MT VERNON — The Fifth District Appellate Court agreed that a St. Clair County corrections officer, injured on the job almost seven years ago, is not entitled to additional workers compensation because he worked a part-time job outside the county sheriff's department.
In its 12-page order issued Jan. 30, the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court five-justice panel affirmed a ruling that the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission correctly calculated the weekly wages due to a St. Clair County jail officer injured in 2013.
"The Commission’s decision that claimant's secondary work was not concurrent employment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence," the ruling states.
The appellate panel also found that the claimant in the case, Dante Beattie, forfeited argument regarding whether such wages constituted overtime pay.
Justice Donald C. Hudson wrote the order with justices William E. Holdridge, Thomas E. Hoffman, Peter C. Cavanagh and John B. Barberis concurring.
Beattie appealed an order by St. Clair County Circuit Court that confirmed an Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission decision to award Beattie "certain benefits" under the state's Workers' Compensation Act.
None of the parties in the case dispute that Beattie suffered a work-related injury in November 2013 while going about his duties as a St. Clair County Sheriff's Department corrections officer, a position he'd held for about three years. Beattie was injured as he passed through a jail gate that closed on him, according to the background provided in the ruling.
"Significant treatment followed, and claimant was never released to perform the duties he had performed prior to the accident," the ruling states.
After his injury, Beattie was placed on light duty and he was no longer allowed to work at Metrolink. His employment by the St. Clair Sheriff's department was terminated in May 2016 because he could not return to full duty.
"He is now employed as a security guard at a marina in Florida," the ruling states.
Beattie disputes whether the commission correctly calculated his weekly wage.
At the time of his injury, Beattie also was working part time as a public safety officer with Metrolink, work that was scheduled by the sheriff's department.
In his appeal, Beattie argued the commission made two errors in calculating his average weekly wage.
Beattie argued that the Commission was wrong when it found Metrolink was not a concurrent employer and that the wages he earned at Metrolink were not the result of voluntary overtime.
In its ruling, the appellate court concluded that it could reverse the commission's conclusions "only if an opposite conclusion to the Commission's is clearly apparent."
A conclusion opposite of that reached by the commission and affirmed by the St. Clair County Circuit Court was not at all apparent, according to the ruling.
The appellate court pointed to Beattie's testimony that he had not been required to work Metrolinks shifts. The commission's decision that there was no employment relationship between Beattie and Metrolink "is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, the voluntary nature of these shifts renders them properly excluded from claimant’s wages paid by respondent as well."
The appellate court also was not persuaded by Beattie's argument that his Metrolink earnings were not included in his wages from the sheriff's department on his W2 form or wage statements he received.
"As noted above, the method of payment and the withholding of income tax are but two factors in a multifactor balancing test that also includes that right to control and the nature of the work," the ruling states. "Thus, claimant's attempt to elevate these facts to controlling significance is contrary to the law. Beyond being forfeited, this argument is also unpersuasive."