IDC Submits Amicus in Armstead v. National Freight

On July 13, 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court allowed the IDC’s Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief in the case of Armstead v. National Freight, Inc., No. 126730, on appeal from Armstead v. Nat'l Freight, Inc., 2020 IL App (3d) 170777. R. Mark Cosimini, who is with the Champaign, Illinois office of Rusin & Maciorowski, Ltd., drafted the Amicus Brief on our behalf.

The issues in Armstead the trial court’s Order granting a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment based upon the collateral estoppel doctrine. The facts of the case involve a truck driver from Pennsylvania. Armstead was involved in an accident in Illinois. One of the issues in the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation case involved the nature of Armstead’s injuries. The employer accepted that Armstead injured his knee as a result of the accident, but there was a dispute concerning claimed injuries to the back. A settlement was reached in the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation claim between Armstead and his employer. The language on the workers’ compensation settlement contract expressly stated the injury sustained by Armstead was a knee strain and there were no other injuries as a result of the accident. Armstead then filed a liability case in Illinois against Armstead of the other vehicle and the other driver’s employer, National Freight, Inc. National Freight filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment contending Armstead was limited to only arguing he sustained injuries to the knee as a result of the accident and he was barred from making any claims for injuries to other body parts. The argument was based upon the language of the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation settlement contract.

National Freight first argued Armstead was judicially estopped from making claims of injuries to body parts other than the knee, but the Appellate Court ruled that based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the granting of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be affirmed. The Appellate Court analyzed the elements necessary to establish the collateral estoppel doctrine applies and held the elements of collateral estoppel were satisfied, and Armstead was limited to only claiming injuries as set forth in the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation settlement contract as the issues relating to his injuries had already been adjudicated and resolved.

Armstead was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, and enlisted the assistance of the Illinois Trial Lawyers' Association (ITLA) and Workers’ Compensation Lawyers Association (WCLA) which each filed Amicus Briefs. ITLA and WCLA focused on the volume of cases in the workers’ compensation system. They contended lawyers and Workers’ Compensation Commission Arbitrators do not have the time to consider each of the terms set forth in the settlement contract. They further argued there was no incentive for Armstead to litigate the workers’ compensation case and ITLA pointed out trial lawyers do not make enough money in workers’ compensation cases to vigorously litigate the cases.

The IDC Brief addressed the arguments from ITLA and WCLA and contended the terms of workers’ compensation settlement contracts are consistently and routinely considered by both Petitioners’ attorneys and Respondents’ attorneys. To conclude otherwise would result in an allegation that the attorneys handling workers’ compensation cases are violating the rules of professional conduct by not providing competent representation to their clients. The terms of workers’ compensation settlement contracts are, in fact, contemplated and negotiated, no additional time will be required of the attorneys or the Arbitrators if the Armstead Decision is affirmed.

Workers’ compensation settlement contracts have already been determined to be binding in other areas of the law including claims for benefits under the Public Employee Disability Act and the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act. Additionally, it would be unfair for Armstead to avoid payment for his medical bills relating to the treatment provided for his back by limiting the workers’ compensation settlement to only the knee, and then make a claim for benefits relating to the back in the liability case in Illinois. Essentially, Armstead would be avoiding the payment of the medical bills and then make a claim for those same medical bills. Prior Illinois Supreme Court Decisions have held statements in formal written documents cannot be tendered at face value for the purpose of obtaining benefits, and then lightly explained away when they stand in the way of claims for other benefits of an inconsistent nature.

The purpose of the collateral estoppel doctrine which was to prevent the re-litigation of previously decided issues. Affirming the Appellate Court Decision in the Armstead case would support the idea of judicial economy and prevent the re-litigation of a previously adjudicated issue. One of the goals of the IDC Brief is to support and protect workers’ compensation practitioners. Both on the Petitioners’ side and the Respondents’ side, the attorneys put a great deal of thought and effort into the language to be utilized on workers’ compensation settlement contracts. The terms are negotiated between the parties with consideration being given to the impact the terms will have on not only the parties to the case but on other parties as well. The arguments set forth by ITLA and WCLA were inaccurate and offensive to workers’ compensation practitioners including attorneys within their own organizations, and those arguments could not go unrebutted.

We would like to thank R. Mark Cosimini for drafting the brief on our behalf.