do not see, however, why such a finding would matter if the right that should be","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"read into the medical award is a right of plaintiff to be reimbursed whatever negotiated amounts","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"that he (through his bargained-for insurance policy) actually paid the medical providers in","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"satisfaction of their bills.","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"¶ 73 F. No Evidence of Refusal to Pay What Was Owed","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"¶ 74 Under section 19(g), the prerequisite to an assessment of attorney fees and costs is","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"that the “employer refuses to pay compensation according to such final award or such final","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"decision upon which such judgment is entered.” 820 ILCS 305/19(g) (West 2024). We see no","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"evidence of any such refusal.","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"¶ 75 The month after plaintiff demanded payment, defendant began making inquiries","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"of plaintiff to determine how much was owed under the sections of the Act that the medical","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"award referenced, sections 8(a) and 8.2. We have no reason to believe that these inquiries were","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"- 27 -","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"dishonest or that they were intended to be delaying tactics. Plaintiff was unwilling to participate","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"in these inquiries beyond adding up the amounts of the medical bills in petitioner’s exhibit No. 2.","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"The only refusal by defendant was a refusal to pay the windfall of $165,353.54 (or, later,","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"$215,214.72) that plaintiff demanded.","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"¶ 76 On June 9, 2025, defendant issued plaintiff’s law firm a check in the amount of","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"$54,546.05, based on the amount that United Healthcare had paid the medical providers, and","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"plaintiff refused the check. Granted, it was some five months after the expiration of the 30-day","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"period for review when defendant issued the check. Possibly, though, defendant needed time to","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"confirm the amount that United Healthcare had paid the medical providers. It is unclear whether","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"defendant succeeded in confirming that amount or eventually decided just to accept the","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"representations of plaintiff’s attorney in petitioner’s exhibit No. 1. In any event, it probably","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"would not have mattered if defendant had issued the check for $54,546.05 the day after the","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"arbitrator issued his decision—plaintiff would have refused the payment because it was not in the","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"total amount the medical providers had originally billed. It appears that the only unreasonable","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"refusal in this case is plaintiff’s refusal to budge from his position that defendant owed him three","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"or four times the actual amount that was paid in satisfaction of the medical bills.","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"¶ 77 We do not understand plaintiff as disputing that if defendant’s interpretation of","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"the medical award is correct—if the negotiated rate is the measure of defendant’s medical","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"liability—$54,546.05 is the correct calculation of what defendant owed on June 9, 2025, when","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"defendant issued to plaintiff’s attorney a check in that amount.","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"¶ 78 III. CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"¶ 79 For the reasons stated, we reverse the circuit court’s judgment in plaintiff’s favor","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"and against defendant in the amount of $165,353.54 and in the amounts of $41,316.32 in","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"- 28 -","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"attorney fees and $5,651.22 in costs. We remand this case with directions to enter a judgment in","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"plaintiff’s favor and against defendant in the amount of $54,546.05, without an assessment of","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"attorney fees and costs.","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"¶ 80 Reversed and remanded with directions.","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"- 29 -","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"Jenkins v. McLaughlin Body Co., 2026 IL App (4th) 250962","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Rock Island County, No. 25-","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"MR-31; the Hon. Jeffrey Scot McKinley, Judge, presiding.","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"Attorneys","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"for","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"Appellant:","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"Theodore J. Powers and Daniel W. Arkin, of Ancel Glink, P.C.,","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"of Chicago, for appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"Attorneys","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"for","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"Appellee:","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"Christine A. Keys and John Malvik, of Winstein, Kavensky &","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"Cunningham LLC, of Rock Island, for appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_687"}],"word_count":8355,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"09ea52d1c4cc0f82e8229011a572806abef1fdb239876ed9004fe5fdd3244e3f","source_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/9894eef3-b933-4485-aacc-1563aa210573/file","fetched_at":"2026-10-06T07:16:41.165+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","verification":{"stored_sha256":"09ea52d1c4cc0f82e8229011a572806abef1fdb239876ed9004fe5fdd3244e3f","recomputed_sha256":"09ea52d1c4cc0f82e8229011a572806abef1fdb239876ed9004fe5fdd3244e3f","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T00:44:05.672Z"}},"hash":"sha256:3ee470c81a1824f423536e0434939c722a945bb777aff0c50d4c8d318c5af69f","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:3ee470c81a1824f423536e0434939c722a945bb777aff0c50d4c8d318c5af69f","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T01:44:06.212Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-1c0dc3361cad7892d121f9f1d0320c5d","response_hash":"sha256:3ee470c81a1824f423536e0434939c722a945bb777aff0c50d4c8d318c5af69f"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T08:18:31.246Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aillappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":30303}}