VERDICT OF NOTE

As recently reported in the Chicago Sun-Times, a Chicago jury recently whacked the Chicago Police Department for $17.5 million after a police chase went horribly wrong. The plaintiff, Vernon Hudson, was driving on the Eisenhower Expressway in 2001, on his way to help a friend whose battery had died. He heard sirens and pulled over to the side and saw 10-20 police vehicles whiz by as they chased a murder suspect. Another officer, assigned to the Chicago Housing Authority, heard the chase over the radio and promptly joined it. The officer had no authority to do so and crashed into Hudson's car. As a result of the crash, Mr. Hudson, age 51, could no longer use his legs and has only limited use of his arms.

WORKERS' COMP RULING CLARIFIES "REPETITIVE TRAUMA"

In a recent Second District case, the Appellate Court discussed the proof necessary for a repetitive trauma claim. In Hines Precision v. The Industrial Commission the claimant worked as a truck driver for five years. He drove approximately 200 miles a day. He delivered trusses that had to be strapped down either manually or with a tool. To do so required substantial force. The claimant estimated he tied down the straps 35 to 40 times a day. The claimant often had to re-strap a load due to rough roads. In late 2000 the claimant began having pain in his elbows, which he had never suffered before. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with carpal tunnel and nerve entrapment. Claimant's treating surgeon testified that there was a causal connection between the condition and claimant's job.

The employer hired an "independent medical examiner" to see the claimant. After finding the same condition, the expert testified there was NO causal connection. The foundation for his opinion was that the claimant didn't perform the strapping down on a regular basis. And he also opined the carpal tunnel could be related to his weight or smoking[though claimant hadn't smoked in 9 years]. The abitrater found no causal connection. The Industrial Commission reversed.

On appeal, the employer argued that the claimant spent only 2% of his day strapping down the loads, so there couldn't be a causal relation. The Appellate Court however, correctly pointed out that there is no requirement that a certain percentage of time be spent on a task to make it "repetitive". Interestingly, the Court also pointed out that the alternative explanations offered by employer's expert were "suspect".