Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HAIMAN v. VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE

July 7, 1999

CAROLYN A. HAIMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alesia, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the Village of Fox Lake's motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part the motion.

I. BACKGROUND*fn1

Since August of 1992, Haiman has suffered from severe coronary artery disease. On August 2, 1992, Haiman began to experience chest pains while at work. Marilyn Hoehne ("Hoehne"), who at all relevant times was Haiman's supervisor and the Village's Treasurer, walked into the office and found Haiman lying across her desk. Hoehne told Haiman to leave work and to go to the doctor. Haiman, who thought the pain was because of her ulcers, told Hoehne that she would go home right after work. Hoehne told Haiman that she did not want "nobody dropping dead in my office and me paying for it."

On August 3, 1992, Haiman suffered a heart attack. On August 11, 1992, Haiman underwent cardiac catheterization and angioplasty of the obstructive lesion in her right coronary artery. Following these procedures, she was treated with Cardizem, Lopressor and aspirin, which are all medications used for the treatment of angina and heart disease.

Haiman returned to work for the Village in early September of 1992. After she returned to work, Haiman thought that Hoehne's attitude toward her had changed. Haiman believed that Hoehne was concerned that Haiman would have a heart attack at the office. Hoehne also complained that the Village's health insurance costs were rising due to sick employees and/or their sick family members.

In October of 1992, Haiman developed recurrent chest pain. On November 23, 1992, Haiman was administered a thallium stress test, which she failed. Haiman then underwent an angiogram and angioplasty. She was released from the hospital and told to take the following medications: Lopressor, Ecotrin, Persantine, and Nitroglycerin SL. She was then told to return to the hospital in two weeks for a follow-up thallium stress test and to remain off work pending further evaluation of her medical condition.

Hoehne maintained a log that documented facts related to Haiman's medical condition. The first entry of the log reads as follows:

November 25 1992

  On Nov 23 92 Carolyn went into the hospital for a
  follow up stress test, as a follow up after her heart
  attack. She phoned me on the same day stating that
  she had been unable to complete said test, and was
  now on her way to another hospital for more tests, on
  an in-patient basis. On Tuesday she had a procedure
  done to clear the artery in the heart.

(Pl.'s Ex. F.)

On December 17, 1992, Haiman underwent another thallium stress test; however, the test was discontinued because Haiman became symptomatic. On approximately December 17, 1992, Haiman met with Hoehne at the Village Hall. Haiman told Hoehne that Haiman had not passed her stress test and that the doctor had told her not to drive a car. A log entry dated December 18, 1992 reads as follows:

  Stress test scheduled for 12/15 was canceled due to
  the machine being down, rescheduled for 12/17/92. On
  December 17, after said test, Carolyn came into the
  office with a note from her doctor stating that she
  was physically not fit to return to work for an
  undetermined time. There is nothing to indicate what
  steps will be taken in her treatment. He did say that
  if there were any questions feel free to call him. At
  that time she told me that she was not to be out of
  the house by herself and she was not to drive an
  automobile. She could have a heart attack at any
  time.
  I told her then that I was going to submit the
  Employer's Statement of Disability to I.M.R.F. and I
  gave her the I.M.R.F. forms that she needed to
  complete and that the doctor needed to fill out on
  her behalf.
  She asked if she had to use all her sick time,
  vacation time, and any other days that she had coming
  before she could apply for benefits and I told her
  yes. I further told her that the last day I could pay
  her for was 12/31/92. At that time she will have used
  up any and all time she had coming to her.

(Pl.'s Ex. F.) An entry dated December 29, 1992 reads:

  Carolyn called and said that her doctor was sending
  her to the Universith [sic] of Chicago for more tests
  and another angioplasty, or possible open heart
  surgery.

(Id.) Another entry dated January 6, 1993 reads:

  Carolyn called and said that she had an angioplasty
  dome [sic], but she did not know when she would be
  coming back to work. An other ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.