Appeal from the Circuit Court of Boone County. No. 94-MR-4. Honorable David A. Englund, Judge, Presiding.
Released for Publication November 6, 1995.
The Honorable Justice Rarick delivered the opinion of the court: McCULLOUGH, P.j., and Rakowski, Colwell, and Holdridge, JJ., concur.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rarick
JUSTICE RARICK delivered the opinion of the court:
Claimant, Richard Burtis, sought benefits pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 1992)) for injuries sustained in the employ of respondent, Cassens Transport Corporation (Cassens).
Burtis applied for employment and was hired at Cassen's facility in Belvidere, Illinois, on January 13, 1984, as a driver of a car-hauling truck. Burtis was trained at the Belvidere facility and worked out of the Belvidere terminal until November 1990, at which time he voluntarily transferred to Cassen's new facility in Smyrna, Tennessee. From that point on, Burtis received his work assignments from the Smyrna facility and received his paychecks there.
On October 2, 1992, Burtis was unloading cars in Vineland, New Jersey, when he lost his balance and fell from the trailer ramp into the trailer, injuring his back and arm. Burtis saw Dr. Gary Rubinstein, a chiropractor in New Jersey. After returning to Smyrna, Burtis was treated by the company doctor, Dr. Richard Garvin, who examined him and sent him to Nashville, Tennessee, for an MRI. Burtis subsequently returned to Illinois where he was treated by Dr. Dougherty at the Lundholm Surgical Group, a company clinic in Rockford, Illinois.
At the arbitration hearing, Burtis testified that he lived in Loves Park, Illinois, and that during his treatment in Tennessee he stayed at a motel.
The arbitrator determined that Illinois had jurisdiction, finding that the contract for hire was made in Illinois and was valid at the time of the accident and awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. The Industrial Commission (Commission) reversed the arbitrator, finding that, while the contract for hire had been made in Illinois, he offered no current proof of Illinois residence and no evidence of significant contacts with Illinois such that Illinois jurisdiction would be proper. The circuit court of Boone County confirmed the decision of the Commission.
On appeal, Burtis argues that the Commission erred in finding that Illinois did not have jurisdiction. He maintains Illinois jurisdiction is proper because he is a resident of Illinois and the contract for hire was made in Illinois.
Section 1(b)(2) of the Act provides that it shall apply to:
"Every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, including persons whose employment is outside of the State of Illinois where the contract of hire is made within the State of Illinois where the contract of hire is made within the State of Illinois, persons whose employment results in fatal or non-fatal injuries within the State of Illinois where the contract of hire is made outside of the State of Illinois, and persons whose employment is principally localized within the State of Illinois, regardless of the place of the accident or the place where the contract of hire was made, and including aliens, and minors who, for the purpose of this Act are considered the same and have the same power to contract, receive payments and give quittances therefore, as adult employees." 820 ILCS 305/1(b)(2) (West 1992.)
Under section 1(b)(2) there are three bases for acquiring Illinois jurisdiction: (1) if the contract for hire is made in Illinois; (2) if the accident occurs in Illinois; and (3) if the claimant's employment is principally located in Illinois, regardless of where the contract for hire was made or where the accident occurred. In the present case the accident occurred in New Jersey, and there is no evidence indicating, nor do the parties contend, that Burtis' employment was principally localized in Illinois. Burtis contends that Illinois jurisdication is proper because the contract for hire was made in Illinois.
It is clear that the Act was designed to have extraterritorial effect. ( Energy Erectors, Ltd. v. Industrial Comm'n (1992), 230 Ill. App. 3d 158, 595 N.E.2d 641.) Our supreme court has consistently held that employment contracts made in Illinois are normally to be interpreted as including an agreement by the parties to be bound by the Act even when the contemplated employment is exclusively in other States." ( United Airlines, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 126, 130, 449 N.E.2d 119, 121, 70 Ill. Dec. 245.) Where the contract for hire is made in Illinois, the Act may be applied even where the claimant is ...